That website gave my phone herpes. Jesus christ, what is wrong with these media companies and their horrific sites? Do they think people like constant pop-ups and auto-play videos that can’t be stopped or minimized?
Belarus, you allowed Russia to use your land and cross the Belarussian/Ukrainian border to launch attacks on Kyiv. You’re already the aggressor. You can’t claim self defense just because the attack failed.
Yeah guarantee that fat fuck will pull a Milosevic or Ken Lay* and die before we can get any sense of closure.
*I read a somewhat credible conspiracy theory that Lay faked his death, wouldn’t surprise me. I’m not worried about trump doing that though because he’d never be able to lay low with his mouth shut lol
“In August, high-end tourism continues to grow, unlike normal tourism,” Antonio Coviello, a researcher with Italy’s National Research Center wrote in a report on luxury travel issued this week, adding that the risk of over-tourism in the luxury sector is a concern because it could drive up prices in the mid-range travel sector to accommodate the bigger spenders.
Says a lot, doesn’t it? Specifically: The peasants can get fucked.
If it’s the report I think they’re referring to, it basically said Aspartame is possibly carcinogenic but safe at normal consumption levels.
It raised a lot of doubt around Aspartame being carcinogenic without going so far as to deem it non carcinogenic, concluding that more studies are needed.
I wouldn’t call it overwhelmingly positive for Coke but it’s not hurting them.
If the truth is that it's a carcinogen, a WHO report saying it's fine in small amounts would be overwhelmingly positive for Coke, I'd say. Just like tobacco companies being behind the studies showing the "healthiness" of vaping as an alternative, even though it might decrease cigarette sales a bit.
There have been dozens of studies over multiple decades looking into aspartame and have found it isn't carcinogenic. One Coke-funded study one way or the other doesn't change the massive body of research.
Okay, corruption like that should be corrected. Regardless, there's no scientific evidence that aspartame is harmful. Let alone a biochemical reason for why a dipeptide of two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that dissociates in the stomach into its constituent components and some byproducts would be harmful in the first place.
Unless you have phenylketonuria, but you have much bigger problems in that case and, if that is the case for you, kudos on being at an age and capability to read and understand this post, you are incredible.
Edit: Also, just noticed the part about US Right To Know, which is a well known anti-science group that's been pushing pseudoscience and fearmongering about other topics, such as biotechnology, for years. So them being involved here raises questions.
Not from America so please someone explain to me, I read Biden wanted to forgive student loans but somehow it didn’t get through. Sure it would be much better if the loan is forgiven, but now it is not, shouldn’t you still pay back what is owned? They really think they can just not pay and expect no consequences?
Of course everyone involved knows they will face consequences, but they may feel those consequences are better than the payments. Courts can’t garnish paychecks that don’t exist and a ruined credit rating only matters if you were ever going to be able to afford to buy a house or car in the first place. Afaik actual jail time isn’t really a thing for defaulting on a loan. If the only leverage the government has to get people to pay the loan is to threaten their future financial security, then anyone who thinks the initial promises of security is bogus has nothing to lose.
There’s also some people who are willing to take the hit just to send a political message.
That said, I suspect nowhere near 62% of borrowers will actually meaningfully boycott in any way.
These loans are out right predatory. I was offered a 12% interest rate 7 years ago and have friends who’ve been offered 16%!!!
Yes you can say just don’t sign it, but we’re 17 years old we can’t comprehend how much affect a 16% interest rate will have on you in 8 years and you’ve been told all your life college is the goto life path and you have to do this to get a “good job” and live a good life.
I agree we should payback the money we loaned, but taking advantage of genz via predatory loans for wanting a higher education is downright criminal in itself.
Adding onto this a lot of us will struggle to make these payments. I have 20k in loans and I haven’t paid a dime on EVER. Now I suddenly have a second car payment out of nowhere!
He didn’t want to. He wanted to go thru the motions. If this mattered he would have executive ordered it and forced Congress to override. Even the Supreme Court can’t force the federal government to collect a debt/tax. And given the state of Congress there was no way Congress would override it.
Biden not only wanted too, but he made sure he had a backup plan. He found a loophole in Clinton era legislation that allows a president to create income based repayment plans. It’s not quite forgiveness, but it’s the best he can do with Republicans controlling the house. apnews.com/…/student-loans-debt-college-cancellat…
If you want true loan forgiveness, vote Democratic.
As I said, he could have instructed them to just not act on or pursue any payments. Let Congress vote to force the executive to do something deeply unpopular.
If the next president reverses the order, then all these people are in the same position and might owe additional interest. Banks know this, so they will hold it against anyone seeking credit. Congress doesn’t even have to vote.
With the income based repayment, they aren’t considered delinquent on their loans, interest doesn’t build, and there is a path towards having the debt forgiven eventually.
This. For all the shit he did, Trump expanded the executive powers through EO more than any modern president ever has. Biden could have 100% EO’d student loan forgiveness, damned the consequences but chose not to.
We have been trying to make flying wings work for decades, since the jet engine I think. The stealth bomber is one, but afaik they are horribly unstable.
What makes this different from any other attempt?
Blended wing is slightly different than flying wing but they both date to the early 20th century before jets even. Computer advancements in controls has generally been the change over the last few decades for control of the flying wings. Blended wings are a pretty wide range and include things like the SR-71, B1 Lancer, and quite a few UAVs.
We need a sensible, omnipotent one world government under the care of a benevolent, charismatic potentate like Claus Schwab to reign in rogue emitters and punish carbon terrorists!
Given humanity’s track record at self governance, rolling the dice is preferable. We’re too cruel, too stupid, too hateful, way too selfish, and basically a danger to ourselves and all other terran life.
Most people aren’t that way I think, it’s just that the ones that are amass a ton of resources and get followers and become difficult to deal with by the time normal folks get pushed pass their timidity
Like, Fortune 500 CEOs are 12 times as likely to be diagnosable psychopaths, but a world run by janitors with the right rules to vote by and a free press to keep them honest totally can work imo
This seriously blows my mind too though, I just can’t get my head around it. Did they all just forget that they live on the planet too? Do they not have activities and things they enjoy that depend at least somewhat on a functional ecosystem and life sustaining planet?
Or do they not care if we all have to eat insects and nutrient paste in underground bunkers as long as they get more than everyone else?
You’ve never seen another human refuse to address a problem affecting them (and others) because the solution could affect their current levels of comfort and habit?
It goes like this: “I’ll be dead before shit hits the fan. I also don’t give a shit about the lesser man and those that come after me. If the law allows it; I’ll do it.” -Billionare
I think that they believe, because of the money they have, that they can find ways to mitigate a lot of the effects of climate change.
Aircondition, all sorts of high end isolation, the ability to afford fresh food and water that’s becoming too expensive for us normies, being able to just move to whatever place on the planet that is still nice to live, …
Compared to the next 100 years we had a utopia, and completely squandered it in a century of grotesque excess. If the species survives 20th/21st century people likely be viewed worse than we do nazi’s; ecocidal maniacs.
I find it ridiculous that the climate movement has rarely mentioned the hyperinflation of food and cost of living collapse that climate change will cause. Our civilisation is built around a dependable climate. Our cities constructed where the rain falls and flows.
Oh, please. I’m merely highlighting a major oversight. Olive oil is the least of our concerns. ALL food and most resources face double digit annual inflation from climate change in the near future.
Climate change has historically been framed as weather extremes, rising sea levels, etc — for as long as I’ve been alive. Only very recently has scarcity, inflation, and economic turmoil greater than the Great Depression, or anything in modern history, entered discussion. Most people still aren’t aware of how fragile our agriculture is.
If the goal was to make people understand the gravity of the situation and scare them into action, neglecting to convey that we risk meat, seafood, etc becoming unaffordable for the 99%, along with many staples, before they retire or we even hit 1.5C, is a failure in messaging.
That section of it had essentially no legal force, given that it can be construed to authorize literally anything.
For instance, one might argue that a eugenics program to eliminate all "inferior" genes from the population "promotes the general welfare" of the people. You don't actually want language that incredibly vague to have legal force
While it has no legal force, it does show what the laws that govern our society should reflect. The DOJ has no problem following a suggested notion that “no sitting president can be charged with a crime”, why can’t it follow a clearly stated purpose of:
“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”?
i.e the DOJ shouldn’t be attempting this at all. It should just stay silent and let one of the gas companies attempt this insane notion instead
You don’t actually want language that incredibly vague to have legal force
I don’t buy that, “The 8th amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment has no legal force because it can be construed to mean anything, someone could argue having to pay their taxes was cruel and unusual” makes about as much sense to me. Words mean things, especially when they’re in the context of the rest of the Constitution’s clauses that suggest certain things are or aren’t allowed, so I just don’t see how throwing General Welfare on to the table instantly greenlights a reign of terror.
Also, it’s not like the non-enforcement of General Welfare prevented eugenicist policies in the past
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.