Also, I’m in the military, and there is literally nothing most of us hate more than parades. They are hot, you have to rehearse a ton, you get yelled at, people pass out, and 70% of the time you don’t care about the event that the parade is meant to honor. They suck. If he wants to celebrate the military he should let…
Haigha
haigha
“The military don’t give you your rights, they’re supposed to defend them...”
“celebration of the men and women who give us freedom.”
My wife works at Barnes & Noble home office and she’s getting me an advance reader’s copy tomorrow! I. Cannot. Wait. I’ve been devouring the excerpts. Wolff may be journalistically questionable, but very readable
I agreed with you until earlier today when it came out that Wolff has audio tapes of almost every conversation in question and on the subject of “How would you know what Bannon said to Ailes at a dinner party?” the response was “The dinner party was at my house.”.
Yep! Slavs are not of that sweet, sweet Nordic stock. Look at how many white supremacists keep redefining what is “white” so that they aren’t left out. It’s a riot.
How does Betsy DeVos get a job as Education Secretary?
I don’t get it. I thought these racist fucks were proud that they’re getting their moment in the sun. Own it, fuck muppets. You can’t be afraid of what a bunch of SJW, cucked libtards will do. Be your strong, alpha-manly self. Sack up, heroes. Or, keep deleting your internet history and pissing yourselves in fear that…
They get offended by consent.
In fairness, if there’s one guy you can guarantee, at any given moment, is thinking of the children... it’s Roy Moore.
“I must protect my daughter’s tender virgin ears from being sullied by your violent speech, sir! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go help her get ready for her date with Roy Moore.”
Trumpanzee is my new favorite saying
Oh, ok - so you are fine with state law violating the First Amendment then. Kind of a dumb position to take, since (aside from the obvious reasons) such a situation would cause courts to be tied up with cases that would result in the state law being ruled unconstitutional - and would cost taxpayers a lot of money as…
The ACLU *doesn’t* have a money interest, the author of this article just doesn’t like their position and doesn’t have any substantive criticism. The reason revenge porn laws are opposed by the ACLU is because they’re either a) too narrow to be useful (like this one here) or b) violative of the first amendment and…
I don’t want to bum you out further- but a lot of revenge porn websites have personal info of the girls and women in the pics. People will even post a photo and be like “anyone know who this is?” And then a disgusting little hive tries to dox. Names, addresses, cities and high schools.
It would be pretty hard from a legal perspective as it’s the complete opposite of established case law.
It turns out that her ex hadn’t deleted the photos—but he hadn’t been the one to post them publicly, either. Instead, he put them on Dropbox, in an account that was eventually hacked by an unknown party in Florida. The images were put on Tumblr, where users went to the trouble of editing the face of Bethany’s ex out…
This. I wish the original article explained that better because it is not, as could be implied, and as several commenters have implied, a case of the ACLU “promoting revenge porn”. I mean, really people. Hyperbole, much?
The ACLU did; the standard they use is intent to harm, but the writer of this article doesn’t like that standard. I can see both sides of this argument. Proving intent is difficult, but ignoring intent makes it hard to separate criminals and noncriminal content.