Didn’t Biden call the dude and enemy of the state on a few occasions?
Impeachment… Colluding with enemies of the state…
I’m being facetious of course, I’d rather they break the tradition of trying to impeach every president on their way out the door, but still, how you gonna have a meeting with someone you yourself called an enemy of the state?
‘I’ve got to do this on my own,’" she said last September. “Because if I take the drug, that’s the easy way out.”
Apparently there’s a perception that it matters… You’ll see it with smoking cessation too. Gotta do shit the absolute hardest way possible or you’re somehow “cheating”…
Wouldn’t want people to have taken the easy way to not fucking dying :/
LG effectively has said that their owners manual and a cardboard box have authority over the courts. Clearly, as the courts have nullified it, they fucking dont.
All I see is a damned good reason to ban arbitration agreements outright. If you want to arbitrate a tort, you should be required to motion the court for it.
That sounds like it’s exactly the point…
Normally I’d chalk your comment up as being a little too “tinfoil hat” to warrant engaging, but half the article implies exactly that, and I don’t think the author was doing it on purpose because quite frankly, I don’t think there are any news authors left with the competence to do so.
This is 100% some shit I’d expect to come out of the red team though… The Biden administration hasn’t struck me as being on the side of corporate interests (generally speaking… I’m not naive enough to think the Biden administration couldn’t be bought, I’m speaking to track record here…), and I don’t think this would impact tax revenue much, which is to say that there’s not much ulterior motivation for blues to trump up a bullshit problem to keep Chinese cars out of the market.
I’m inclined to agree with your opinion, but logically it doesn’t add up, is my point :)
There were others who changed sports as well… Fosbury didn’t cause the Olympic committee to implement any bans, which is to say that others arguably attempted much larger changes…
He simply tried something way the hell off the beaten path and it caused people to think differently about how to go about doing their thing.
Jimi wasn’t even the only revolutionary influence in his time, you could argue chuck berry had more influence at the time, you could argue Charlie christian had more influence at sorta the same time, you could argue Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Beach boys…
Nobody came crashing into music from deep left field like Hendrix did though, just like nobody came into the Olympics from deep left field the way fosbury did (I’d argue for korbut, but nobody followed her lead due to pretty much everything she did getting banned).
I get what you mean and don’t disagree, but I did say I was speaking to a specific context ;)
Hendrix. Hendrix is the fosbury of music. Dude went off in his own direction in both technical and compositional terms, and a lot of people followed.
There’s solid points in the comments, but I feel like we’re talking about a single individual ignoring convention here, and there’s really only one answer in that context :)
The movie companies said they were not planning to go after these people in court
Worlds most prolific story tellers tellin stories;)
In case Apple’s advice doesn’t work, it’s safe to say that you probably need help from professional repair experts and may even need to prepare yourself to buy a new iPhone.
“Don’t do anything yourself, just come give us more money”
I’m reasonably certain that once enough governments jump on the “we need to control the internets” bandwagon, there will be a region specific convention adopted similar to country codes for phone numbers so that they can, in fact, apply customs to it…
I suspect it won’t be in the name of righteousness though, more likely it’ll be taxes, copyright, etc, on internet sales that trigger it.
options include the establishment of a digital ID system or services that can estimate an individual’s age based on a visual scan of their face.
Oh yeah… I’m sure that won’t cause any unintended issues at all…
Being black isn’t a disqualifier if you can access resources…
How much discrimination do you think obviously wealthy black people face? A much as a poor black person?
It’s not a matter of skin color in reality, that shit’s nothing more than some extra melanin. The difference is the perception that black people are poor… People see a young black guy in a high end Audi and assume he’s a drug dealer, because they have this societally developed perception that a person of his melanin content is incapable of acquiring that kind of money legitimately. The discrimination is centric to the resources, always has been. There are white people who get just as discriminated against as any other poor person, it’s a huge factor in why Trump’s stupid ass has the following he does… He plays that shit up and nobody else will touch it with a ten foot pole…
Your question would be much better applied to height discrimination, which is something that’s almost never mentioned, but is a lot more indicative of the nature of discrimination itself.
It is instinctual, as others have said, but it has nothing to do with tribalism or war, its about resources. Discrimination is almost always about resources (the notable exception being gender/orientation based discrimination, which I guess is religious?).
The discrimination against small people (and obesity and age as well), is more basic, and likely older (in evolutionary terms), and is oriented towards hunting and fighting. We think less of smaller, fatter, and older people because they’re assumed to be less capable of gathering (and fighting for or defending) basic resources.
Discrimination against races is more recent, and more societal, and is more about monetary resources, and isn’t even entirely a matter of race. Poor white people can be discriminated against in the exact same way for the exact same reasons. Racism is more classist than discrimination against height, weight age, etc. but is essentially still a matter of these classes being seen as less capable of getting resources.
You can see it more easily if you look objectively at the discriminatory tendencies of women (and I mean that in a very generalized way). They tend to be far more discriminatory towards resource based biases… Height, weight, physical condition… They’re often inexplicably attracted to overly aggressive partners, occasionally to their own detriment. The more instinctual a woman is, the more likely to pursue the overly aggressive men. Race isn’t anywhere near as much a factor, and there are notable exceptions in all factors for women if a man obviously has a lot of resources already (no indictment intended ladies, just is what it is, and generally)
And of course it’s more obvious among women for the same reason… The disparity (again, in a very general sense) between male and female in ability to gather and defend resources affects women’s choices of partners more so than men.
Oh shit… My mother was actually a computer… There was a time when that was an actual job title in certain fields.
Gonna have to register my mom now…
“COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.”
I can print an origami pattern on my inkjet using my cell phone…
Ultimately, what I’m asking you is: why would I be opposed to a law that itself is 100% fine, just because the same legislators might later pass a different law that I don’t like?
Ultimately because the basic premise of the law could (in general) be the basis for the government to remove our entire conversation here…
It is potentially a tool to do this
In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true.
I don’t object for the sake of my my benefit, I object for the sake of yours (everyone).
I see it a one degree increment on the proverbial frog in the proverbial pot, being slowly but surely brought to boil and it’s death, and I don’t really care who it affects in the moment.
I absolutely defy the implication that US credibility is in any way whatsoever reflected by trump… Even if he manages to get elected again, he’d still obviously not be representing all of the US…
It’s like saying all Canadians are super liberal because they elected Trudeau… People know better.
I’d go with “reputation”, but not credibility.
the Katz Group alleges that it shouldn’t have to make the donation because Boyle Street didn’t try hard enough to fundraise on its own.
They clearly did try hard enough if Katz promised them five million bucks… Lol…
No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here (I’m totally fine with this personally, no animosity intended at all, I like discourse and you don’t seem like you’re being a dick about it, so we’re on friendly terms here from my perspective)
Do you not think that government determination of what is or is not acceptable on “social media” (quotes because generalizing) is eerily similar to thoughtcrime? And an orwellian policy? Making a 1984 reference in its defense a little ironic?
I realize I discounted the bulk of your comment and all the “logical fallacy” buzz phrases you threw in, but I generally consider that pedantry and responding to it would bring in bad vibes on my side, so I skipped it, sorry. I can engage it, but I won’t have anything to say on it worth reading, it’ll just be old guy bullshit…
How you gonna reference 1984 while actively defending an orwellian policy?
I think that’s a little too advanced for Biden, but it wouldn’t surprise me that hear a staffer suggested exactly that… Don’t think much of Biden, but the current white house is doing damned well IMHO.
I do sincerely hope trump opts out. None of his fan base is going to be affected in the slightest either way, because cult, but trump will think he’s god gift for participating, and his head is already way too fucking big.