BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider @ BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

91

Joined

2 yr. ago

Agreed. And if I can just add as to point out the fluid dynamics of modern post-constructionalism as seen through the lens of and espoused by such pioneering women as Marjorie Jacqueline Bouvier-Simpson.

It looks like both of the people referred to moderate but as to your point about modern, I wonder if there has been that much of a change in the last 20-30 (or 50 or 100) years as much as perhaps modern technology providing a louder megaphone, and as a result greater "reward" for being more and more--outlandish--to put it politely?

Every single time. And forget about getting more than one use without cutting off a portion of the tip. That needle cap thing does nothing.

Overzealous legislators who make the laws and mandatory minimums suck first and foremost, then prosecutors and sentencing judges who do not use judicial discretion fairly and empathetically. Lots of lawyers are good people and it's worth noting that civil rights are protected almost exclusively by lawyers.

They will lie, deny, stonewall, and there will be no repercussions nor change.

I reckon most of them do believe their vitriol. Some number of them may be pure opportunists who seize on the culture war nonsense for personal gain but are not true believers; however, in my opinion the vast majority are not just putting on an act.

I too would not trust it worth one fart. That said, seems reasonable you and I should drink some (many) beers, eat some (many) nachos and wings, and try to definitively determine the worth of a fart--so we're all on the same page when we use the fart as a measurement of worth. So, call me maybe?

Thank you! The mod must have deleted it for me, but thank you for responding and helping.

Your understanding and articulation of the joke is correct.

Can anyone tell me how I can delete the two accidental posts I made above?

It's certainly not breezy bathroom reading material.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

It's certainly not breezy bathroom reading material.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

It's certainly not breezy bathroom reading material.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

The lack of self awareness is always stupefying to me. I read the comments in the hope of perhaps seeing some room for agreement or to enlighten my understanding of other's views. There's never room and it's never enlightening.

Here's what one state's texting law says about a stop for texting and driving: A law enforcement officer who stops a motor vehicle for a violation of paragraph (a) must inform the motor vehicle operator of his or her right to decline a search of his or her wireless communications device and may not: 1. Access the wireless communications device without a warrant. 2. Confiscate the wireless communications device while awaiting issuance of a warrant to access such device. 3. Obtain consent from the motor vehicle operator to search his or her wireless communications device through coercion or other improper method. Consent to search a motor vehicle operator’s wireless communications device must be voluntary and unequivocal.

People don't like Rick Scott but he spent enough of his money to get elected. And Bloomberg is 50 fold wealthier. And Bloomberg seems much more personable. So I don't know.

"A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life-saving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment," it said in its decision.

Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School, said that part of what the Texas Supreme Court judges had to consider was whether they wanted “to be in the business of having every single medical exemption case end up” in their hands.

As the people above me have said it's that the courts are not to be pre-determining the validity of every instance where an abortion is claimed to meet the statutory exemption, and the consequential effect is that no woman wants to proceed in state and no doctor will touch it both for fear of being charged criminally and/or sued civilly. Nobody wants to be a test case that can cause that person criminal prosecution, civil prosecution, legal expenses, loss of medical license, loss of ability to support themselves and their families, and god knows what vigilante actions from the lunatic holy rollers. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation, especially with Paxton threatening to bring the full weight of the government of the State of Texas against you. All of which is just how the Republicans who passed this wanted. They only put the exemption in there to make the law give the appearance of giving a shit about the mother's health.

I was about to say this is some Righteous Gemstones type shit. I too binged. Good show for anyone who has not seen.

Op made a point that polls have no predictive value at this point. The responder posited that no president polling this low at this point has ever won. Why is the response not valid or not adding to the conversation?

"Alberta's young working population and more jobs with higher wages has resulted in Albertans over-contributing tens of billions into the CPP compared to the benefits we've received," states a Government of Alberta video promoting the creation of an Alberta pension plan.

Aren't the high wages (and young people) predominately because oil/gas? Are those not national natural resources?