This was precisely it.
Obama stalking: checking/feeling out who Kim was with and what Trump may have said.
Silly (((them))); they don't know the plan was in the book.
Nobody suspects the man who once wore a dress (Rodman)
This was precisely it.
Obama stalking: checking/feeling out who Kim was with and what Trump may have said.
Silly (((them))); they don't know the plan was in the book.
Nobody suspects the man who once wore a dress (Rodman)
That "club" would be of note…
To ever see such fair and honest logic from a baker…
I'm not great at this but this paragraph kept jumping…
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
How new are you?
I can't recall anyone from day one who hadn't known for a long fucking timeeven pre PGof all that.
Only opposition in those days were shills. And I actually remember them being pretty quiet: board was serious shit at the beginning.
World ("they") were watching with balls clenched, shill companies silent etc.
Depends what your definition of "is" is.
Kek, kidding. Though something so legally ambiguous as "emotional judgement/good faith" depends solely on the 'tude of the judge…
Procuring children for Clinton is done in "excellent faith" in her courtrooms, I'm sure.