WorldWideLem

If the company you're representing would prefer you didn't, then sure.

Let's use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, "save fascists", would you prefer the store couldn't prevent them from wearing that?

How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?

The statement itself shouldn't be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it's fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.

I believe the legal repercussions are part of that "can ruin your life", not just the addiction and/or health concerns.

Though that still makes it an entirely artificial consequence that does not need to and should not exist.

Is that legal? I know you're not allowed to fundraise off your crimes, does that also apply to civil cases?

Putting on the all too familiar Jets copium hat, they pulled out a W under catastrophic circumstances yesterday against a very good division rival. The Bills defense is going to give most QBs trouble especially when the O-Line isn't holding up well, so I don't think you can make too harsh of a judgement on Zach's performance (even though it wasn't too bad as is).

Now he's got a week to prepare with the starting unit and they can game plan around him, so let's see if he's learned anything from Coach Rodgers.

The one thing in his favor is that he was already a pocket passing QB and it's his front foot when throwing, so the losses you usually think of when it comes to an achilles injury aren't as significant. But he is 40 years old, so any significant injury at that age is going to be a possible career ender.

Something tells me the secessionists wouldn't agree with that. Are they going to let their urban centers secede from their states if they voted to do so?

How does a strike work in this case? Stop paying rent?

That's explored in the movie, no? That's why Cypher betrays them to go back into the Matrix. Some people are fine and even prefer the Matrix, others can't live that way knowing it's all fake.

The government's role in content moderation on private platforms should be purely advisory. Platforms should be able to ask for their advice, and the government should be able to provide the platforms with information. Anything that drifts into coercion or threats should not be allowed.

I'm concerned by the "significantly encouraged" language, which, like the ruling they criticized as being vague, seems quite vague. Though perhaps the full ruling gives more specifics.

Is there something in particular about this book that you think is off? It's standard procedure for US Presidents to have books written about them, and far more mundane people than Biden have gotten the same treatment.