Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)HH
h3doublehockeysticks [she/her] @ h3doublehockeysticks @hexbear.net
Posts
0
Comments
110
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • It's worse than that, because a company bylaw also gives every GOOG stock a set value of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent and a binding part of their issuance is the clause that they can demand to buy them back for that price at any time. Google can drop like pocket lint and instantly buy all GOOG stock back.

  • I have. But unlike a book about Boris Yeltsin's systemic hollowing out of the russian economy and the facilitation of this by the Americans, its hardly relevant.

    Although if we are bringing up the gulag archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is not on your side on the issues. Especially not issues like the yeltsin government, the west's influence on Russia and Russian sovereignty.

  • Dumb questions here. Why are they hiring a British lawyer and testifying in front of the US congress? Like i understand the actual why of that second one, but it's not like the house of representatives in the US has any actual power to save the guy that they would exercise. Like would a British lawyer have any more luck in getting him out than a Hong Kong lawyer? Are they worried no one will take the case?

  • I mean that's just completely false

    No, it's completely right and quoting a bit about how im right is an odd choice.

    Again. What I said was this

    ALL it does is say that Texas can't say a New York marriage is invalid because the people involved are of the same sex.

    To which you respond with the text of the law stating that the law bans any government employee from not recognizing a marriage from another state on the grounds that its a gay marriage. At this point you are either trolling or acting in such bad faith you may as well be.

  • I pointed out that the specific law you talk about does not in fact "Protect same sex marriages", the act does absolutely nothing to stop states from banning same sex marriage, and that even if it did that it only covers a tiny aspect of queer discrimination. The act does not demand that states accept queerness, it does not demand that all states allow or protect gay marriage, it does not prevent states from banning same sex marriage, it does none of that. ALL it does is say that Texas can't say a New York marriage is invalid because the people involved are of the same sex.