On paper: to prevent the abuse of being able to call any any leader a dictator and bypass due process.
In reality: to demoralize any supporters and spread it out across a longer time so there isn't a single event to galvanize them.
Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNlOl12yGqQ
It's a sort of parabola. No tats? Fine. Tramp stamp? Bad. A dozen 30 minute doodles of random shit? Stay the fuck away. One giant back tattoo? Can be surprisingly fine.
There's an interaction of self-control and commitment going on. The ones who make hasty decisions that are permanent and require no follow-through that are the absolute worst. The ones who sat under a needle for 50 hrs on one piece because "I really like dragons" might be a bit off, but in a different way.
“There’s something about the role of the pope that is unlike any other role on earth,” Maddow observed, adding that if Leo “can soften people’s hearts and sharpen people’s vision on this topic, he may change the world
tl;dr: "We've infiltrated the Church far enough to transition it into a mouthpiece for our propaganda."
To the left, this is no different than buying a popular movie franchise but on a higher level. Catholicism comes with established audience who will sit through years of vile garbage before their disgust exceeds the sunk cost. And others will never be able to walk away because they made it part of their identity and won't be able to reconcile that the Church now is not the same as Church then.
The obvious things that jump to mind:
- 0-3 partners and not having HSV-2 are very strongly correlated. Probably squaring the actual value.
- "don't have visible tattoos in casual clothes" is a bitch of a statistic. Knowing how retarded AI is, could be drawing from stats of "has a tattoo, but not visible." Rerun with the restriction as "no tattoos" and see if the result goes up or down.
- Try replacing "right-wing politically" with "not left-wing politically." Would not be surprised if you're leaving a large population of "moderate / undecided" out of the results.
- Not overweight removes 75% of the US population. Nothing wrong mathematically wrong with this one but worth pointing out that, outside of age, it's probably the dominant criteria of your list. "Single 18-25 White women who aren't overweight (or obese)" alone is cutting it down to 900k nationwide.
What makes you think you're in the top 0.05% of men?
I find being taller than 95% of US men is a good starting point.
A visibly smaller court
I assumed you meant the entire court was smaller. Maybe midway between the two so they were both equally off their game. Nope. Her side was smaller Some shots that would be in-bounds for him would now be out. Some shots that would be out-of-bounds for her will now be in. That's nuts.
a man's first serve is massively more threatening than a woman's. Not having a second serve shuts that down
I had to look this up to understand it. For anyone else confused: if you fault on your first serve, you get a second. If you fault again, you lose the point. So people go all out on the first one. If they get a fault, they do a more careful one because of the risk of losing the point. For this match they changed it to fault once and lose the point. This change to the rules made them both rein in their ONLY serves but obviously he's going to be sacrificing way more power between all-out and precision.
Yeah. I've got mixed feelings on it. On one hand, you should be able to pass down what you make to your children. It rewards merit because providing for your family is a powerful incentive. But on the other hand, it's removes merit-based rewards for their descendants. I resolve the disagreement by considering that the government has no business making a decision about that question one way or another.
Besides the rich billionaire you talk about dodges this shit anyway He'd put the ownership of the $2b of stocks in a trust or foundation or something and then just appoint the beneficiary as the CEO. "No money changed hands, someone else is just running this entity now."
>Inherit family business
>Has more than $14m in assets on paper
>Government demands 40%
>Forces you to sell the business to pay them
This is the main problem with inheritance taxes. They're a way of transferring wealth from the people who built it to the corporate donors of the politicians who won't abolish them.
SAY "MCDONALDS" TO END CAPTCHA