In theory, stock holders could raise objection to the current direction of the company, and hold its current leadership liable for their loss in stock price.
In practice, nothing at all.
Who pissed in your cheerios, mate?
I think if you're listening to youtube and podcasts, your attention is not on your work. You're working from home, not pretending to work from home. Listen to podcasts on your own time, wageslave!
Those poor TVs left turned on, casting the vacant room in their WNBA broadcast glow.
Ah, I see the issue here. The Serpent was the devil himself in disguise. But the serpents are small-brained lizards that sometimes starve to death in captivity because they can't recognize "food" right in front of them.
It's just a translation issue, really.
She will later marry him out of "spiritual obligation". Wouldn't want to be racist, after all.
If they're anything like most carnivorous large land species, they're three-quarters the size but of similar bite strength and head size (distinguishing them from adolescent male orcs). Statistically speaking, they're also uglier, as in almost all large land species the male develops the more marked secondary characteristics in order to show fitness and attract mates (manes, crests, tusks, antlers, etc).
Honestly, that isn't that bad. I thought it'd be way more in-detail than that at this point.
Hah hah hah, nope. You're thinking capitalism. But we live in a cronyism society.
It's public land paid for and maintained in part through public money, that goes into private hands. Specifically, the government builds and maintains the highway, then sold it off to private companies, who then collect the profits on the highway being used. Strictly speaking, it was leased-for-99-years, not sold, which is why the government still helps maintain it. By modern evaluation, the lease price was 10% of what it was actually valued at, or in other words, the government effectively built and maintains it, then just gave it away. And of course, forbids any competitors from showing up.
In terms of "case by case basis" for shady partnerships, it would be a case. In fact, it's lost multiple lawsuits for its shady practices! ...But the payouts were only in the millions, when it makes tens of billions, so why would it care?
Ja, das Xizzy zere ist ubergood at litigation.
And because they wanted the cash grab, now this is case law, ugh.
The only excitement that should be present in a good political chamber is when the lunch break begins.
You socialist! (GASP!)
...who is national! (PHEW!)
It's all socialism, always has been.
It likely isn't. There's been plenty of studies on spousal abuse, and they're pretty much all in consensus that the fewer men in the relationship, the more likely it is to be abusive. M-M gay couples have the least abuse, M-F couples mid, and F-F couples have an overwhelming lead, when polled. Who am I to argue with TheScience?
Being in an abusive relationship is going to cause psychological distress. And your identity doesn't change until you act upon it, meaning they're more and more flirting with the abusive coupling category.
the origins go back to Jim Crow and segregation.
So... It was the left then, and it was the left now? Not sure how that tracks with your "left or right" statement follow-up.
So... Menwo.
#BringBackWereman
"Normal and not a genetic endpoint" is a pretty poor standard.
With that as the standard, we discard almost all cancer research. After all, it's endemically common, normal, and not a genetic endpoint. We give up on Alzheimers, too.
I think humanity can hold itself to a higher standard than "normal and not a genetic endpoint".
Anyone and anything assigned in class to youths is boring. The act of making it a regimented and evaluated process refines out any happiness that may have once existed in it.
A hammer and sickle seemed to be a bit too obvious.
It's important to remember that the ruling class isn't some Andrew Ryan philosophist cabal seeking only those who can freely think the strongest. They want livestock. Livestock dumb enough to go "I have been told that this has a good chance of harming me, but I was told to do it, so I will do it with a smile".
It is grey area, from what I understand.
If they make the illigitimate transaction first, and then "sold" the art later, to the original person or someone else, then it would be money laundering, but if the two transactions occurred simultaneously, then it is instead an illegal transaction that included within it some legal goods. And if they sold the art first, then it's simply distribution of illegal things within a vaccuum. The chronology matters a lot.
The wordplay actually helps a great deal here: Money laundering is when you get dirty messy money, and then you clean up the money so its all nice and usable. Like sending a shirt to a laundry service. But that means there needs to be money to launder in the first place. A person who switches all their cash into bitcoin and then back into cash, THEN robs a bank, isn't laundering the stolen money, it came later.
And the rich and powerful know this. Why add extra liability to your actions? So they pre-purchase the inflated-price "legitimate" goods. Epstein infamously had that weird painting of Bill Clinton in underwear, it's probably an excellent example of such an item, since that item would never see open market sale to give a real valuation.
Defining terms? What are you, a biologist?
A few of these points, to me, might be mistaking cause and effect, when they're likely both effects from the same cause.
Having an abortion doesn't make a teen commit suicide 10x more often, but rather, the type of teen who is likely to have no value to the sanctity of life and hate themselves will more likely be one "requiring" an abortion. Likewise with mental health issues: A woman who miraculously has surpassed the lowest bar of self control of "at least use a singular form of some type of birth control if you don't want a kid but MUST have sex immediately" is going to be much, much more likely to be mentally stable than one that cannot surmount that truly impossible obstacle.
Likewise, people who make the idiotic decision to willfully poison themselves for entertainment are, freeballing this here it's just a guess, more likely to engage in other risky activities that may not be the most intelligent choices. Preventing the one isn't likely to prevent the other, they're both sourced from the fact the surveyed respondant has no sense of personal responsibility, security, pride, or consequence.
Correct title: "Disney’s Lightyear Flops At The Box Office Following Being An Uninspired And Poorly Made Cash Grab, Blames -isms For Its Own Flaws."
Myth: Zombies will spread as an insidious growing mass of unstoppable horror.
Reality: "Prove you're not racist with hug-a-zombie day!"