I am assured that mr. Trump is a trust worthy leader. Abe said he touched on a number of issues but gave no further details on the talks. He said that he and donald trump agreed to meet again to have deeper talks. The words of a young boy from fukushima has focused the attention of japan on the problem of bullying. The family moved away from the area during the 2011 nuclear meltdown. But the experiences at his new home led him to thinking about killing himself. These are the words of a boy from fukushima. He doesnt want his name used. He survived the 2011 Nuclear Accident that happened not too far from his home. His family moved to yokohama when he went into the second grade. And thats when the bullying started. Kwlasz classmates teased the boy by adding the word germ to his name referring to the radiation around fukushima. They called me a germ and i knew it was because of the radiation in fukushima and it made me very sad. And i thought about how people from my region are becoming th
I am assured that mr. Trump is a trust worthy leader. Abe said he touched on a number of issues but gave no further details on the talks. He said that he and donald trump agreed to meet again to have deeper talks. The words of a young boy from fukushima has focused the attention of japan on the problem of bullying. The family moved away from the area during the 2011 nuclear meltdown. But the experiences at his new home led him to thinking about killing himself. These are the words of a boy from fukushima. He doesnt want his name used. He survived the 2011 Nuclear Accident that happened not too far from his home. His family moved to yokohama when he went into the second grade. And thats when the bullying started. Kwlasz classmates teased the boy by adding the word germ to his name referring to the radiation around fukushima. They called me a germ and i knew it was because of the radiation in fukushima and it made me very sad. And i thought about how people from my region are becoming th
When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say
When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say
When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say