If the prosecutor can prove that a safety box exists that contains proof of your guilt, they can prove you are guilty without the contents and thus do not need them.
In this state the Democrats didn't even have to pass a law, an unelected committee decided that all businesses must allow people to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match whatever they say their identity is.
The annual variations in weather are orders of magnitude greater than the changes so far from overall climate change. If climate change is a significant part of why bees are dying, they would have died off centuries ago. If climate change continues unabated, it is likely that it will kill them and a lot of other things off, but it is not why they are dying now.
My actual stance is that I've only heard coherent arguments in favor of separating bathrooms/locker rooms by physiology. The arguments against seem to be that using one that differs from identity makes that person uncomfortable and that person being uncomfortable is more important than the discomfort of anyone else. Any attempt at compromise is met with claims that transgender people are being treated as second class citizens.
It would probably have helped everyone involved if there had been a public discussion before the issue was decided for everyone in my state by an unelected committee.
In this case, one can generalize that Republicans are against big government but want government to dictate who can use which bathroom. Perhaps they are only in favor of the monitoring because it appears the government will monitor the bathrooms in the same way they would to protect their own sensibilities. However, lets no kid ourselves into thinking this generalization applies to all Republicans and not to anyone else. All parties do it and this topic isn't black and white in terms of opinions aligning with party affiliation.
I don't know about the rest of the country, but here the Republicans want to allow businesses to determine who can use what bathroom instead of having it dictated by the state government.
Strict gun laws don't work in the places where they exist. Now if you wanted an outright ban you might have an argument, though not one I would agree with.
As far as I can tell the argument in favor boils down to the sign says x, I identify as x, I should be allowed to use it. The argument against is that people with a penis are significantly more capable of and more likely to commit rape and thus there should be a room exclusively for those without. I find the second argument far more compelling.
Which is why the banks didn't bother optimizing the way the chips work to make them fast, the fewer businesses that adopt the chip, the better for them.
If anything it is far more likely that the survey overrepresented experienced beekeepers as it is harder to keep track of those new to it. Also, this is an annual survey, so many of the participants are probably from previous years.
Stop bringing climate change into stories where it doesn't belong. Blaming things on climate change that have nothing to do with it only serves to make the climate change deniers case seem stronger.
If the Republicans send a voicemail supporting a Democratic candidate, or vice versa, there is a significant difference between the two. I only bring this up because it's a tactic that has already been used in telephone campaigns in the past.
It's still harassment, but if you blame the wrong people for the harassment and as a result vote for the people they really want you to vote for, the campaign is a success.
Just make sure you're recording the ones that are doing this, not the ones the ads are supporting. They aren't always the same people precisely because of people like you.
I would disagree about it being homophobic. It was certainly a joke involving homosexuality, and obviously it was intended to be offensive, but those don't make it homophobic.
This isn't math, this is semantics. Trump claims the tax cuts are revenue neutral because they will be offset by the growth. This is a different meaning than what people usually mean when they say revenue neutral. Now whether the claim is true is an entirely different matter.
Slashdot Mirror
If the prosecutor can prove that a safety box exists that contains proof of your guilt, they can prove you are guilty without the contents and thus do not need them.
In this state the Democrats didn't even have to pass a law, an unelected committee decided that all businesses must allow people to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match whatever they say their identity is.
The annual variations in weather are orders of magnitude greater than the changes so far from overall climate change. If climate change is a significant part of why bees are dying, they would have died off centuries ago. If climate change continues unabated, it is likely that it will kill them and a lot of other things off, but it is not why they are dying now.
My actual stance is that I've only heard coherent arguments in favor of separating bathrooms/locker rooms by physiology. The arguments against seem to be that using one that differs from identity makes that person uncomfortable and that person being uncomfortable is more important than the discomfort of anyone else. Any attempt at compromise is met with claims that transgender people are being treated as second class citizens.
It would probably have helped everyone involved if there had been a public discussion before the issue was decided for everyone in my state by an unelected committee.
Japan has a gun ban, not strict gun laws.
In this case, one can generalize that Republicans are against big government but want government to dictate who can use which bathroom. Perhaps they are only in favor of the monitoring because it appears the government will monitor the bathrooms in the same way they would to protect their own sensibilities. However, lets no kid ourselves into thinking this generalization applies to all Republicans and not to anyone else. All parties do it and this topic isn't black and white in terms of opinions aligning with party affiliation.
I don't know about the rest of the country, but here the Republicans want to allow businesses to determine who can use what bathroom instead of having it dictated by the state government.
Strict gun laws don't work in the places where they exist. Now if you wanted an outright ban you might have an argument, though not one I would agree with.
As far as I can tell the argument in favor boils down to the sign says x, I identify as x, I should be allowed to use it. The argument against is that people with a penis are significantly more capable of and more likely to commit rape and thus there should be a room exclusively for those without. I find the second argument far more compelling.
Which is why the banks didn't bother optimizing the way the chips work to make them fast, the fewer businesses that adopt the chip, the better for them.
If anything it is far more likely that the survey overrepresented experienced beekeepers as it is harder to keep track of those new to it. Also, this is an annual survey, so many of the participants are probably from previous years.
Humans also brought a lot of the crops in question here.
Stop bringing climate change into stories where it doesn't belong. Blaming things on climate change that have nothing to do with it only serves to make the climate change deniers case seem stronger.
If the Republicans send a voicemail supporting a Democratic candidate, or vice versa, there is a significant difference between the two. I only bring this up because it's a tactic that has already been used in telephone campaigns in the past.
It's still harassment, but if you blame the wrong people for the harassment and as a result vote for the people they really want you to vote for, the campaign is a success.
Spamming Democrats with voicemails appearing to support Democrat candidates might pick up a decent number of people who don't follow politics.
It doesn't prohibit facial recognition, it prohibits using DMV resources to do the police's job.
Even if the voicemails initially appear to support Democrats?
Just make sure you're recording the ones that are doing this, not the ones the ads are supporting. They aren't always the same people precisely because of people like you.
If the insulting part is that he is gay, then it is homophobic, that isn't the case with this "joke."
I would disagree about it being homophobic. It was certainly a joke involving homosexuality, and obviously it was intended to be offensive, but those don't make it homophobic.
This isn't math, this is semantics. Trump claims the tax cuts are revenue neutral because they will be offset by the growth. This is a different meaning than what people usually mean when they say revenue neutral. Now whether the claim is true is an entirely different matter.
One of the PUDs in this area specifically raised prices because people weren't consuming as much.
They occasionally work in our best interests, only by coincidence when it happens to align with their own interests, but it does happen.
However that only works if the increased prices push people to public transit instead of to privately owned cars.
I'm less concerned about them having a good reason than I am about them having to leave a paper trail stating their reason, good or not.