Because in most places adults are allowed to make unhealthy choices. It's the same principle as not being allowed to market alcohol to kids.
Zyrxil
joined 2 years ago
The enemy of my enemy is a useful temporary ally.
The context is the SK President suddenly declared martial law.
Flip 5, love the form factor and haven't had any screen or hinge problems. The crease doesn't bother me, but I do wish the battery life were better (though it's not much different than my phone before it).
Yeah if that's all that needed replacing. The entire system is ancient, not just the disks, like:
Much more critical than the dated use of floppy disks is the system's loop cable, which transmits data between the central servers and the trains and, according to Roccaforte, "has less bandwidth than an old AOL dial-up modem."
The SFMTA's website adds:
The loop cable is fragile and easily disturbed. This makes subway maintenance more difficult. This also means the system cannot be extended outside the subway, along surface rail, where currently we don’t have automatic train control.
Well then reply to them, not the other person replying to them. You're causing the confusion here. You don't always need to reply to the latest post in a thread.
Official gov ID photo.
Got it, giving an opinion that someone should not be invited to speak at a specific location is apparently not an expression of free speech, it's suppression of free speech. Just like how if someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face, it'd be suppression of speech for you to ask them to do that somewhere else.
You're literally claiming things that are not true. Voicing your opinion against a prospective (as in it hasn't even happened) action by the Speaker of the House is a right afforded to everyone, including representatives. Speaking against something is not perversely somehow suppressing speech. Saying someone is not allowed to speak against something is suppressing of speech.
You have not explained your reasoning at all on how saying they're against Netanyahu speaking in front of the House is subversion of free speech and not just those representatives exercising their own freedom of speech. That is exactly what freedom of speech is, the right for everyone in the US to voice their opinions.
In contrast, there is no right to speak in front of the House, especially not for a foreign politician. The Speaker can invite someone to speak, and if anyone physically interferes with the invitee's speaking or shouts over them, that would be a violation of House procedures, not any infringement on their freedom of speech. They would not have been silenced or punished. They would not have been gagged (physically or otherwise). They would still be able voice their opinions.
Actual examples of speech suppression would be searching and questioning pro-Palestinian journalists at the border, and arrests of peaceful non trespassing protestors.
Did you sit down and watch the whole movie and not just the dramatic moments as YouTube clips? Outside of a few good Denzel moments, the movie was just awful in terms of dialogue, pacing, and blunt 'foreshadowing'
view more: next ›
They would be nowhere if they didn't have his money. Otherwise Musk actively hinders his companies with his idiocy. This is well known from SpaceX employees.
https://x.com/yoloption/status/1595213678147764224?mx=2
The companies' success is from being in fields that the employees are passionate about so they'll grit their teeth and put up with it to be able to work there.
And fighting for free speech, are you kidding? He's fighting for his own speech period. Anything he doesn't like tends to get journalists temp banned or shadowbanned from Twitter for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensions#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DOn_December_15%2C_2022%2C_Twitter%2C%2C_CNN%2C_and_The_Intercept.