Joncash2

Of course she does. All American politicians are Israeli puppets. It's always been strange to me that this is the case. However, I've also never seen an example that goes against the grain. Even Sanders is all about decreasing weapons sent, not stopping.

Wow, this shows absolutely no understanding of how ERA works. Let's pretend for a second that the light steel in a truck is enough to protect against the backfire of an ERA brick. It's not, but let's pretend. Even then, only the door would be protected, everything else that's on glass, which all of it pretty much is would backfire into the truck cabin. It's like sticking grenades all over your truck.

Actually sort of. I mean I guess what you would call a soup. Though the Chinese would just consider that a sauce. The put that shit on everything. Well different sauces. Here's a random picture of a Chinese school lunch.

https://whatsforschoollunch.blogspot.com/2009/08/china-school-lunch-fish-and-vegetables.html

You see how the veggies are glistening? They're covered in a sauce made with cornstarch and broth. Even the fish has a layer of sauce on it.

So yeah, a sandwich would be pretty dry. But that's not really what they're talking about.

In Chinese food, there's an insane amount of seasonings that basically go in everything. At a minimum they use something called 5 spice which is a mixture of you guessed it, 5 spices. So the dry they're referring to is actually seasoning. So something like a subway sandwich with italian dressing, salt, pepper and oregano wouldn't be dry in the way they're using it. They're really just referring to the sandwich being unseasoned. Also, here's a tip, if you're going to make a sandwich, season it. Even just adding salt and pepper will make it taste way better.

I am about to share way way too much. So I figure I must be fairly attractive for a male, though I don't consider myself all that attractive. I have been hit on by both women and gay men. Most men on this planet have not, from either.

Here's the thing that women don't get. Even for someone like me it's few and far between. Like once a decade rare. And the few times it has happened, it did feel pretty good.

Imagine pining for that. I'm in a happy marriage, but I could imagine how lonely it would be to never have it happen ever.

So the saddest thing about her response that a straight man is jealous of the attention a 23 year old woman gets truly shows her ignorance. Because, many men would want that. Even if it's just to get a compliment once.

It's a sad world we live in.

If that happens good? Why do we think having countries and borders that creates strife a good thing? If we eliminate all borders and are just humanity I see that as an absolute win.

I don't know why this isn't talked about more, but the reason for the disconnect is that USA has become a petrostate. As a petrostate, the rich get wildly rich and makes the economy look good, while the citizens are fed a bunch of religion to keep them from protesting.

Except by your own argument it really is. The UK has blocked many sites for many reasons. However, none of those reasons are for crowd control. Your example is ironically proof of the statement. This is the first time a western nation has banned media for the explicit purpose of quelling a protest and suppressing speech. Your example is a government banning a site not to quell a protest or to suppress speech, but instead because of a governmental disagreement between two nations. Now which one you think is valid for suppressing speech is a totally different question, only that they are two separate and completely different reasons.

It's good that you point that out. Because it shows US really can't sanction China and only entities within it like it does to its own allies as opposed to straight country sanctions like Iran and North Korea.

https://www.tradecompliance.pitt.edu/embargoed-and-sanctioned-countries

Here's a list.

In fairness though, that list also shows the US can't sanction Russia either. So not sure how much of a flex not being able to sanction China is.

Which is exactly what you'd expect if they ran AI to ask questions? Topics and controversies are going to pop up a lot. A bot would obviously re-ask about it as they see many people talking about it. It would be more surprising if it didn't ask about issues that were stirring controversies.

Yes, they can't operate the website in USA so they'll operate it in Canada and Mexico. And yes, that's why they're targeting the stores and not the site, because the only thing they can do is prevent operations inside the country but they cannot block access to it.

Finally, of course technically Apple could only allow EU to do this, but much like their transition to USB-C it would be weird if they did that. ESPECIALLY since having Tik Tok on their phones would be a benefit to them, not a negative.

*Edit: Also I was defining free speech in my initial post, which you seem to agree with. I was not trying to define this abhorrent loophole of a bill that bans but doesn't ban because of 1A Tik Tok. And if you don't understand why the government trying to loophole out of the constitution is bad, well I have no words.

Actually that's not correct. Media isn't like other products, it's protected speech. This is why even though we've sanctioned Russia, you can still go and read Russian Times. Even foreign media, which Tik Tok is, would be protected under our free speech laws.

This is why this "ban" isn't a ban, which the senators keep repeating. It doesn't block Tik Tok or it's website from being used by Americans. All it does is block Tik Tok from being distributed by American app stores. So if they don't divest, you could still go to their website and download their app. With the new EU ruling, Apple is going to have to allow third party installation anyway, so you'll still be able to use Tik Tok as if nothing happened.

So what's all this really about? Propaganda and showmanship. They're just pushing a China bad narrative as realistically our 1A laws prevent them from doing anything actually effective here.

That's an excellent question because people completely misunderstand freedom of speech. The law is freedom of speech from government persecution. Which is literally what banning Tik Tok is. It's the government persecuting a company for being Chinese.

What the law does not protect is private persecution. If you come to my house and announce you're a pedo, I can kick you out of my house for that. Just like tik tok can ban you.