When we talk about determining guilt based on “a jury of your peers,” why doesn’t the defendant get to weigh in on who their peers are?
Specifically, why can’t they include experts they summoned during their defense?
I wish there were magic words I could say to a police officer whereby I could basically guarantee I would not end up dead.
I’ll even give some ground here.
How about, “I am willing to submit myself to your arrest,” and then I just keep my mouth shut.
What a world.
The sticky note I put up here a week ago – police officers showed up to my mom’s house to question her about my motives.
Step one: unarm the police.
Then let’s talk about defunding them.
Facebook is a great tool to mine data on communications on Facebook.
It looks like a notebook set up by a severe autistic who needs written notes to aid their interpersonal communications.
It’s great for people who need that assistance. It’s a godsend, I’m sure.
It’s a total nightmare for those who can’t figure that out, though.
Put another way, communicating with strangers on Facebook is like writing a novel with mittens.
No, Zucc, my hands aren’t cold. I’m writing.….
*founds mitten company
*makes billions of dollars of mittens
On the other hand, at least the world is going to end soon.
An item is worth what a person is willing to pay for it.
The owner has to sell it, too.
Today, we learned what a “monopoly” does.
That’s a dirty half-dozen for ya. Let me know yours.
Oh, and if we’re adults at 18, and retire at 65, why is most of Congress not retired?
They can advise based on experience, but c’mon now.
Their bodies ain’t gonna hold up to a crash test.
And I *think* we have the technology that, if Congress were to propose a law, we could take a popular vote on the law to see if it’d really benefit the public at large.
Click “like” to subscribe to my posts.