Shall not be infringed.. what does that mean to you?
It is not like speech because you aren't saying no one can utter slander, you are saying that only people on a list that had no due process to get on it cannot utter those words.
What other constitutional rights do youhave taken away without due process?
Sure you can bring people back to life. However, if they are going to break the law, what is so magical about a law about a list. If they are determined, They will just steal a gun or have it smuggled in, or even just make their own.
The thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was good guys with a gun. For the life of me i cannot understand why you think taking guns from the good guys is the answer.
As for towns in territories, it used to be constitutional and legal to literally own and whip/beat another human being. Not all laws are just. Not all laws are constitutional.
Is he even aware of the difference between editors and moderators? Perhaps with all the negative mods, he has never gotten mod points and doesn't actually know? .
That being said, there were factions of people in the past with sock puppet accounts who did mod bomb users. They would go into their posting history and start down moderating every post. My understanding is that has been fixed and I haven't personally seen it in a while. But is it possible it has returned to some degree? It would explain this idiots instance on editors following him around and down moderating.
You are a complete moron. The assault weapons ban only banned what the weapons look like and little more. It banned the sale of new magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition but all the existing high capacity mags were grandfathered in.
The exact same gun claimed to be an assault weapon in this case ( AR15) could have the stock changed and flash suppressor removed and not be considered an assault weapon even though the functioning mechanics would be identical.
As for places with no guns, your own home as long as all legal residents agree. Otherwise all it does is deprive a possible defense against an attacker who already doesn't care about the law.
As for the cops doing a lousy job, it doesn't matter, they shot the guy and he is no longer killing people. It is that simple.
Should being on a watch list bar you from having due process, the protection from self incrimination, or free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Should it allow your speech to be silenced by the government? Should it bar you from being able to vote?
If you can bar any constitutional right by simply being on a watch list, you can be denied any rights for being on a watch list.
You're sort of correct. At least if comparison is your objective. You see, that Christian loon is working from their own understanding of something. That Muslim loon actually has a church preaching the death and destruction. Quite a bit off difference.
But I find it telling of the type of person you are that seems more concerned with past aggression of members of one religion than the current and repeated atrocities actually taught and encouraged by another. It is almost as if you can accept Muslims killing gays but not Christians killing people killing unborn babies.
Well, It wasn't to long ago when we started seeing parody ISIS flags at gay pride parades that replaced the script with dildos and butt plugs. Hell, even CNN thought ISIS infiltrated a group of gays.
In this context, do you think it may be accurate without involving God? I mean they provoked a bunch of killers who specifically have problems with homosexuality and now we see another batch of homosexuals executed for no good reason. Might as well hold a draw Mohammed contest.
My prejudices? Yup. I sure do hate gun free zones.
As for the cop, it is undeniable that good guys with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. Just because one person was unsuccessful for whatever reason doesn't remove that fact.
As for coming out of the woodwork, I am specifically responding to someone who thinks making guns look less scary (assault weapons ban) would have somehow prevented this. Now you are completely ignoring the facts which the bad guy was only stopped by good guys with a gun. We don't need more guns, we need more good guys with guns.
It was the type of venue that mattered. It's a gun free zone. Gays do typically lean left politically and the left is generally anti gun. It doesn't take complex equations to figure 2+2 in this case.
But as I mentioned, it is a gun free zone by law (without any regard to the owner's desire) because it serves alcohol. I do agree that consumption of alcohol and firearms to not mix well. But designated drivers and police - on or off duty likely could have made a difference. The thing is, the amount of time involved and the direction of shooting, there would have been plenty of opportunity for someone to attempt to do something. That attempt doesn't mean they would be successful but it also means that they wouldn't have been completely defenseless and at the shooter's mercy.
The truth is, the only thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. All I'm saying is that there should be a lot more good guys around when a bad guy shows up.
There would have been no difference. The assault weapon ban did not ban the firearm, it banned the firearm from looking a certain way. It was the absolute dumbest ban in the world as you could literally take the flash suppressor off the ar-15, put a wooden or composite stock on it, and it no longer would be banned.
What would have stopped this is if the type of people (gays are typically leftist) actually carrying a firearm of their own. Of course this is a "gun free zone" which means even that is something not likely to have made any difference unless someone was willing to break the law in the first place. But if only a handful of these 300 people were packing firearms illegally, or even if off duty cops (who would be legally allowed to carry as long as they weren't drinking) they could have stopped it long before it became what it was.
As it turned out, the only thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. While I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I simply cannot believe none of the gays are good guys. The only thing missing would be the gun.
That could be, or they could have read his book which explains this reasoning quite well.
Have you ever had a conversation with a trump supporter where you wasn't trying to antagonize each other? You should try it some time and actually listen to them. Some are complete loons, some act that way to get your goat, some see the cleaver ruse in it all.
I don't know, he is playing you like a fiddle. You are all upset and butt hurt over it speaking all about it. Maybe it is just publicity to get him free support when you go off.
Trump even said in an interview that he always asked for way more than he knows he can get so it looks like major concessions when he settles for what he really wanted. It may be lying to get the idiots to go along, but I don't think those idiots are who _you_ think they are. If he is elected, I can see a lot of people proudly proclaiming they stopped Trump's idiocy in congress or something when a law he wants passed is watered down quite a bit. They will walk around patting themselves on the back not realizing they did what he wanted in the first place.
But it is a game I guess. One that he seems to be playing well.
The alternative is much worse. I'd rather be disappointed by an idiot than played a fool by some sinister evil who's best qualification to date is being the first woman president.
It is not like we have an outstanding field to choose from. I'm not a trump supporter and could be considered a Hillary opposer which makes trump support a neccesity at this point i guess. But most of the trump supporters i talk to already admit he will not do half of what he says. They claim he pushes for stuff that is unacceptable in order to have his real agenda/terms accepted.
The majority of divestment from fossil fuel stock is a political statement not a financial decision. At least the stuff I know about are outside of the higher sulfur coal from the Appalachian regions. And that is caused more from political manipulation than anything.
Oil is not the boom it used to be but that is thanks to fracking and shale (think scietific advancements) and the increasing supply of natural gas. But the boom was largely political manipulation in the first place with opec limiting production and local fields being unofficially placed off limits until states sidestepped the feds on private lands.
Solar and wind suffer some serious problems still. I have the option to purchase only renewable energy for my electric needs but it comes at a premium over traditional energy. I cannot however use renewables to power my car to get to and from work and I cannot power my tractors to work the land with it either. Bio fuels simply do not work in my area and I did try when diesel was at $6 a gallon a few years ago.
Lol.. you post in English, on an English speaking site, and link to the Spanish language wiki article about a Japanese cartoon.
At first, I thought you were an idiot. Then I realized this obfuscation is clever enough to mimic the nsa misdirection illustrated in so many articles where they admit to not admitting something of importance which is claimed to not be important.
I write this as a commercial on TV is trying to sell a night light for the crapper. Evidently multiple colors help the shit in the night or something (volume is off). The first thing that popped into my head was oh noes, a spycam you install yourself then i thought the nsa might want to know what you are flushing away. Then I started wondering why you cannot find tinfoil easily any more - just aluminum foils.
Evidently, I was selected (well, my area was) for the census community survey which is mandatory to participate by law. I avoided it as long as I could until I left the house one day and found a census worker parked in the driveway. I know she has been there at least 10 other times from pamphlets left in the door and alarms set off when people enter the driveway triggering my video recording. I'm not sure how this particular day, she didn't set one off unless I forgot to rearm it when checking who was there earlier (I just got home long enough to shower and a few things and had to leave again).
She was insistent that I could not identify as an "American" for the question about race and had to use white, black, hispanic, American Indian, and a couple of other terms. I told her to pencil it in and we would start a trend or something. So she moved along and wanted to know how much I made this year to date, I told her I don't know and do not care to look when the IRS already has all this information. She wanted to know when I worked and how often I was out of the house. I flat out refused to answer that question and after she cited the law, I told her if she wanted to make an issue out of it, we could turn this into a ruby ridge incident for all I cared. They wanted to know how many bedrooms, rooms not counting closets and baths, and how many bathrooms were in the house, how much land it is on and so on. I told her all that information was on file at the county recorders office. Evidently, it was important that I answered anyways.
So she went on to some more questions. All of them were rather personal and she kept reminding me that under the law, they cannot disclose any of the information to anyone else or any other agency in ways that would identify me. So I asked her if there was any laws about the data breech that exposed millions of people who worked for the US government and what steps was being taken to ensure that wasn't possible here. She assured me there was a law banning the hacking of government computers and exposing the information of people. I then started asking about NSA letters and how when the US constitution bans searches without cause and brought up the third party reasoning that supposedly makes the phone surveillance legal/constitutional and asked why we should trust our own government to obey laws that they attempt to skirt around on technicalities. She didn't have an answer.
In the end, I refused to answer some things, took up about 2 hours more of her time than she claimed it should have taken, and I'm not sure anything I actually did provide will be confidential at all. The interesting part is that I apologized for be such an asshole and she said I was mild compared to most of the people she has to track down. Almost every single question except when I was home or not could have been answered by contacting another government agency.
What gets me is they pass a law saying third parties have to keep this information (cellphone/telephone data, prescriptions drug data) then pass a law saying that because it is given to a third party, they can get it any time they want.
I suspect somewhere down the road, a law will be passed saying that all banks that hold a mortgage on a property must grant access to the property without a warrant so even if you rent, your landlord will be forced to open up your home up for inspection without a warrant. It seems crazy but it also seem like this is heading this way. It's about like Dick Cheney going around saying no civil rights were abused because it is third party data and not yours in the first place. It is insulting that the connection cannot be made and the courts stand under the same opinion.
This is why we need trump to win the election. He is a clown but he can appoint ted cruze to the supreme court who while also an asshat, seems to like a strict interpretation of the constitution which should bar this type of activity.
Are you trying to contort this just because you want to argue or is there some deep screwed upness going on that you should have looked at by qualified professionals?
It was Hogan's intent to ensure his sex tape is publicized internationally and associated with an attempt by a billionaire to shut down a part of the media he doesn't like?
I.. doubt it. I suspect Hogan wanted compensation. It was likely his intent to bankrupt the site and take it off line in revenge for doing what it should have not done. Nobody except you and less than a handful of other lunatics really care about some gay republican financing it. What they did to hogan has it own merits and everyone seems to be content with the outcome. I doubt you are going to poke or provoke outrage over that.
Hogan has been completely fucked over by this. Everyone knows about the sex tape, even people who ignore Gawker (which is most of us), he's associated with the world's most dubious lawsuit, and he's not actually going to get paid because the lawyer was, thanks to Theil's influence, told to prevent Gawker's insurance from being involved.
As I said, perhaps getting paid was not the intent and screwing Gawker over to the point of bankruptcy was.
(If Gawker had involved their insurance, not only would Hogan be compensated, but Gawker's insurance rates would skyrocket, punishing Gawker and forcing them to be more careful in their choice of articles. Everyone would have won.)
Again, you are missing the entire point, Hogan likely doesn't even care to get paid at this point. He likely wants to see Gawker destroyed like they attempted to do to him. Except Hogan found a gay republican with deep pockets and won.
Now, why are you so concerned that a gay republican was involved? Do you think Gawker could have stepped around losing this had no gays been involved?
Physics as we understand is little more than our explanation of our observations. These explanations tend to be consistent across materials and such but by no means do they deny or prevent any other explanation from being true also - even if little evidence is present. This is obvious when you look at the progression of metallurgy and materials like steel became available from the same raw materials as iron.
Now you ask why did something happen or why does the claim happen. Well, first - if you were teaching a lesson to someone, would they learn that lesson if you did nothing in their presence? Of course not. I cannot teach you programming if all i do is give you a compiled program to run.
Next, why do they need to point out an omnipotent being made something look a certain way. Well it is as simple as that way being used to explain the impossibility of the omnipotent being. You cannot really expect to tell someone they are wrong because of X and expect them to stay silent when you refuse to consider Y-1=X as well as Y*Z=X. So when you say X means something and there are more than one ways to find X, you have to also allow the other ways.
And that is even without getting into whether a flood or God is true.
It's not as simple as you portray. If it was, we would have already switched to all renewables but that isn't happening.
But I guess my biggest question is why would investors be needing to make a decision at all? If this is a sound process, why wouldn't government be doing it with a small tax across the economy and byproducts paying for it? Government would also have the abilities to isolate itself from any liability if 40 years from now it turns out to be a mess. But they also have the abilities to negotiate trade based on participation and compliance for imports and exports as well as more realistically anticipate the growth of the economy
And I'm not thinking just one government, I'm thinking several in a coalition like NATO but for the environmental defense.
There is a much simpler explanation. The social economic difference between white and black people coupled with the percentage of population in English speaking countries (search terms is in English) gives the results seen due to the saturation of content available.
Criminal elements are a small percentage of the population but when they put mugshots online, they tend to overwhelm a naturally small representation of a population.
What if that was Hogan's intent also and he really doesn't care about the money?
Anyways, it was gawker's own fault. They published it, they refused to take it down when asked and ordered by a judge. I don't care if Hogan borrowed money or gave head to get the lawyer help, if he didn't have a case, he would not have won.
Slashdot Mirror
Shall not be infringed.. what does that mean to you?
It is not like speech because you aren't saying no one can utter slander, you are saying that only people on a list that had no due process to get on it cannot utter those words.
What other constitutional rights do youhave taken away without due process?
Sure you can bring people back to life. However, if they are going to break the law, what is so magical about a law about a list. If they are determined, They will just steal a gun or have it smuggled in, or even just make their own.
The thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was good guys with a gun. For the life of me i cannot understand why you think taking guns from the good guys is the answer.
Define assault weapons for me.
As for towns in territories, it used to be constitutional and legal to literally own and whip/beat another human being. Not all laws are just. Not all laws are constitutional.
Is he even aware of the difference between editors and moderators? Perhaps with all the negative mods, he has never gotten mod points and doesn't actually know? .
That being said, there were factions of people in the past with sock puppet accounts who did mod bomb users. They would go into their posting history and start down moderating every post. My understanding is that has been fixed and I haven't personally seen it in a while. But is it possible it has returned to some degree? It would explain this idiots instance on editors following him around and down moderating.
You are a complete moron. The assault weapons ban only banned what the weapons look like and little more. It banned the sale of new magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition but all the existing high capacity mags were grandfathered in.
The exact same gun claimed to be an assault weapon in this case ( AR15) could have the stock changed and flash suppressor removed and not be considered an assault weapon even though the functioning mechanics would be identical.
As for places with no guns, your own home as long as all legal residents agree. Otherwise all it does is deprive a possible defense against an attacker who already doesn't care about the law.
As for the cops doing a lousy job, it doesn't matter, they shot the guy and he is no longer killing people. It is that simple.
Should being on a watch list bar you from having due process, the protection from self incrimination, or free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Should it allow your speech to be silenced by the government? Should it bar you from being able to vote?
If you can bar any constitutional right by simply being on a watch list, you can be denied any rights for being on a watch list.
You're sort of correct. At least if comparison is your objective. You see, that Christian loon is working from their own understanding of something. That Muslim loon actually has a church preaching the death and destruction. Quite a bit off difference.
But I find it telling of the type of person you are that seems more concerned with past aggression of members of one religion than the current and repeated atrocities actually taught and encouraged by another. It is almost as if you can accept Muslims killing gays but not Christians killing people killing unborn babies.
You have a fucked up idea of what hate is if you think not posting a story soon enough is hate.
Ffs, a lot of stories are several days old by the time it makes it here. I guess slashdot hates everything in your warped mind.
Well, It wasn't to long ago when we started seeing parody ISIS flags at gay pride parades that replaced the script with dildos and butt plugs. Hell, even CNN thought ISIS infiltrated a group of gays.
In this context, do you think it may be accurate without involving God? I mean they provoked a bunch of killers who specifically have problems with homosexuality and now we see another batch of homosexuals executed for no good reason. Might as well hold a draw Mohammed contest.
My prejudices? Yup. I sure do hate gun free zones.
As for the cop, it is undeniable that good guys with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. Just because one person was unsuccessful for whatever reason doesn't remove that fact.
As for coming out of the woodwork, I am specifically responding to someone who thinks making guns look less scary (assault weapons ban) would have somehow prevented this. Now you are completely ignoring the facts which the bad guy was only stopped by good guys with a gun. We don't need more guns, we need more good guys with guns.
It was the type of venue that mattered. It's a gun free zone. Gays do typically lean left politically and the left is generally anti gun. It doesn't take complex equations to figure 2+2 in this case.
But as I mentioned, it is a gun free zone by law (without any regard to the owner's desire) because it serves alcohol. I do agree that consumption of alcohol and firearms to not mix well. But designated drivers and police - on or off duty likely could have made a difference. The thing is, the amount of time involved and the direction of shooting, there would have been plenty of opportunity for someone to attempt to do something. That attempt doesn't mean they would be successful but it also means that they wouldn't have been completely defenseless and at the shooter's mercy.
The truth is, the only thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. All I'm saying is that there should be a lot more good guys around when a bad guy shows up.
There would have been no difference. The assault weapon ban did not ban the firearm, it banned the firearm from looking a certain way. It was the absolute dumbest ban in the world as you could literally take the flash suppressor off the ar-15, put a wooden or composite stock on it, and it no longer would be banned.
What would have stopped this is if the type of people (gays are typically leftist) actually carrying a firearm of their own. Of course this is a "gun free zone" which means even that is something not likely to have made any difference unless someone was willing to break the law in the first place. But if only a handful of these 300 people were packing firearms illegally, or even if off duty cops (who would be legally allowed to carry as long as they weren't drinking) they could have stopped it long before it became what it was.
As it turned out, the only thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. While I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I simply cannot believe none of the gays are good guys. The only thing missing would be the gun.
Are they claiming he had a machine gun now? Last I heard it was just a semi automatic riffle and a hand gun with lots of ammo.
And you do know ISIS has taken credit for this already right?
That could be, or they could have read his book which explains this reasoning quite well.
Have you ever had a conversation with a trump supporter where you wasn't trying to antagonize each other? You should try it some time and actually listen to them. Some are complete loons, some act that way to get your goat, some see the cleaver ruse in it all.
I don't know, he is playing you like a fiddle. You are all upset and butt hurt over it speaking all about it. Maybe it is just publicity to get him free support when you go off.
Trump even said in an interview that he always asked for way more than he knows he can get so it looks like major concessions when he settles for what he really wanted. It may be lying to get the idiots to go along, but I don't think those idiots are who _you_ think they are. If he is elected, I can see a lot of people proudly proclaiming they stopped Trump's idiocy in congress or something when a law he wants passed is watered down quite a bit. They will walk around patting themselves on the back not realizing they did what he wanted in the first place.
But it is a game I guess. One that he seems to be playing well.
The alternative is much worse. I'd rather be disappointed by an idiot than played a fool by some sinister evil who's best qualification to date is being the first woman president.
It is not like we have an outstanding field to choose from. I'm not a trump supporter and could be considered a Hillary opposer which makes trump support a neccesity at this point i guess. But most of the trump supporters i talk to already admit he will not do half of what he says. They claim he pushes for stuff that is unacceptable in order to have his real agenda/terms accepted.
The majority of divestment from fossil fuel stock is a political statement not a financial decision. At least the stuff I know about are outside of the higher sulfur coal from the Appalachian regions. And that is caused more from political manipulation than anything.
Oil is not the boom it used to be but that is thanks to fracking and shale (think scietific advancements) and the increasing supply of natural gas. But the boom was largely political manipulation in the first place with opec limiting production and local fields being unofficially placed off limits until states sidestepped the feds on private lands.
Solar and wind suffer some serious problems still. I have the option to purchase only renewable energy for my electric needs but it comes at a premium over traditional energy. I cannot however use renewables to power my car to get to and from work and I cannot power my tractors to work the land with it either. Bio fuels simply do not work in my area and I did try when diesel was at $6 a gallon a few years ago.
Lol.. you post in English, on an English speaking site, and link to the Spanish language wiki article about a Japanese cartoon.
At first, I thought you were an idiot. Then I realized this obfuscation is clever enough to mimic the nsa misdirection illustrated in so many articles where they admit to not admitting something of importance which is claimed to not be important.
I write this as a commercial on TV is trying to sell a night light for the crapper. Evidently multiple colors help the shit in the night or something (volume is off). The first thing that popped into my head was oh noes, a spycam you install yourself then i thought the nsa might want to know what you are flushing away. Then I started wondering why you cannot find tinfoil easily any more - just aluminum foils.
Evidently, I was selected (well, my area was) for the census community survey which is mandatory to participate by law. I avoided it as long as I could until I left the house one day and found a census worker parked in the driveway. I know she has been there at least 10 other times from pamphlets left in the door and alarms set off when people enter the driveway triggering my video recording. I'm not sure how this particular day, she didn't set one off unless I forgot to rearm it when checking who was there earlier (I just got home long enough to shower and a few things and had to leave again).
She was insistent that I could not identify as an "American" for the question about race and had to use white, black, hispanic, American Indian, and a couple of other terms. I told her to pencil it in and we would start a trend or something. So she moved along and wanted to know how much I made this year to date, I told her I don't know and do not care to look when the IRS already has all this information. She wanted to know when I worked and how often I was out of the house. I flat out refused to answer that question and after she cited the law, I told her if she wanted to make an issue out of it, we could turn this into a ruby ridge incident for all I cared. They wanted to know how many bedrooms, rooms not counting closets and baths, and how many bathrooms were in the house, how much land it is on and so on. I told her all that information was on file at the county recorders office. Evidently, it was important that I answered anyways.
So she went on to some more questions. All of them were rather personal and she kept reminding me that under the law, they cannot disclose any of the information to anyone else or any other agency in ways that would identify me. So I asked her if there was any laws about the data breech that exposed millions of people who worked for the US government and what steps was being taken to ensure that wasn't possible here. She assured me there was a law banning the hacking of government computers and exposing the information of people. I then started asking about NSA letters and how when the US constitution bans searches without cause and brought up the third party reasoning that supposedly makes the phone surveillance legal/constitutional and asked why we should trust our own government to obey laws that they attempt to skirt around on technicalities. She didn't have an answer.
In the end, I refused to answer some things, took up about 2 hours more of her time than she claimed it should have taken, and I'm not sure anything I actually did provide will be confidential at all. The interesting part is that I apologized for be such an asshole and she said I was mild compared to most of the people she has to track down. Almost every single question except when I was home or not could have been answered by contacting another government agency.
What gets me is they pass a law saying third parties have to keep this information (cellphone/telephone data, prescriptions drug data) then pass a law saying that because it is given to a third party, they can get it any time they want.
I suspect somewhere down the road, a law will be passed saying that all banks that hold a mortgage on a property must grant access to the property without a warrant so even if you rent, your landlord will be forced to open up your home up for inspection without a warrant. It seems crazy but it also seem like this is heading this way. It's about like Dick Cheney going around saying no civil rights were abused because it is third party data and not yours in the first place. It is insulting that the connection cannot be made and the courts stand under the same opinion.
This is why we need trump to win the election. He is a clown but he can appoint ted cruze to the supreme court who while also an asshat, seems to like a strict interpretation of the constitution which should bar this type of activity.
Are you trying to contort this just because you want to argue or is there some deep screwed upness going on that you should have looked at by qualified professionals?
Physics as we understand is little more than our explanation of our observations. These explanations tend to be consistent across materials and such but by no means do they deny or prevent any other explanation from being true also - even if little evidence is present. This is obvious when you look at the progression of metallurgy and materials like steel became available from the same raw materials as iron.
Now you ask why did something happen or why does the claim happen. Well, first - if you were teaching a lesson to someone, would they learn that lesson if you did nothing in their presence? Of course not. I cannot teach you programming if all i do is give you a compiled program to run.
Next, why do they need to point out an omnipotent being made something look a certain way. Well it is as simple as that way being used to explain the impossibility of the omnipotent being. You cannot really expect to tell someone they are wrong because of X and expect them to stay silent when you refuse to consider Y-1=X as well as Y*Z=X. So when you say X means something and there are more than one ways to find X, you have to also allow the other ways.
And that is even without getting into whether a flood or God is true.
It's not as simple as you portray. If it was, we would have already switched to all renewables but that isn't happening.
But I guess my biggest question is why would investors be needing to make a decision at all? If this is a sound process, why wouldn't government be doing it with a small tax across the economy and byproducts paying for it? Government would also have the abilities to isolate itself from any liability if 40 years from now it turns out to be a mess. But they also have the abilities to negotiate trade based on participation and compliance for imports and exports as well as more realistically anticipate the growth of the economy
And I'm not thinking just one government, I'm thinking several in a coalition like NATO but for the environmental defense.
There is a much simpler explanation. The social economic difference between white and black people coupled with the percentage of population in English speaking countries (search terms is in English) gives the results seen due to the saturation of content available.
Criminal elements are a small percentage of the population but when they put mugshots online, they tend to overwhelm a naturally small representation of a population.
What if that was Hogan's intent also and he really doesn't care about the money?
Anyways, it was gawker's own fault. They published it, they refused to take it down when asked and ordered by a judge. I don't care if Hogan borrowed money or gave head to get the lawyer help, if he didn't have a case, he would not have won.
Fishy? Maybe it was a nic summer's eve?