Cavill, Henry Cavill.
I can't wait to see how Spectre responds to Superman who is Bullet Proof.

To give some context to the price of petrol in New Zealand driving electric vehicle demand.

In April 2026 Kiwi's pay around NZD 3.60 per litre which is USD 2.09 per litre or (ensure you're seated) USD 7.92 a gallon. I'd love if we only paid USD4 a gallon (or a $1.80 a litre).

Is this strategy the same as Arasaka or the Galactic Empire eventually accepting only their own currency?

Minority Report, Precrime and the precogs was the horror story before the apocalypse and not an fffffffing action plan.

A sovereign wealth fund is built when your nation has repaid their foreign debt so, is this an Onion news article?

The comedic value that Trump has proven that criminal behaviour and a conviction isn't a barrier to your country's presidency should encourage you to update or abandon your delusional conspiracy.

Another who believes "sovereignty is the absolute authority in this world and another sovereignty doesn't have authority over another sovereignty" hasn't read American history for the past 60 years because I doubt that Guatemala 1960, Belgian Congo 1964, Guatemala 1964, the Dominican Republic 1965-66, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Lebanon 1982-84, Grenada 1983-84, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1981-92, Nicaragua 1981-90, Iran 1987-88, Libya 1989, Panama 1989-90, Iraq 1991, Kuwait 1991, Somalia 1992-94, Bosnia 1995, Iran 1998, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Libya 2011, Iraq and Syria 2014 and Somalia 2011 share your delusion.

Thing#1 wrong with SCOTUS, it has judges appointed by TRUMP!
Items #2-5 can wait 'cos #1 is a big frackin' problem (which happened with the failed US constitution).

Yeah, that's our (NZ) socialist government. Leading with ideology and reducing the NZ primary product output. Choosing virtue signalling over solving problems.

The funny thing is that even if NZ eliminate our 0.7% contribution of climate-damaging gases to the world's total, China's decision to build 43 coal-fired power stations wipes out that hard work in a single day.

Possibly true. Okay, almost-certainly true (in the purest statistical sense) when you ask if we'd like an Americano or milk or syrup with that. I do however tip the guy that asks if it's "an extra shot day" 'cos some days, we need the extra shot of caffeine and he that delivers extra caffeine is a saint and safe from any harm forever!!

Truth in advertising and publishing is a different issue to tax avoidance. Certainly both are motivated by self interest however taxation is already defined in legalisation.

Your reference to "companies do so everyday by actively evading paying their fair share of taxes" isn't (illegal) tax evasion but your opinion. To resolve (legal) tax avoidance you need to (1) write simpler laws which (2) levy tax on corporate income without (3) penalising saving and investment. Finally (4) either (a) employ extra-jurdisial taxation (as the US does with their citizens living overseas) or (b) eliminate the tax havens zero tax policies (through negotiation, mutual treaties or a trade embargo).

What is your opinion.

The last time hollywood writers went on strike we got a whole lot of unscripted reality TV such as The Apprentice which in turn made Trump a media 'star'. Can't wait to see the unintended consequences of a second strike.

Identify which App Store(a) is/are affected or quit baiting me

I guess that given the choice between protecting your constitutional rights or fellow citizens desire to not be randomly killed that each side as made a choose however are there are two problems, secondly both sides are right. Firstly, both sides are also wrong.

* Pro-gun is correct to protect all citizens constitutional rights because erosion of a single right could easily cascade to removal of some or all rights. Trying to remove gun crime from society without removing a citizens right to bear arms is impossible when Anti-gun ignore the unintended consquences of their arguments. (Refer to Anti-gun is wrong).
* Pro-gun is wrong to assume the USA is a despotic hell-hole where fully automatic weapons are required for protection in a civilised society. Other similarly well armed nations control weapons, outlaw fully automatic weapons are have a level of gun crime several orders of magnitude less that the USA. (Refer to Anti-gun is correct).
* Anti-gun is correct to desire the same level of safety from gun death as other well armed countries (such as Canada, Switzerland and Australia) because protections demanded by pro-gun are unnecessary. The likihood of being killed by a stolen weapon is far, far more likely than the USA will (1) turn into a hellish, totolertarian fascist state overnight. (Refer to Pro-gun is wrong).
* Anti-gun is wrong when they fail to consider the unintended consquences of their attempts to limit the 4th amendment (for the reasons which pro-gun is right).

Two sets of interdependant logic creates two examples of circular logic (it's very difficult to break one circular logic cycle, this problem has two sets circular logic). I don't know which side will win however the outcomes for anti-gun failing are far, far more likely to be horrible than if pro-gun is wrong.

Agreed. The comment that the police "have to take all threats seriously" ignores the pre-existing bulling events or school sub-culture. I'm guessing if you're attacked at that school and defend yourself then you suffer the same punishment as the attacker (while assuming the attacker is punished).