jakee

Is that legal in the US? In Europe you absolutely cannot do that for web sales (or any distance selling).

No, he's right. I looked at that program and it definitely says they're going to supply broadband that only connects to black websites.

I don't get why this keeps going (mostly) unchallenged in the sane (non Fox, Newsmax etc) media. Trump was there damn near everyday of the trial claiming everyone made money and no-one lost out and he never defaulted and the response has been mostly technical explanations of why that's not the point. Why isn't he getting hammered everyday with the fact that he absolutely did not pay back all of those loans, and some of the lenders he tricked lost 'yuge' (as did the taxpayer)? https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/10/27/report-trump-had-over-280-million-in-debt-forgiven-and-avoided-paying-taxes-on-most-of-it/#:~:text=President Donald Trump has had,paying taxes%2C the newspaper says.

RIP to one incomprehensibly courageous man. Really puts Trump’s whinges about so called political persecution into perspective.

Hey look, a reply that has nothing to do with the ridiculous claim you just made. Just like always.

The original thread still exists, and still has those questions waiting to be answered whenever you wanna stop dodging them. The Governor of Texas refuses to cooperate with any other agency, State or Federal, and sends those migrants, busload at a time, to places where no one knows they're coming. Is the Mayor of Denver doing the same thing?

You realise you are just a caricature of yourself at this point, right? Cause you cannot possibly think that declaring you have no idea what ‘trend’ means is going to make you sound clever.

How should I know. What is it? Was it obvious that you deceptively edited it and described it as a ‘description of woke from Wikipedia’ when you knew it was actually a description of what Right Wing people wrongly claim woke to be? I mean yes, it was obvious, but was it supposed to be? Was it obvious that you offered it as a definition while (supposedly) not even believing that it was a good definition? I don’t think it was.

According to your own source the Mayor of Denver didn’t put anyone on a bus that wasn’t headed to where they wanted to go. So there’s that. BTW the last question left standing was why you deliberately deceptively edited a Wikipedia article to provide a definition of woke that you later claimed to not even agree with. Not really a surprise that you ran away from that one, though.

The big thing with Stewart is that (regardless of how inherently liberal he is) he’s always very obviously cared about actions and results, not about who’s on the right team. Then when he’s angry about something it carries real weight, because it’ll almost always be about something that directly affects people’s lives or our ability to talk seriously about important policies. So viscerally different to the confected anger from other quarters about whether the President has debased the office by wearing the wrong colour tie.

If the Dems are good enough to script that ending, why would anyone not want them in charge?

And seemingly as a result of presiding over the most corrupt Supreme Court ever (that we know of) while fighting any efforts for ethical reform, Roberts thinks that every other American court is even more corrupt. Arguing that other states would disqualify Joe Biden for no reason but retaliation, and their judiciaries would all just go along with it. On the plus side, the court gave a clear signal to the Democrats who would love to push Biden aside - just run Obama again! After all, if the people want to vote for him it would be plain unnacceptable disenfranchisement not to let them.

It’s weird isn’t it. Biden forgets the name of a General he used to work with, while Trump forgets who his own wife was, and Biden comes out sounding worse. Hell, I’m half his age and I couldn’t reel off the names of all the people I worked with 8 years ago.

Sure, but I’d have thought there’d be some pretence at a legal opinion being being offered. Not just ‘should we bother with Constitutional limits when there’s someone I really really want to vote for?’

So it’s possible for you to read his posts, take the time to research and reply, tell him he’s wrong, but not be annoyed. Are you special?

From the synopsis it sounded to me like shitty Justices are going to lose it. Every question I heard they asked was about practicality and political expediency rather than the Constitution.

Did he annoy you?

That's why I was trying to pin down why he quoted it or whether he agrees with it - but obviously Brent never has enough integrity to take ownership of anything he posts. So we're left with the notion that he deceptively edited a statement describing what right wingers wrongly think woke is so that it appeared as an actual definition of woke, then deceptively suggested it's what Wikipedia says woke is, then said he doesn't agree with it but for some reason had to post it because he was asked what woke is. Make sense to anyone?

And you replied with something that you do not think answered the question? Why? Did you not think it would have been a better idea to try and find something that you thought did answer the question?

If you disagree with most of the way it defines woke then why on earth would you post it in the first place?

Too much credit. He’ll just say ‘So what? Warmer is better!’ Which won’t stop him crowing as soon as the temp comes down from this peak that it means warming isn’t happening at all because it’s not currently the absolute hottest it’s ever been since we started measuring.

Tucker Carlson to interview Russia's Putin Barf bags at the ready.

It’s telling that this conspiracy requires the right to accept the fact that the most famous person on the planet (and possibly the most successful musician ever) is a Democrat plant - like, that bit is already successfully done and completed - but they think no one would take her political opinion seriously until she’s dating a guy who wins a sports prize? Sexism is as sexism does, I guess.

Isn’t this the one where the prosecutors asked if they could just skip the appeals court and go straight to the SC because everyone involved knew it was going to end up there anyway? Surprise surprise they weren’t in favour of speeding things up.

Give us a clue? I was kinda curious but the only thing that appeared on a search was a Biblical Hebrew word meaning “to lift up”… which is both strangely appropriate and entirely un-sinister.