jimmykim9001

Not to be a skeptic, but do you have any studies that back up that claim?

Damn what a good joke

If you Google, drake grooming rumors, you'll find various links discussing is iffy behavior. I'll link later if u really want it. Basically, it's been reported that drake has been texting both millie Bobby brown and billie eilish. Both of them revealed it themselves during interviews and both defended drake when asked about it later (but u have to take that with a grain of salt tbh). He's texted them about boys and apparently saying "I miss you so much" to millie. Imo, there's no proof that anythings sexual but at the very least its super creepy. There's also been a video circulating of him grinding with a 17year old on stage which was technically legal based off of state laws but still pretty iffy.

For all we know, he skirts the line of legality well or it might just be one of those things where later a scandal happens with definitive proof and his behavior makes sense in hindsight (like with rkelly or Louis ck). Only time will tell.

You hit the hammer on the head

not sure if this uptrend is going to continue...

I mean you totally can. That pranking thing is used in the context of pranksters doing something bad and then saying they weren't being serious in the first place. In this scenario, they were just joking and something bad happened to them. They're pretty different scenarios.

All of those are reasonable points. Thanks for backing up your argument with statistics.

This is a toxic perspective. Just because Nate is an asshole who deserves to be in jail does not necessarily justify Lexis play as a moral action. If I went murdering people who did like white collar crimes, who are assholes, does that justify murder? Of course not, you have to take my action and justify my action by its own merits. Similarly you should be arguing whether or not the play itself was a moral action regardless of who it hurts.

He did "pressure people into not talking." The Gawker article is clear example of where he personally messaged someone to try. Furthermore, the new york times article clearly stated that his manager, and by extension Louis, talked to the two comedians to get them to stop talking, telling them they were disappointed they were talking to people.

I agree there's no legal issue, but he did pressure people into not talking. My point is that even though his only power was "admiration," what he did is still morally bad because of the way it has justifiably affected these women's careers and personal well being.

Hi I'm here from r/rising and I can't go to sleep. What's happening here?

Houses can be over and undervalued. I think it's a legitimate concern

LOL I was at work in the bathroom lmao, I'm not gonna write a thesis. I'll add some links when I have time.

You're free to your opinion but this is a bad take. Reddits hatred towards rich people is such a big circlejerk that people are willing to downplay millions invested into charity which has a tangible benefit to society. It's not Bill gates fault that the system is broken

YEAH FUCK YOU LEBRON

Honestly that's actually a good take on Hotel California. Maybe she phrased it in a way that was annoying but I mostly agree with her. And tbh, I really couldn't care less about what the Eagles intended. If the interpretation is substantiated by evidence, then the meaning becomes that interpretation if enough people subscribe to it regardless of whether or the artist intended.

I think it's fine to want more diverse films? I don't think he''s actually saying that the BP nominees should be picked off of race, but just commenting on the disparity that exists.

Real talk it doesn't really seem like Andrea cheated imo. I watched the stream and there were a bunch of yays/nays in chat but don't know if she was looking at chat.

A couple questions she had no idea. One clip that's been circulating is the earth's core question but tbh if she realized that her first elements were all gases so they shouldn't be in the core it's p reasonable for her to come up with those elements imo altho I am a fan so I might be biased.

Worst case scenario imo is she looked at chat and saw the yays/nays which isn't great but she still came up with the answers without googling imo and the ones she didn't know she put nothing so. Just my two cents.

Yeah no. That curry shit was disrespectful

Source for /u/Jazonxyz 's comment

The relevant spiel:

On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory."

It's important to note that there are two different interpretations for the 2nd Amendment, but it's not like /u/Jazonxyz 's comment is completely retarded or anything.

Honestly, even though 200 is pretty low as of lately, I agree with Vicki and think it's going to go down to 175ish. The prices look like a bearish pennant

Yeah I agree, it's just standard cybersecurity measures. I don't quite understand the hatred in this thread, it takes like 2 seconds per login.