hei_luobo






















Condom question

Shows the Silver Award... and that's it.

When you come across a feel-good thing.





  1. tbf looks like Roberts only concurred in the judgment, not in the overturning. (though, not having read his opinion yet, i assume it would water roe and casey down to the point of uselessness)

  2. how does that matter? It still ended 6-3. Why do people put so much focus on what Roberts thinks and says?

  3. The part of the opinion (formally) overturning Roe was only 5-4.

  4. I mean it’s debatable right? What’s the point of an nba subreddit if we can’t violently debate each other? Does chet have the requisite mens rea to be convicted of being criminally ugly? Is he intentionally ugly? Or is he just recklessly ugly? Don’t bother replying if you can’t grasp the basic principles of American criminal law LMAO

  5. assuming the criminal ugliness statute doesn't specify a knowledge or purpose mens rea then under mpc 2.02(3) recklessness is sufficient. and he's def consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he's criminally ugly. so i think he's very plausibly criminally ugly

  6. Cars got 5mph safer, but humans remained stupid.

  7. Probably got even stupider. They didn't have cell phones to get distracted by then.

  8. Tribute is actually about Maxwell's Silver Hammer fyi

  9. Myles Garrett turned Mason Rudolph's head into pasta sauce

  10. In defense of Daniel Jones, he only played 11 games. His 17-game pace would've put him around 40.

  11. Tua only played 13, including one he left on the second drive.

  12. It's a smart line and a smart crowd will appreciate it

  13. There are separate questions here. It is well settled that Smith eliminated the Constitutional requirement that religious exercise be protected from generally-applicable laws but then Congress essentially returned things to the status quo ante by passing the RFRA. Hobby Lobby and similar decisions apply the RFRA or state analogues and not the First Amendment.

  14. Except RFRA didn't return things to the status quo ante vis-a-vis state legislation or the first amendment on its own after Boerne

  15. depends on your background. i’m big into DEI so I say “x firm does a great job promoting DEI for the following reasons” and i cite how the company did promote DEI. My resume also shows history of promoting DEI.

  16. Interesting. My background is pretty PI-heavy, so I suppose I should think about how to spin that positively.

  17. The solution isn’t “cracking down,” it’s redesigning cities at a human scale, with infrastructure that puts pedestrians, transit users, and cyclists first and makes driving so uncomfortable and inferior to other options that almost people stop doing it.

  18. You need both. Even the most walkable cities have roads with cars on them. If you don't enforce the traffic laws against those drivers the best infrastructure in the world can't stop them from speeding or driving dangerously.

  19. We make the roads convenient for cars to go as fast as possible.. instead we redesign our roads to make them go slower.

  20. I understand that. My point is that redesigning roads to encourage drivers to go slow will not alone stop drivers from driving fast.

  21. Tenuous would be better than a lot of what I've seen. Other than a few frequent truisms ("document everything," "call a lawyer," "depends on your state"), it seems to me that comments are as likely to be downright wrong as they are to be imperfect or incomplete.

  22. Lawyers aren't infallible, but neither is a legal advice subreddit most of whose commenters aren't lawyers.

  23. Aren't you glad you have access to me and my covfefe?

  24. Jaylen brown complains about the silliest shit. Yeah man you didn't foul him when you pulled down his jersey

  25. We don't give legal advice here. But any legal help you'll get is likely going to cost more than $100. I'd try talking to your mom and working this out that way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin