Your policies are retarded and destroy everything, so you must deny that they are your policies.
Remember, boomers are the years of the hippies. They were apparently fucking everywhere for that generation, and yet it's the boomers that are supposedly also hyper right-wing and responsible for every conservative law ever.
Once you point out the hippies were boomers, people don't really know how to accept that point and reconcile with the fact that an overwhelmingly leftist generation wasn't salvation and more importantly lead to some pretty fucked up laws.
The left has ALWAYS been a cancer.
Considering how often this happens for both women and men, I barely consider engineering to be STEM anymore. If it's the degree of choice to essentially game the system, it can't be that much of a hurdle anymore. It's definitely not a social "science" or anything like that, but it's not in the same category as things like the Sciences, Technology and Mathematics that make up the rest of STEM.
Thanks for this, I'll look more into it later.
Others have mentioned other fan edits, and I've never really watched any of these things in the past. Where in general do you tend to find these things if someone is interested in getting into them and watching more of these fan edits?
betrayal
And there it is. There's that leftist entitlement to minorities.
Seems like a good idea
No, it seems like a consolation prize for anyone that couldn't hack it and needed a popularity boost. Anyone that brings attention to being "gender non-conforming" is entirely doing so solely for attention and not simply because they want to. Nobody cares if a woman plays golf. Nobody cares if a guy enjoys fashion. Get the fuck over yourselves and stop being attention whores.
a real conservative
Uncomfortable truth time: Mitt Romney was a real conservative. Him and his type are the status quo, not the exception.
Hypothetical: Biden gets impeached. What actually happens? No really, what happens as a result of that? Because I can tell you right now that impeachment means nothing anymore. It's like calling someone a racist, it's a worthless and devalued label, because sure it could mean someone with bigoted beliefs that holds racial superiority views, but it could also mean someone who believes criminals should be held accountable regardless of their race.
Impeaching Biden is a RINO distraction. It's not going to accomplish anything. It's not going to save the nation. It's there to further entrench people in sides against one another and fighting a fight that will have no victory. It's a brilliant distraction that nobody can actually really influence. So what's really the importance of impeaching Biden beyond what is ultimately just a lovely little stageshow for the masses?
It's amazing how THIS is the hill you are adamant to die on as you've refused to move past it for what, a month or two now?
Jonathan Blow
Once a faggot, always a faggot.
For those unfamiliar with the name, he made Braid and The Witness, and while both are decent enough, he's always been the most pretentious he could possibly be about it. He squarely falls into the same category as Phil Fish.
Autism. It's unintentional, but it's an association of titles that autists tend to gravitate towards. Funny how mental disorders tend to re-occur with the trannies.
Most of these are just titles that people with autism are drawn to. Funny how that mental disorder seems to be a commonality.....
Where are those that screeched about Net Neutrality several years ago?
You're assuming they actually cared about it and weren't going along with [CURRENT THING].
Some might argue exception to the rule, but I would probably lean more towards the whole "individuals are smart, people are stupid" sort of deal. Individuals who do charitable acts do so for the sake of charity. Charity organisations tend to do so for a steady flow of work (and income).
Remember, most charities don't want a solution, because that puts them firmly out of the job.
If governments gave a fuck about money laundering and terrorism, they wouldn't spend so much money supporting both.
That's because you're missing the quiet part. They care about combating terrorism and money laundering that you might engage in. It's about fighting against competition, not about a principled stance.
This isn't really a new thing. It's been like this for a while (I wanna say I can remember this for around 10 years maybe? I dunno specifically) and for full transparency, this is only in regards to "large" withdrawals that are done specifically at a teller window (rather than anything that can be done at a standard ATM). That doesn't make it right, or any better, but full transparency is better than part of the picture.
The fact that a paper can be retracted for ANYTHING other than faulty science (ie just blatant fucking lying about results or methodology) is the long standing injustice that proves just how disgustingly low the "science community" really is, and has been for quite some time.
Yes and no. People tend to romanticise "the old days", but the reality is that there were plenty of people who were struggling all throughout history. Reality is that we have it pretty good compared to most of history, the main difference is that most people are far less self-reliant as they were 60+ years ago. Those that are still self-reliant today are able to survive reasonably well thanks to reduced costs. The late 80s, 90s and early 2000s are largely an anomaly of time where so many people went and lost their self-reliance and instead became dependant. And it worked for a time, but it was never going to last forever.
Things have a long way to go before they can truly be considered bad. Yes, people are struggling, there's no doubting that, but it's nowhere near the struggling that even developed countries were facing pre-1960s.
Probably so. Probably also doesn't account for improvements of her "similar apartment" that were implemented over time. Not enough to fully account for it all, but enough to certainly add to the cost over time. The reality is that the standards of housing 20 years ago and today are rather different.
it's spreading elsewhere and it's deliberately engineered
Supply and demand is deliberately engineered? That's news to me! Or do you think that the fixed supply of land (especially when discussion certain levels of development (rural vs suburban vs urban, etc)) and the increased demand that comes with larger population numbers are all controlled by the above?
Don't get me wrong, the urban side of things definitely is, especially with "muh 15 minute cities" crap, but you're purporting this is happening across the board. And to an extent it is, but you're ignoring the increased demand of a larger market than what was around 20 years ago. Housing prices increasing, especially in high demand areas, is an inevitability and one that cannot be controlled for without authoritarian design (allocated housing for all).
When people fight over the same thing, be it a good, a service, even a job, the person that's doing the selling gets to benefit off this by getting better offers. Housing is no different in this regard.
That's how supply and demand works, dumbnuts.
The supply of inner-city housing, especially those on the waterfront, is fixed. Maybe a finite number can be added with taller apartment buildings, but it's still relatively fixed. You're not adding a significant portion though to account for the sharp increase in demand.
The demand for this housing has continually gone up thanks to ever-growing population numbers, especially in the inner-city.
More people fighting over the same piece of property means higher prices. Always has, always will. Because there will eventually be some dumbfuck that's willing to pay those higher prices. And frankly, if you want to live in the inner city, you get what you fucking deserve. Urbanites are one of the lowest trash of humanity before you delve into criminals and various other offenders of such nature.
Why? I'm not trying to be inflammatory but there's no flowery way to ask if this is due to some ego thing where you need to make sure you're being listened to and heard by some fuckwit.
If you have something to say, say it. Needing to know if the recipient heard it is silly, especially in online public forums where 99.99% of online discourse isn't a discussion at all and is instead a performance for onlookers. Who cares if they don't hear it and don't respond?
I think you're mistaking muting and blocking. Blocking is what prevents other users from interacting with them. Muting simply stops whoever is muting from seeing it, not everyone else.
So for example, if this were Twitter and you were to respond to me whilst I have you muted, I wouldn't see that response, but others would. If however I had blocked you, you would never even get the opportunity to respond in the first place. For a public space, mute is fine, and eliminates their ability to curate their responses.
Zippertits gonna zippertit.