We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.
> getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action”
This is rhetorical device of framing. I could just as easily say:
> Pretending to open an online cupcake shop and pretending to be forced to serve gay people isn’t a “material adverse action”
And it would sound equally ridiculous, yet the highest court in the land ruled in that individual’s favor.
Is MAC a thing outside mergers?
I love this. You:
1. Declare everyone stop talking until an actual expert can speak and educate us all
2. An Actual Expert™ enters the chat and offers his expert opinion.
3. You decide his opinion is bullshit after all, because it disagrees with what you had in mind, and accuse him of being flippant.