Was it really fake though? I mean, the President of the United States himself advocated for using bleach (“disinfectant”), surely that means it was a legitimate cure, right?
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”
Is slapping down unconstitutional laws that haven't been around very long really "expanding" 2a rights? It's not like these rulings are allowing me to mail order machine guns like people use to. If by expanding the mean restore rights, sure.
The rulings just allow people to continue to own things in common use or do things that are legal in a vast majority of states. Keep in mind some of the laws in California involve things like demanding firearms have tech in them that doesn't exist.
Tesla stock is +169% YTD and +10% 1Year. Netflix stock is also doing quite well in the same timeframes. Both are pushing up the NASDAQ pretty well despite their downturns today.
Now, with that said, Tesla stock is likely heavily overvalued. As the other car manufacturers catch up to Tesla, the stock will likely decline.
They made the biggest mistake a church can make, competing with big pharma. If you want to sell something, sell prayers or replicas of holy relics or literal snake oil, as long as you don’t call it a drug.
Like these faith nickels I have for sale. They can help with hair cancer, eyelid twitching, nasal shortage, rickets, crickets, tickets, clickits, boneitis, polywater intoxication, Bowden’s malady, space madness, subspace madness, liminal space madness, Baggy Trousers by Madness, rectal upcharge, and bacne. Side effects include irritable spouse syndrome, flavor packets, butterfly affect, scruples, time dilation, back knee, and the squorts. Of course, I have scruples, so I couldn’t possibly let these powerful faith nickels get out into the world for less than three easy payments of $49.95 plus s&h.
Hello! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “The Gilgo Beach killings suspect’s wife has now filed for divorce” (Similairity: ~75%).
FLIP FLOP this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
Well, nevermind, the Auto suggest was correct. Perhaps the title has been changed by CNN? Hopefully everyone can understand I haven’t maliciously altered it.
Implying that a house where the owners don’t own guns would have been the right one?
The reason burglars take guns in the US is because there’s a good chance they’ll run into owners with guns as well. So lots of people owning guns doesn’t prevent burglary, it just forces criminals to take guns as well.
Should people kindly ask the home invader to please vacate the area after their door gets smashed in? Maybe just hug it out?
I don't know about you but I lock my doors. I don't know what the fuck a stranger is trying to do in my house. They will be met with force if they forced their way in to violate my personal space and safety. Being unarmed or complying won't keep anyone but criminals safe.
That’s the argument me and the person I replied under are making. Adding more guns just increases the chance someone gets shot. If we gave everyone in the world a fully automatic ak47 that wouldn’t stop people from being desperate or just plain evil. Crimes would still happen and I bet that burglary would have ended with more than one person shot. Probably more than one person dead.
Yeah I don’t think we should just lie down and let everything get stolen from us but why do people fight so hard for more violence? I’d much rather be arguing over how to improve police response times. Providing affordable security systems. Making internal doors and walls more secure. Social programs so people don’t get to the point they need to rob people to get by.
This article is infuriating because fox news says we should all clap for this lucky family that got to almost got to watch one another bleed out. Guns should be a last resort and when a news source talks about them it should regret the fact that death had to be put on the table.
It's not about thief or stuff. If someone breaks in I don't know why they're there. I have no reason to assume they are only there for stuff or won't hurt people who get in their way. Giving them the benefit of the doubt make no sense when they're already breaking in and violating your home. As an example I wouldn't go out to stop someone from breaking into my car or open the door during some incident. But if the door get kicked in a person shouldn't expect a warm welcome.
I do not care if a criminal gets hurt during the course of crimes that violate people's homes and personal safety. Anyone has a right to stop such people with force. Self-defense isn't a crime and I really don't consider it a problem. The gun was not the first resort. There were presumably doors and locks. Maybe some yelling. The criminal choose to victimize someone and found out that goes poorly on occasion.
If you want to prevent violence prevent people from being in desperate situations and commiting crimes against people. Don't expect people to be accepting of home invasion.
How are damages in cases like this even calculated? They sued for $15,000,000 and were awarded $800,000. Is it just how big the medical bill is without insurance?
I’m not a lawyer but I believe it’s usually split into two parts; the first to cover the expenses the person has already incurred - time missed from work, medical fees, taxis etc etc and predicted expenses in the future - plastic surgery to remove the scar for example, counselling or recompense for “emotional suffering”. The second part is the actual fine imposed on the company/whoever for their negligence. It’s kinda like reimbursement + penalty I believe.
ETA you always ask for way way more than you expect to receive. It’s a bit like haggling but the jury decide the final price.
They can also add punitive damages. Didn’t seem to be in this case BUT a meal marketed at children shouldn’t cause scars.
With the coffee case had lots of damages for this. MacDonalds had been warned that they were serving coffee at dangerous temperatures, had 700 complaints but it was cheaper to pay compensation than fix.
They served the coffee at much higher temperatures than other establishments, so normally you’d have 12 seconds to wipe coffee off your skin but with MacDonalds it was 3 seconds, causing 3rd degree burns.
They lied saying it was done as people wanted to drink after driving for a long time but their surveys showed the opposite.
The coffee case and how they destroyed that woman’s reputation was absolutely awful. Even now people think it was a “frivolous lawsuit”. That coffee was so hot it fused the lady’s labia together. There is nothing frivolous about that, it’s horrific to contemplate - especially when McDonald’s were warned about the problem, as you said.
It was hot coffee. It was boiling hot coffee. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand you shouldn’t play around with it and spill it on you. They made it hot so you could get it at the drive through and still have hot coffee when you got home to eat.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.