The idea that they don't is plain silly to begin with.

Imagine stating a business and incorporating it. You soak ypur entire savings into it and it is bearly making money. Now imagine the government wanting to ban dihydogen monoxide because it is evil and you cannot say anything to sway public opinion because all your money is tied up in your compamy and because you incorporated and corporations have no speech rights.

Deflection doesn't really escape the point.

GP asked why a bunch of administration friends and family trying to exploit Ukrainian old had to do wiyh the situtation. I explained the perception of those who think it is important. The guy could have been batshit crazy and appearances would still appear.

You can drive 11 hours a day with a 1/2 hour break after 8 consecutive hours since going on duty. All this has to be done before 14hours since you came on duty

However, if you come on duty at midnight and take a 10 hour break after 12 hours, you can drive another 2 hour before the next day and meet that 800 miles. But you took 10 hours off that you could be charging so you ate corect.

I've thought about that too. Some people can bearly drive a car in the first place. Putting a trailer behind them might not be a good idea.

And exactly who pays for this electficity on the other end of this majic plug concept?

When you live in apartment complexes, you do not always get to park in the same spots and you likely cannot dig up the parking lot to instal outlets connected to your meter.

If only it was as simply as parking and lluging in where ever you might be.

I can think of a third. I had no idea fdoid existed until reading these posts. Outside of rooting my phone ans removing a bunch of garbage, i never really looked for more than a few apps and i wont update those due to expanded permisions i find too intrusive.

That being said, now that i know, i will likely use it when i change phones again in about 2 weeks.

You are not really looking at the entire picture.

It starts with some people trying to convince Ukraine to distance itself from Russia and become more European friendly. When the elected president decides to stick with Russia, all the sudden he is a crook and needs removed from office. There are protests demanding his removal, a couple clashes and, he gets removed, flees to Russia and replaced with someone pro west who seems to think rushing these oil and gas contracts in as fast as possible is not nearly fast enough. Now enter Crimea and the Russian backed separatists and there you go.

That's the nutshell of it. Now I suppose the parent thinks it is important that a lot of US government family and friends got cushy jobs on the oil exploration right as this was happening because it shows it happened as someone else like the US was pulling strings and manipulating the Ukraine in order to get that natural gas and money.

But you couldn't ignore Mussolini and move on if you did not like his leadership. Here you can.

I don't think it matters if he was wrongly accused, convicted, or found innocent of the charges. It is still news that it all happened and i do not think yhe intent of this right to be forgotten was ever to hide entire rvents. Its purpose is so that when searching for kevreeduk, it doesn't show up prejudicing my opinion of you in our separate dealings whether it be in getting a loan, job, membership to a club or something or whatever.

Your right to be forgotten doesn't seem to be the right for events to disapear entirely. Just to stop the events from dominating attemps to ascertain your reputation. A lot a businesses make you disclose convictions before being hired so it is likely to benefit innocents more that guilty anyways but there are a lot of other aspect to it too.

Others can still search for the information. They just need to use different terms.

For instance, suppose a fire was set on vacant property and it got out of control burning another property. Supposed the police accused the owner of arson for the insurance money. Now suppode that 20 years later, that owner wants it all to be forgotten. You could sesrch for yhe area, fire, time, statements made by witnesses and so on to find the information about it.

If their EU offices are incorporate in those countries and google otherwise operates outside thst subsidiary, only the portions operating in Europe needs to worry about it.

No word is open to interpretation. There is language and style that was in use at the time of writing the constitution and those are to be applied. Otherwise you could just redefine speech to mean a cracker and press to mean a candy bar and end up with Congress shall make no law: or abridging the freedom of crackers, or of the candy bars and do away with free speech altogether.

If you think that is a silly idea, you should because it is. You claiming it is open for interpretation is silly too.

Also, it doesn't specify that "free" is meant to be both, that is just your interpretation.

Only if you ignore logic, reason and have an inability to construct anything meaningful of either could you say as much. The US constitution grants and prohibits abilities to the federal government. When it prohibits the federal government from doing something, it prohibits it from doing all forms of that something. "free exercise thereof" can have only one meaning, that the federal government (and the states due to the 14th) cannot do anything that would make it non-free in that exercise.

There is nothing in the constitution open to interpretation. All of it is to be understood in the language of when it was written and applied to the times of present. Free in the context of the first amendment means both, the government cannot prohibit or charge for the beliefs and practice of religion. There is nothing ambiguous about it when looked at in context.

I do agree that the constitution can and should be amended instead of ignored or technicality'd away. If whatever that is currently unconstitutional cannot survive the amendment process, it should not be practiced until it does.

ike it or not, Canadians are american, as are mexicans, columbians, brazillians and so forth.

No they are not fool. They are North American or South American or from the Americas. Years of language use that supersedes probably your grandparents time in this world are not to be tossed aside in order to some pretentious idiot to feel good about themselves.

Just because he had the courtesy of making the distinction between the peoples of the americas, does not make his point drivel. Instead, it shows insight which has obviously been lost on redneck sister fuckers such as yourself.

Dribble, I did not say drivel. It shows he is a clueless moron and it seems like you are too.

The fact that you have your head buried so far up your own ass that you are unable to admit that the term american is shared by countries other than our own, just goes to show how people like you allowed our country to become so fucked up through ignorant flag-waving patriotism, and trying to drown out all criticism by mindlessly chanting "USA! USA! USA!"

No, it has never been until recently that people are so damn lazy they drop the North or South or Central or Latin from the American when talking about continental origins. It's intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy. You can lie to yourself all you want but it does not make it correct and when you use the improper terms, do not be surprised if people think you are silly spouting silly things and worth little more than being ignored.

Go pop another Budweiser and shoot a defenseless animal while claiming you're a "real man". Leave the actual thinking to those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.

If you could even put two brain cells together, you wouldn't be spouting this rubbish. It doesn't take much to think, you should try it and then apply it to what you are about to say some time,

Lol.. Is it more than it was before 2012? So no, it is not wrong no matter what kind of fantasy you want to make up.