I think if one or two warnings are ignored, it should pull to the shoulder and shut down, but that may be too challenging to do with the current technology.

That’s French, not a misspelling.

Here are the pics with nothing else done but the backgrounds removed:

But also, what if she did want to go home and have sex with him, and changed her mind when she saw his doll collection or something? The idea that if we start down a path with a man we can’t change our minds is fucking gross. If I start eating a pizza and hate it, do I need to keep going? Do you shove it into my mouth…

Ugh, it makes me physically ill that that will be their fucking defense. Because every woman that goes home with a guy went there for sex and not to actually hang around and do something like talk, drink a little more, or watch a god damned movie.

That is some garbage-ass candy. What a waste!

Skin care AND genetics. Really can’t stress it enough: If you’ve got the right genetics and you have the money to buy the best of skin care, it’ll pay off forever. ; )

It would appear in this case they were trying to defame her, whether or not it turns out that Rebel lied. This is based on their own admission that they couldn’t prove Rebel was lying. I am not sure it really matters what the “truth” is, based on that admission of publishing what they had researched to be false.

‘Who is the real Rebel Wilson?’ = we don’t know the Rebel Wilson. It’s suggest she’s a fake, a phony, a liar, a fraud. It literally couldn’t be an easier to prove defamatory meaning. I absolutely don’t see the distinction you’re making. You don’t have to write ‘We declare she is a liar!’ in order for the court to…

The problem is that Poot is making a factual argument and not a legal one. She started off saying, “how could them publishing her real age be defamation?!” That’s a legal question. A hundred people responded to say “no, it’s that they published she lied about her age.” Poot then changed her argument to say “well how…

I believe you’re being willfully obtuse. The paper knew, unequivocally, that the stories they published were false. Their lawyers knew they were false. The question isn’t, “Gee, has there ever been confusion over her age? Was she responsible?” The question is, did they (they did) defame her? The article rather clearly…

This is why movies are always bad first date ideas. Grab a drink/coffee/tea and talk. If that goes well then dinner. I don’t want to sit in the dark and stare at a screen for 2 hours with someone i met five minutes earlier.

It’s not far fetched to asume that a person who would harass a family asking for someone’s address so he can sue them for the cost of a movie ticket did something inappropriate that made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe. These are her words:

I also asked her to describe Trump in three words and her response was: “Stupid asshole”

because women are just surrogates for their husbands and men are individuals who have potential and didn’t really mean it. duh.

Indoor smoking at an event means you’re dosing people with toxic chemicals without their consent. Smokers might accept the health risk, but non smokers didn’t sign up for that shit. It’s incredibly self centred behaviour which is par for the course for smokers and celebrities.

Smoking is gross. Indoor smoking is even more gross. Indoor smoking that ruins original art pieces and haute couture gowns people spent months making for these idiots is reprehensible.

I am not defending what Moon said, he was wrong, but calling people “libtards” not only weakens whatever you were trying to pass of as an argument, but destroys any credibility you may have.

Ironic to see your post underneath the first one. The idea that the world would fall apart without the United States has gotten us into a dozen conflicts since World War 2.

Apology NOT accepted. I demand an annual tribute of 500 gold and indigo or we declare war.