Oh my god! That's so dangerous!
He doesn't have a bathroom but he's selling food products! We need to send the SWAT team immediately!
He doesn't have a bathroom but he's selling food products! We need to send the SWAT team immediately!
The condom ad is clearly a product of the 1980s or later, given that it references AIDS.
I don't know why anyone talks about all these pokemon that don't exist, since everyone knows there's only 151.
I just spent 115 dollars sending out 4 boxes Amazon shipped to me for free.
Don't tell me there's nothing sus about Amazon!
Don't tell me there's nothing sus about Amazon!
I wonder if any of these people, particularly the ones who work for newspapers, have ever considered that just because they're in a privileged class right now doesn't mean they always will be.
Donald Trump ended up being completely useless so it didn't happen there, but what if someone who is antagonistic to the press also happened to be competent?
Previously, it wouldn't be a problem because precedent and the culture said that the state shouldn't be seeking its fingers into the press. If these people get what they're looking for, the state will be sticking its fingers deeply into the press, and they will be nothing to stop it from happening to them.
Donald Trump ended up being completely useless so it didn't happen there, but what if someone who is antagonistic to the press also happened to be competent?
Previously, it wouldn't be a problem because precedent and the culture said that the state shouldn't be seeking its fingers into the press. If these people get what they're looking for, the state will be sticking its fingers deeply into the press, and they will be nothing to stop it from happening to them.
I'd accept that drag shows are speech, and potentially protected speech.
So the question is, is there a compelling government interest in regulating that speech? If there is, what is the least restrictive method to achieve that end, and is that method tailored to suit that end?
Because if the gop can answer those three questions correctly, they can regulate it anyway thanks to supreme court jurisprudence.
So the question is, is there a compelling government interest in regulating that speech? If there is, what is the least restrictive method to achieve that end, and is that method tailored to suit that end?
Because if the gop can answer those three questions correctly, they can regulate it anyway thanks to supreme court jurisprudence.
It's really deep art, sort of performance art where you have to accept that no matter how beautiful something is, and no matter how much love you put into it, it eventually is going to be destroyed by the uncaring universe around us.
Am I the only one around here that remembers back when high speed internet was 20 bucks a month?
Dat ass, it's genocide advocate ass. You don't get an ass like that by sitting around thinking of the consequences of what youre asking for. That's an ass you get by demanding everyone buy a $300,000 solar powered car right now or lose the ability to travel, and that people in the Arctic circle heat their homes using daylight.
Well you know! They were under a lot of stress at the thought of having their secretaries send out emails to fire 10,000 people!
Ironically, I feel like there's parallels between transing kids and the satanic panic. In both cases you're manipulating kids into saying the things you want them to say. We learned how careful we need to be with kids during that time, there's no excuse now.