The irony of calling “double hater” people who as a general rule don’t like people who spread hate or actively support those who practice hate, is also delicious and kind of says everything one needs to know about the Doublethink style of discourse of the people making up such labels.
Being truly anti-hate as a principle logically makes one be both against Trump and Biden, one for spreading hate and the other for actively supporting people practicing their hate aginst men, women and children with extreme violence.
Good riddance and should have been sooner. Not only did she personally order violence against her students and staff, resulting in a no-confidence vote from her faculty, but her heavy-handed response to the early low-key protest is what kicked off the more forceful campus protests across the country. It’s amazing that such a failure lasted as long as she did. The other resignees were pushed out after mistakenly treating a political witch hunt by actual antisemites like a good faith discussion, this lady actually massively failed at her job and is personally responsible for the “period of turmoil” at both her campus and across the country.
She could have just let students camp on the lawn with their signs until they got tired of it.
Separation of powers. Executive has the DOJ and friends, Congress has the Sgt at arms and Judiciary has contempt. All three are, in theory, immune to interference from the other branches, to allow said branches to defend themselves. Stupid, stupid idea.
The fuck do they have to give it such a negative name? I think a lot of people didn’t like either option, across a lot of different spectra of citizen.
It’s Florida so it wouldn’t surprise me. However there are multiple ways it which it shouldn’t. Did Disney have unequal bargaining, was there consideration and acceptance, is it against the public interest and public policy, does the arbitration clause create undue burden… All these things should be against Disney. But… The Supreme Court even when it didn’t lean Republicunt has been pro-arbitration and anti consumer.
Disney is claiming the one line in the terms and conditions of a free trial of Disney+ years ago means the consumer must abide by those terms in perpetuity for anything Disney related. Even things completely unrelated to Disney+.
Yes a lot of conservative higher courts and Supreme Court have determined that arbitration agreements don’t expire and last for eternity. Read various court cases on them. It is truly sick that the higher courts have ruled this way. It shouldn’t matter but in many cases it does matter.
My point is the agreement was for an entirely unrelated product. A restaurant is in no way associated with the Disney+ streaming service. No one would expect the terms and conditions from a streaming service to apply to a sit down restaurant.
I’d even say that while they’re both under the Disney brand, they almost certainly are separate companies, further differentiating their products.
I know and agree. What I’m saying is that the courts and especially conservative justices don’t care. Should Disney be sanctioned for this bad faith attempt? Absolutely! But will Disney be? Probably not. Is it possible Disney’s motion to compel or dismiss will be granted. It is definitely possible.
So sad to see another person become a statistic in the fight against cancer. My heart goes out to her and her family.
I hate to make something like this political but Republicans in the senate just rejected a bipartisan bill that would have increased funding for finding a cure for cancer.
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Hill:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.