This 2007 document seems to do a pretty good job at going over the motivations when the law was made. It's a bit longer to read than I have time for right now, but it seems like it's worth the time judging by the intro and background
Got it. People on this site are ~~stupid~~ idealistic as hell, so it's probably good that I spelled out why these things are expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks thought animal cruelty exists in these industries because people are mean.
You can try to convince other people who would've stayed home to vote instead... That's essentially multiplying your vote.
Literally 2016. And the third party is the maga tumor of the GOP. 2017-2020 is what happens when voters give up and vote for a populist promising to upend the system
Ok. They can just put the games out in the actual boxes again and then increase prices to account for people stealing games. But then you'll probably bitch about higher prices.
Yea, it's the same old complaint as every generation. Not like there's evidence of actual mental decline like... oh wait...
Scores have been falling for six consecutive years, but the trend accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Students in the class of 2023 whose scores were reported Wednesday were in their first year of high school when the virus reached the U.S.
I put a link to their report in my comment - here's another reference, go to page 8. I see nothing in the report indicating that the people listed are still working for the companies accused in the article.
No. This is the relevant section in your link -
Environmental advocates say structures will run through public lands, habitats of endangered plants and animal species like the ocelot, a spotted wild cat.
“A plan to build a wall through will bulldoze an impermeable barrier straight through the heart of that habitat. It will stop wildlife migrations dead in their tracks. It will destroy a huge amount of wildlife refuge land. And it’s a horrific step backwards for the borderlands,” Laiken Jordahl, a southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Wednesday afternoon.
This is no different than linking to your original source. AP isn't claiming it's going through the refuge. AP is stating that the environmentalists are saying it will. There's a difference
Might've been because I was mean about it, lol. Bad habit of mine when I get annoyed.
You realize that article describes how Obama re-iterated his pro-choice stance when asked if he would sign FOCA, right? What did you expect him to do? Magically declare RvW into law using his Executive branch wand?
If you're hung up on the URL, I can think of one little thing congress might've been distracted by with their 72 days of supermajority.
speff
joined 34 years ago
Agreed