

What’s the background for your link? Who puts out that info, what insight does it bring, and how honest is it?


What’s the background for your link? Who puts out that info, what insight does it bring, and how honest is it?


From the article:
“One thing, you don’t want to signal too much when we go in,” Trump said. “We went in very hard and we didn’t tell anyone about it because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?”
You should put that stuff in an old cigar box and label it “old memories”.
Not my joke.
I had to disable https


Much appreciated


If no one has claimed Injustice 2, I’d be interested. Thank you for doing this.


Based on their comment above I asked if the following assumptions were correct. They appeared to confirm them:
It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it’s impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.
Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won’t be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).
Are you saying there are recorded facts that agree with their assumptions? Could you please provide a source?


Thanks for confirming my assumptions above. I don’t agree.


It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it’s impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.
Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won’t be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).


If you poop out the stolen item, I think we can move past calling them a “suspected” thief.


Wait until you find out What’s playing second base.
To answer your question, here is the first paragraph: