This very writer told us that - and even links to her article about it in the article above.
Horshack Test
horshack
So the receipt checkers failed at doing something they aren’t tasked with / that isn’t their job to do?
Many, many people - since that’s how it is meant to be cooked.
Well he's pretty well protected by the First Amendment...
I don’t think someone being “radicalized” by his speeches would be grounds, either (and can’t imagine who would have standing for such grounds). If you’re talking about inciting violence, I think it would have to be a rather specific call to action by Trump that someone carried out - and even then, I doubt whatever…
“Can he be sued for his speeches?”
Ha - ok.
Did you miss the rest of that comment?
I’m well aware of this. It was basically my point - except she presented it as empowering (without actually using that word, though) for herself (the perpetrator) rather than funny.
Her admission was not part of a standup routine, it was a speech she gave at an awards event. Even if it were a comedic bit, she still admitted to it. Unless you are suggesting she made up the story for laughs (though given the speech in full, and the overall point she was making with it and the context in which it…
Interesting take from someone who admitted to sexually assaulting (and possibly raping) a drunk guy.
Wear only your least expensive clothes to any and all business lunches / dinners - and make sure to tell your bosses / clients to do the same. Anything fancier than cutoffs and flip-flops (used, from a thrift store, obviously) is unacceptable.
“She shouldn’t have been wearing that skirt,” obviously.
Always hilarious when someone realizes they have no argument to back up their stupid statement / position and resort to dismissing replies to try to save face.
“Amendment 4, as the measure is known, stated that voting rights would be restored to those “who have completed all terms of their sentence, including parole or probation.” Financial obligations weren’t mentioned.”
Interesting. So if a server spills something on you, it is ok to be angry but just not at the server who spilled that something on you because it was a mistake - and you should instead direct your anger at some random (possibly non-existent) thing - UNLESS the harm caused by the server spilling something on you is due…
Responding by rewording the original statement in a slightly different way doesn’t answer the question about the original statement.
“Had” is past tense.
I never said he couldn’t. She could also have told him to stop, but she (apparently) didn’t. I wonder why? I mean, besides the fact that he wasn’t being obtrusive, and she’s “not the most proficient griller” and found his tips and tricks helpful - perhaps there’s a deeper issue?