s73v3r
s73v3r
s73v3r

I’m not, because I’m not willing to subject all the people that such a thing will harm to that harm just so you can have “judicial purity” or whatever it is you’re wanting. Interpreting the law is the entire reason the judicial branch exists, and I honestly do not see how ruling that a non-discrimination law means

But during that recession, they made several concessions to the company in order to help the company out. Now, that things are going well, and the company is giving the execs lavish bonuses, why don’t they deserve to share in the riches as well?

I was looking at a new car, and given the incentives and stuff, I was looking at a new Chevy Volt. Not anymore.

But, where would they go? Rent is high because there are lots of people that want to be there. Rents are low in places where there aren’t lots of people, and most people don’t want to be there.

“Wealth is created through enterprise, not working”

Be honest. Do you think those people were looking to “engage”, or were they just being trolls?

Absolutely wrong. The reason companies train people is because they need workers.

I wouldn’t trust the company’s characterization of the person as far as I could throw it.

I bought a new Mini Cooper about 10 years ago, and it is starting to show it’s age. I’m at the point where I have to decide if not having a car payment is worth the money I’m sinking into it try and pass smog. I had thought about trading it in for a Chevy Volt, before the incentives change, but with the way GM has

She walked into someone’s apartment and murdered them. There is no “mistake” about it.

Bullshit? She could rule that, as it was not her home, and she was in fact the intruder, it doesn’t apply.

If they’re all the same mushroom, and they’re all the same music box, how do they make different notes?

Why does this person think that there isn’t any judgement for political expression, when they in that interview, are sitting there judging people doing it?

“The ones with little to no work ethic?”

The rest of us are under no obligation to analyze you or what you said and determine that you said in jest what actual bigots say in seriousness. If you don’t wish to be seen as a bigot, best not to say bigoted things, even if you think you’re joking.

How fragile do you have to be that pointing out that you contradicted what you said 2 minutes ago is a “personal attack”?

Fuck off. Pointing out that you contradicted yourself is NOT a “breach of etiquette.” Pointing out that you’re a jackass for caring more about your pretend “etiquette” than the facts of the matter is also not a breach of etiquette.

On the advice of the author, I didn’t actually watch any of the segment. But I would have expected the article to have some kind of summary of what went on, not just saying, “Tebow screeched some bullshit about having the highest selling jersey.”

“You do realize it was a joke right?”

“You do realize that the anti semitic video has been removed days after the fact and he had never done any other joke about it since right?”