@Settings: Well based on this post the most green would be to buy only one pair of jeans ever and never wash them; saving material, money, and water.
Jkoenig
jkoenig-old
They've been known to recruit mentally handicapped children for the ease with which they can be manipulated and the sympathy they glean. I understand taking the "moral high road" on animal cruelty, but I fail to find sympathy for any number of animals over the cost of any human lives they're responsible for.
@AutobahnBurner: Saying you smoke weed online, however unadvisable is not incriminating. It could theoretically put you at risk of being investigated I suppose though.
I also subscribe to this "Church of the Sacred Hologram"
@Kelevra: I agree that I would rather be tased than beaten, but specifically in the case of the "don't tase me" guy, I would bet that if they had simply dragged him out the old fashioned way he would have simply gone limp and kept yelling the whole way out. However, I would also agree that tasing one guy probably…
@AutobahnBurner: I think that there are plenty of cases where the taser was just easier, not necessarily justified. There are plenty of videos, including "don't tase me", where there are at least 5 officers standing around. Now I'm not saying that the taser doesn't minimize the amount of damage a suspect could do, it…
@jdale: I'm fairly certain that objectivity in your writing is completely different from your personal bias. She doesn't have to buy apple products to be unbiased, and it is absurd to claim that she (or any journalist) could be completely objective, they just attempt to feign it in their pieces.
Isn't this how ALL E! news is reported? I don't think AOL is exclusively responsible for idiotically (and whats worse, obviously) misinterpreting celeb quotes and photos...
@raincoaster: Well its more along the lines that if I went to get a new cell phone and they offered to transfer the contents of my SIM to my new card, but rifled through my photos right before they handed it to me. It makes legal sense that they can, but it does seem like an unnecessary invasion of privacy somehow
@taosaur: makes enough sense, because that would also require extensive research into videos/images that were questionable, I don't have any experience with this kind of illegal pornography but I don't imagine they have credits at the end. So even if there were "actors" that simply LOOKED underage you would have to…
I can't wait to see how text message filtering effects the "irl" dirty talk of the next generation
@OneTwoPunch: Just because some celeb's probably would rather do without the paparazzo, many use the system and make it a symbiotic relationship where they can have no movie roles/new songs, but can stay in the limelight by allowing the paparazzo more/better shots that will sell and keep then front page news for a…
@travisco_nabisco: Or through a payphone...
@streeeeetch: Well even assuming he DOES NOT have child porn on his computer, after the hassle he's given them I guarantee that he would be charged for ANY illegal material he had on his computer. I believe in the UK certain types of adult pornography is illegal and of course he would be charged 10k+ per illegally…
@2 replies: In america it is illegal not to give your password under court order as well, it is, apparently, the same as if you had a safe that they had a warrant for. Self-incrimination applies only to your own testimony, not to your cooperation with law enforcement.
Why is everyone always surprised that artists who would sell out to the outdated "music industry" and let their record label steal most or at least a large percentage of their profits don't have good business sense, and therefore constantly spit out statements that advertise their blatant ignorance of how to build a…
@petethepanda: And, from what I could tell in reading the comments, actively deleted dissenting opinions. Which is hard to defend normally, but she also is hiding behind the shroud of feminism, so disagreeing is inherently misogynistic.