I don’t think the U.S. Constitution bans anyone from getting a title from some random French family, only from a “King, Prince, or foreign State”.
Is this article intentionally misrepresenting? There’s plenty of scummy things he’s done without having to invent weird distractions.
Don’t all modern browsers allow you to disable auto-playing of video, even per-site if desired?
Filming / photography in public is a First Amendment protected activity.
No misunderstanding - I get what you’re saying and I disagree.
I also don’t agree that expecting journalists to be accurate makes someone an asshole. If they were reporting on an automobile and wrote that the spark plugs make 500HP we could guess what they likely meant, but we’d also recognize the journalist’s ignorance. They should educate themselves on their subject matter so they can do their job properly.
Sure they do. The gun clubs I’ve joined foster an environment that attracts people who demonstrate care and consideration in all aspects concerning firearms. If someone is lazy and imprecise in the manner in which they communicate about guns, that might also apply to their general demeaner. After speaking with some of these fellows during public range days, it’s not surprising when later they’re shooting holes in the shelter roof or bouncing ricochets off the top of the berm.
Or dummy rounds (aka snap caps), or blanks…
Aah, gotcha. I had thought that
Probably less these days
was in reference to this part at the end of the parent comment:
cars generally float around the 32 psi area
and I haven’t seen anything to contradict all the previous literature on under-inflated automobile tires being worse for fuel economy.
Which type of performance? Surely not fuel economy/emissions?
Shouldn’t the pipeline have failed unless the functional tests passed?
Generalizations that are oversimplified to the point of lacking all nuance are probably untrue because there are bound to be exceptions. Instead, try including ‘many’, ‘most’, or such as an easy remedy.
Specifically, landlords can create value when they handle property management and maintenance (and the related costs) efficiently. It is wrong that greed has made that so rare.
It also doesn’t make any distinction between events that took place where the intended victims were allowed to be armed or not. Of course there will be less instances of armed defenders in areas where arms are prohibited.
OPs premise is akin to the “small government” advocates who ruin government services and then point at how they don’t work.
The affidavit does not mention the full list of influencers […]
Well, why not? Name and shame all of them.
FTOP:
keeping a list of more than 2,800 influencers world wide […] to monitor and potentially groom
You want to persecute the victims? These people are being targeted by the Russian state and probably haven’t done anything wrong. They should be protected from that, and also from those who are too quick to judge before they understand the situation.
Tell me you’ve never compiled software from open source without saying you’ve never compiled software from open source.
The only differences between open source and freeware are pedantic, right guys?
There is no real need to use captured products though, so OP’s question is flawed.
Any desire to use said products (or not) needs to weigh the pros and cons of the captured products vs alternatives.
Biden is owned by the same people as Trump. There’s only one party, the party of the Oligarchs.
Is not the same as
all democrats and republicans act the same and are equal
Refusing to see nuance in the difference between the sentiment of these two statements does a disservice to yourself and your cause (unless you’re on the side of the billionaires).
So here you go since you missed the distinction: they can both be (and are) corrupt, without being “the same”.
People like to point out all the ways they’re not the same and one team is better than the other. Fine. Those things can all be true, and politicians in both those parties are still corrupt.
It was only a couple presidents ago that Democrats had the House, Senate, and President. Even then they couldn’t get their own members to vote for anti-corruption legislation.
OP makes a statement that all democrats and republicans act the same and are equal
Wrong. OP never wrote that - YOU made that statement as a strawman. You should try to be a more honest person.
Disproves which part of what he wrote?
Or disproves the strawman you set up yourself?
Exactly how does it apply? It didn’t come from a “King, Prince, or foreign State”. I could declare that I grant you a title, but because it isn’t coming from a monarch it’s meaningless and that article doesn’t apply.