@Engels Noted and taken to heart.

I have edited my comment to be less judgmental and more descriptive.

Thanks for the reminder.

Even in the US it would depend on what the reason for making the plaintiff pay was. If the judgment to have the plaintiff cover legal fees was part and parcel of the original ruling, you could only appeal the decisions as a package, but if it was a separate ruling it could be separately appealed. Also, some decisions can't be appealed, though usually minor things.

In either case it makes sense to give citizens the right of appeal - the judge could very well have fucked up their decision. Remember, even though it seems that these mechanisms give trolls protection against their victims, they're actually there to protect citizens against abuse by the system. Regardless of whether the troll is a troll, they're supposed to get a fair hearing, and being able to appeal is one of the biggest parts of 'fair'.

True, no one KNOWS, but it's a no brainer that his election would be seen as unpredictable by the markets, and dire political unpredictability=bear market.

Not so in any way. He has so little actual power it's laughable that you would think that. He's not even allowed to run the companies he actually owns large parts of because the boards won't allow him to, because they have a duty to not let him drive the companies into the ground. What "power" do you think he has?

He probably can't "seize the reigns" by force unless he's elected. He can attempt to seize them if he is elected.

Facism-(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Has Clinton been convicted? You didn't even say "likely broken Federal law", you said "on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law" Because his past has not been as transparent by far and usually those dealing with him are forced to sign non disclosure agreements, it's patently ridiculous to imply that his crimes would be simple to just point to....but OK, not paying off on interstate contracts is a federal crime, one he's admitted publicly that he's committed uncountable times, any time he gets service before payment in full it seems....and he's been found guilty of that in civil court. Satisfied?

Um...lacking knowledge is being naïve.
Naïve-having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

And it doesn't come across very well, @Payback. @nanrod has better judgment than the Republican nominee for President.

(against my better judgment I tried clicking on one of his dumb links. It didn't take ten seconds before it had told me that all bilingual nations historically destroy themselves in tumultous unrest, like Canada, China, or India...)

Where there is a will there is way, folks. That is to say the sex world is now fully digital. There are sites that have yelpified it on the non-dark-net market; it works.

It ain't going away and you may even see someone you know in real life.

Just like I believe natural hallucinogens like mushrooms and lesser ones like bud should be legal - I believe sex work should be legal as well, taxed, regulated - etc. and people at large need to stop snarling down their preposterously ignorant/judgmental noses towards revenue & consciousness expanding possibilities.

NBA's Response


NBA Response to New York Times Story on Flagrant Fouls and Charlotte Hornets guard Jeremy Lin
April 15, 2016

After reviewing our extensive officiating database, we have found no data that suggests Jeremy Lin is disadvantaged by our officiating staff. NBA referees use a set of criteria (available here) provided by the league office in determining whether a foul should be called flagrant. Following the game, contact that is deemed flagrant by referees and other hard contact (whether called or not) is reviewed by NBA Basketball Operations. As part of that review, Basketball Operations uses that same set of criteria, multiple video angles and enhancements, and its comparable database to calibrate its judgment. When deemed appropriate, a foul can be upgraded or downgraded and applicable penalties can be assessed. While some of the plays in the video involved hard contact, none was subsequently deemed a Flagrant Foul given the full circumstances, angles and comparables from past games.

With respect to the data, over the last three seasons, Mr. Lin ranked 21st among all players in number of drives to the basket with 1,537. While he has not drawn a flagrant foul in that time, neither have other guards known for their driving ability like Reggie Jackson (2,031 drives), Tony Parker (1,974), Tyreke Evans (1,969), Ty Lawson (1,891), Kyrie Irving (1,649) or Victor Oladipo (1,544). Conversely, Mr. Lin has drawn more common fouls on those drives than any of those previously listed players and has drawn fouls at the seventh-highest rate among the 23 players with more than 1,500 drives.

Furthermore, given the infrequency of flagrant fouls (roughly 1 per every 500 foul calls), it is not statistically significant that none of Mr. Lin’s 814 fouls drawn were deemed flagrant.

It's really sad you should feel that way. I understand what you are saying and in words that sound cool, however, at such a young age, most kids today don't even play outside anymore. Sure, you can argue that you can make them do it but that is much easier said than done. Young kids shouldn't be concerned with so much learning academically. They have plenty of years to do just that. Learning nature and how to be comfortable in nature for such young hearts and minds is essential to being a natural part of our planet. When your older, finding time to do this becomes more difficult. As the video says, after this experience, these children are ready to learn all the things you mentioned and they are happy, (didn't see signs of bullying either) and it helps makes them better people and probably healthier, mentally, emotionally, and physically. It's great about your daughter, however, balance is so important. Glorified day camp, pedophile paradise, so much judgment. It's Denmark's way of thinking that makes them the happiest country

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

Why doesn't Obama like Maher...hrm, could it be the self-righteousness of an asshole? I mean he is funny often, and I don't mind the left fighting back against the right's propaganda machine, but to often do it with the same weapons (stupidity, judgmental opinions, a religious zeal and childishness) it makes you no better than Fox and Friends.

Just my opinion on Maher's little whinny discourse here. If there was a petition for Obama to remain classy and stay away, I would sign that one

Agree to disagree, I guess.

I was bored by the long beginning sequence and I certainly rolled my eyes more than once at plot points. Part of the beauty of the original was its grounding in Saturday serials that played before the movies that would leave you in a "cliffhanger" moment, then skip ahead to the following Saturday without explaining things. I don't think the reboot was grounded enough in that delicious silliness.

In my opinion, of course. I'm just one person. Clearly millions disagree with me. There isn't any right or wrong here. Although my unedited response upon walking out when it was over was snarky and judgmental. I'll apologize for that, but not for my personal experience of the movie that culminated in that one line judgemental-of-other's-fun review.

You have the power to *NSFW, correct? But in all seriousness, animal butchery is not particularly NSFW. We chop up frogs at school with prepubescent children, and medical students watch brains dissected. Point is, until the reason is known I abstain from a certain judgment towards these people. I have respect for the camel regardless, as it shows that the camel is not so weak and harmless as people oft think of them. But camel lives, camel dies. I feel bad for it if it is torture, otherwise it is as natural as anything else of nature.

With that said, respect for the animal is paramount.

You must have missed the part where he recapped what he loved/missed, and how he gave those things up for whatever reason he did (Such as peer pressure, societal judgment, poverty, anger, etc.) The fact that he didn't make excuses truly gives me respect for who the man is, but an indomitable will means not faltering and he did in the past. It was a mistake, and who hasn't made a mistake--even a grievous one? By comparing this great man to what he once was is an injustice to what he has become, and I wouldn't slap him in the face as that comparison ironically has.

Now, he could have had a great will, good will, worthwhile will, but the word indomitable is vastly different from those puny words. He could have tried his best and failed. But again, that is different than staying strong against the others rather than forfeiting the things you most love for the lifestyle that is incompatible and with those precious things.

I have chosen a different word..."want". Some people want religion, because they think it helps them somehow. The same can be said for heroin...wanting something doesn't make it 'good'.

You can call it pedantic nit picking, I say the words have quite different meanings (one reason they are spelled and pronounced differently), and if people are lazy and use word/meanings they don't intend, I can't help but try to correct them in order to properly understand them before I can determine if I agree with them....(EDIT: or to determine what part I disagree with. In this case, I disagreed with the specific contention that anyone 'needs' religion, which you've seemed to have somehow read as a slight against religious people, and a directive for them to think as I do...which was certainly not my intent.)

I understand people SAY they "need" religion, but they have the same issue of not distinguishing between "need" and "want". No one has ever, not once, died from a lack of religion...but many have died from an over abundance of it (usually in others).

You would be incredibly wrong in that assumption. Much of my family is religious, as are many of my friends. We often have had respectful, deep theological discussions and they invariably come away with a new view point of what they had taken for granted, while I often come away with only a new example of how religion got it wrong or contradicts itself. I don't lecture them, I give them a chance to explain themselves, then I tell them where they seem to have strayed from reality (for example, with Christians, it's nearly always when they resort to the bible as proof of something).

Me thinks you protest too much, and understand me too little. I don't think I wrote any such dictation, I merely explained how religion is something people 'want' rather than 'need'. It is religion that is zealously judgmental, it's religion that dictates how other people should live and think, I only expressed my wishes on that front (after being prompted to do so by you), not any command. Please re-read.

(I hope you have noticed that I have refrained from targeting any one religion, as my remarks are applicable to religion as a concept and not directed at any sect.)

@newtboy

I'll give you my brother's phone number. He went from secular to devout for a reason. You don't like the word "need"? Then pick another one and stop with the pedantic nit picking.

People choose to be religious all the time. There is a different word. They choose religion.

Why?

I have heard people say they "need" it.

I suspect that you have never had a respectful conversation with someone who chose religion. It takes time to get to motive. If you are lecturing them about how they are wrong, you aren't going to hear them.

So, I have a limit to how much time I am willing to spend talking to judgmental zealots who want to dictate how other people should live and think. I've reached it now.

(I hope you noticed that I in no way have defended religion from its excesses and crimes. I have stayed focused on individuals making individual decisions about their own lives. Rather Libertarian of me, isn't it?)