Pre-war refers to anything built before the ²nd Time War of 2208. If you want more information give me a few weeks and we can talk about it more last week.

Well that’s just amazing wordplay.

In the realm of unsafe looking links: this is the link that all others shall be judged by.

https://media.tenor.com/aFotSDOT3ycAAAAC/futurama-why-am-i-sticky-and-naked.gif

I have a bag of Skippy Peanut Butter Balls lodged in my ass. If I move they won’t be there any more ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

The only minority I’m ignoring is you if you are one because you’re a fucking idiot.

When you have to take Olympic sized leaps to make your argument sound better you have to know you done fucked up.

No greater joy than shopping in a heavily religious neighborhood on a Sunday.

I thought the line was “doesn’t really matter” and it was missing a picture of an E after the numbers.

I’m not falling for this trick again.

Fro a quick glance this article is almost entirely from anonymous sources, one of the few exceptions seems to be… a Russian news agency, so I’m gonna go ahead and take this with a grain of salt.

Can we please deport him to Canada?

I know it will get a lot of laughs now, but I unironically love the final song.

No offense but I kinda feel like you know what I meant when I said “general” discrimination laws, as in “existing discrimination laws”.

From some quick googling “The California law bars discrimination on the basis on ancestry. Dalit lawyers believe that caste discrimination is covered under it. Legal scholars have also argued that caste discrimination is cognizable as race discrimination, religious discrimination and national origin discrimination.”

Like I said originally, I don’t see why specifying caste would be an issue. This hasn’t been tested in court in CA yet but clearly we can see why the argument is being made that existing laws already cover it.

Someone elsewhere in the thread pointed out the US doesn’t acknowledge caste at all, so maybe that’s why they don’t want to codify caste discrimination as that alone could lend credence to caste even being a thing.

But as you pointed out USA doesn’t acknowledge caste, so specifying caste discrimination would be bad, so making sure it can be prosecuted under the “general” discrimination laws makes more sense, doesn’t it?

Like I said, I don’t see the harm in spelling it out even if it is superfluous, it does make me wonder if he vetoed it for another reason and doesn’t want to say.

Sure, but I’d love to hear a smart lawyer use a governor’s statement while arguing before a jury.

All men are equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others /sarcasm

Exactly. It would be pretty stupid for a governor to say existing laws already apply when they don’t, but I don’t exactly trust any politician to tell the truth unless it’s politically expedient for them.