Wow. For the first time ever, I thought it was really smart of someone to get facial tattoos. The facial tattoos are probably the only thing getting him vaguely treated as an adult. It makes me think he's actually a really smart person, but also, he's probably very angry after decades of being treated badly.

There's a huge difference about the way the media is reporting the horrific information uncovered in these files.

Independent media, who are having to read the files themselves and view the images and the videos, you can just see that they are damaged by that information because it's so disturbing. And the vast amount of it is so overwhelming. You can see that they're upset by it.

But when you watch the mainstream media, the "Reporters" aren't really directly reading or viewing any of the file information. They're just getting a summary from somebody else in their organization who's reading it for them. And so they can report it very disinterested. They're actually downplaying it. It makes you think they seem more professional, but it's just because reporters in the mainstream media are not actually looking at all this awful stuff, and if they did, I think they would be reporting it much more accurately as the devastating and horrible thing it really is.

Unless they're all stuck together, and then it counts as one big nacho.

Fast Car is one of those songs that always makes me cry.

I've been listening to Bob Marley & the Wailers:

Get up, stand up: stand up for your right

Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight

The article says "There is no structural or blanket barrier to states bringing a criminal prosecution against federal officials."

This is good news. I was hoping there would be at least one example of it being used. Does anyone know if this idea has been tested via any cases in the past?

I wonder if the Institute for Justice will take up any of these cases on an individual level?

Same here. I get nauseous playing most first person games so I miss out on a lot. The only thing that sometimes helps is if the game lets you slow down the camera movement.

Is it true they paid people to see it? It might be a joke, but I heard they were giving out free tickets plus $50. And people were required to stay for the entire film in order to get the money.

My two favorite films of hers were Nightmare Before Christmas and Best in Show. She was a treasure.

She's a keeper. You're lucky. She's letting you know what irritates her, and how to avoid aggravating her again and also providing a way to make it up to her. This is the way to a harmonious life.

How else do you interpret what he says other than that he's threatening to kill her, since that's what's been happening the last couple of days, one woman is dead and two people are injured. We all know about qualified immunity, but are police and ice agents actually allowed to threaten to murder people? Are there no exceptions to qualified immunity when it comes to threatening to kill people?

Absolutely true.

It gets even more disturbing, though, when you realize how far $5000 would get you in 1946 and how little it gets you now.

Context: when my dad was a teenager, he bought a brand new car for well below $1000. And my grandparents' first suburban house cost about $7000, and that was in New York, near the city.

What would $5000 get you today?

A junker used car OR two months rent.

Hint:

Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses