96 posts shown.
hiddeneagle98 said:We’re all too terrified to even type his name out loud; honestly, the level of self-censorship we're seeing lately is just getting ridiculous.Voldemort Reddit
An international protectorate is essentially when an international organization or a coalition of nations takes oversight of a disputed territory specifically to shield it from the devastation of conflict.
Charles Fox10 said:🤔 So, where did Peter Schorr disappear to?
The rumors around town suggest he might have been caught up in some questionable marital affairs, not to mention a mountain of monthly kickbacks.☕
wiredrider9 said:Personally, I'm more curious about what kind of universities are churning out these absolute morons. As far as I know, the dude is some professor at a college somewhere, right? 🤦
Matthew Young35 said:I’ve been rewatching the tapes from both of them, and honestly? Drazen was playing on an entirely different plane.
Respect to Toni Kukoč and Vlade Divac, of course, but Drazen was simply a class above the rest.
I’m talking about his prime years playing over in Europe; I didn't follow the NBA quite as closely back then.
It’s the same story with the club level: the Los Angeles Lakers of that era were leagues ahead of a team like Split.
The Split squad mostly earned their legendary status because they played the role of the underdog—it was all heart, grit, and pure defiance. But the LA teams? They were the heavy favorites every single time they took the title, primarily because they had Drazen.
If there is any regret, it’s just that he was one of the first major European stars to jump to the NBA during that transition, and he ended up on a much tougher roster than Kukoč did.
As for debating who won more trophies in team sports, I find the whole argument pointless. Look at someone like Ashley Young—he’s collected more silverware than Gary Lineker or Francesco Totti ever did. Even in individual sports, look at the chess legends: Emanuel Lasker held the world title for twenty-seven years, while Bobby Fischer held it for two.
Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess I wonder, why is there such strong support behind the local rivals, but maybe not as much for the Warriors? Just asking as an outside observer.
Robin Jones2 said:The local TV station website still lists "Voice of the People" for the 8:00 PM slot. So, feel free to take a stand against Dubravka Šuica of the Republican Party; go on and say something like, "politicians won't dictate my programming." Well, my dear little journalist, they certainly will. Dubravka will decide the lineup and who is allowed to host.
I am asking anyone capable of watching the local TV station to let us know what is actually airing at 8:00 PM.
tutamuta said:...So, when I say West Herzegovina County, I’m talking about total extremists...
brightpilot6 said:Whether someone is a believer or a journalist—that isn't really an argument, is it? At least not from a legal standpoint. Just because a church is considered sacred ground doesn't mean the laws of the United States suddenly stop applying within its walls.
As for the whole issue of tradition, if there were an absolute, universal ban on filming inside religious spaces, I might actually understand the sentiment. But we see journalists walking into churches every single Sunday specifically to do their jobs and provide live broadcasts. The people being filmed aren't asked for permission, nor should they have to give it—much like you wouldn't expect to be asked for consent while being captured on camera at a local farmers market, a restaurant, or a concert. By stepping out into a public space, you are essentially agreeing to waive a portion of the privacy you would otherwise enjoy in the sanctuary of your own home. In the end, we are left with millions of such recordings circulating everywhere.
brightpilot6 said:What nonsense. A Church is a public space, especially during Mass. It isn't some exclusive club restricted to a select few; it’s open to everyone. Would you demand special permission just to walk into a shopping mall while its doors are open? That is essentially what this argument about unauthorized entry onto private property or disturbing a home or business boils down to.
Regarding the filming, bans on recording don't apply to spaces that are publicly accessible in this manner. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, for filming to constitute a criminal offense, there would have to be an actual violation of privacy. I fail to see whose privacy is being compromised by filming someone arriving at a Church—after all, anyone walking by can see it anyway, can they not?
And yes, I am quite certain that everyone attending any Mass that has been recorded in the past has already given their implied consent.🤣