• 1 Post
  • 273 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • I really hate how many people resent the idea of any kind of student loan forgiveness.

    Billionaires set up vast financial systems for the sole purpose of dodging taxes. No bid contracts get handed out like candy to politically connected scumbags. An obscene amount of money gets dumped into insurance companies that only make your healthcare worse. Giant corporations violate laws and rob both workers and customers, and if anything is done at all it will be a tiny fine that’s smaller than the profit from their crimes.

    All those things that actually harm the rest of us? No big deal. But you suggest that maybe it’s a bad idea to keep generations ensnared in crippling debt? THAT’S A FUCKING OUTRAGE!

    I mean obviously it wouldn’t be fair to have a policy that directly benefits some people but not others. Why should student loan borrowers get special treatment? Sure, I’ll fucking riot if anyone touches my tax credits for having kids and a mortgage, but that’s different, that’s good for society… unlike education. Besides, it’s not my fault your generation don’t buy houses and start families. Oh don’t bitch to me about how you can’t afford it, maybe you shouldn’t have taken those loans out then…




  • Makeitstop@lemmy.worldtoMemes@sopuli.xyzGone too soon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    It always felt like it was trying to be canonical but no one else wanted it to be. It was the little brother desperate to join the older kids only to get ditched at every opportunity.

    Which was annoying because most of the show was good, and all it would have taken is a tiny Easter egg to acknowledge it exists. As far as I know, the only thing we ever got was Jarvis in endgame being played by the same actor from Agent Carter.

    It’s kind of strange that the Netflix shows are the ones that got folded into canon when they basically ignored the rest of the MCU after Avengers. But I suppose that disconnect and the more narrow focus means there’s a lot less to clean up to make it fit. That and the fact that they were popular enough for Disney to see them as valuable.


  • On body-worn camera video played in court, Wasser was heard saying she wanted to check the bag for bombs before removing it from the McDonald’s. Despite that concern, she acknowledged in her testimony Monday that police never cleared the restaurant of customers or employees.

    Unless they had probable cause to believe there was a bomb, that’s absolutely no excuse for a search. Might as well just get rid of the fourth amendment altogether if police can just imagine the possibility of a dangerous object and excuse searching anything at any time.

    If she really thought there was a bomb, she is recklessly handling this herself instead of calling in a properly trained and equipped bomb squad. But far worse, she claims she needed to check it so as not bring a bomb to the station, but apparently has no problem potentially handling a bomb around a bunch of innocent bystanders.

    That she is lying in order to justify what she knew to be an illegal search is actually the least damning interpretation. Either way though, the evidence should be thrown out along with her career.






  • If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I’m sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.

    My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what’s one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.