If you're able to read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a soldier.
If you're reading this in Arabic, thank a liberal.
My values align closer with those of Kim Jong Un, Putin, and whoever the fuck the China guy is than they do our "representatives."
How fucked is that?
Manhattan is a fucking island. It's just a handful of bridges. Lefties don't boat.
You really don't need much info to raise your own birds. Just, like, grab some and figure the rest out. They pretty much raise themselves. It's great.
Well, she absolutely is right that we can find common ground with China on the issue of "climate change." Insofar as the issue of "climate change" is just a tool to control the masses, anyway. China loves that, Nancy is just saying they need to teach China their ways.
We won't have to imagine it in about 2-5 years. Mark my words.
Probably. Which is still inconsistent because nobody lives in Trump's "district." Trump, and the federal government as a whole, doesn't represent the people, they represent the states. Hence why the states elect them, not the people.
Especially when it isn't Biden doing it, it's his team. Which is a whole lot worse. Trump and AOC here at least have the defense that the account is their personal account in some sorts of ways, and that they are blocking people who offend them personally. Whereas Biden's accounts are all ran by a team and not looked at him at all. A team cannot say they were personally offended or running the account personally or anything like that.
And, also, why hasn't Biden been sued for having YouTube block dislikes across the entire platform so that people's voices on the official White House videos cannot be heard?
I agree.
However, I will also add that this entire problem is one created by the government. Two major factors: 1) The government is heavily involved in the student loan business, ensuring that anyone can get a (predatory) loan with virtually no limit and 2) Public education nails into the brain of all naive children that college is the only path to success.
When you combine these two, you have a recipe for loads of children to take out massive loans they likely will not be able to afford in the future, without much regard to how much money they're actually borrowing. The universities themselves do a fantastic job at separating students from the amount of money they're actually spending (on all levels; when I went to college, I literally didn't even know what the tuition I was paying was, something that's insane since I had to sign for it somewhere; but then they also typically have day-to-day expenses that they obfuscate through things like "meal plans" and pre-paid cards that only work within the university).
Is student loan forgiveness the answer? No. But we should still fix the root cause and get government out of education.
The self-flagellation of white, liberal women will continue.
The majority of the debt is held by liberal arts majors
Genuinely curious, do you have a source for this? Because I know plenty of engineers who have a lot of student debt. The difference is that they tend to know it was an investment in their future that they have to pay back. But they still hold the debt and the effects I describe will still affect them.
Let them feel the full force of Biden's economy
I don't disagree, but we should still be aware of the impact to everyone that this will have, just so we can prepare ourselves for it. The market as a whole will be negatively affected as these bozos have to make major spending cuts.
There are positives, too, like employers being able to find employees again, because now people will have to actually work to get by.
Full repayment terms when Trump comes back in office.
As many times as Biden has said this will be the "final" extension, I am certain he will perpetually extend it so it's the next guy's problem. Unless he gets his way of forgiving some of it.
Student loan relief is legal, it just has to go through Congress. Shows how much these quacks know.
I'm a long believer that we should do what's right even if it has negative economic consequences. And this is no exception. We obviously shouldn't be giving people free money from our tax dollars (and inflation from printing more money). But I still believe it is important to consider what those economic consequences will be so that we can prepare for them:
The payments (and interest) were suspended at the start of the plandemic. Instantly, people had an extra $100-$1000/month in their accounts depending on their previous monthly payment. Because the interest was also suspended, even most financially savvy borrowers stopped paying during this time; financially stupid borrowers obviously stopped paying as well. Most of these people told themselves they would set the money to the side and build up a bit of a nest egg, but it's rare for people to be diligent enough to actually track their finances and ensure they're doing this.
So what else happened during this time? Massive inflation. These borrowers were able to keep the same lifestyle, despite everything going up in price, because they had this extra $100-$1000/month they could gradually grow to dip into as the prices went up. Most without even realizing it.
So while those of us who did not borrow were forced to gradually make lifestyle changes to accommodate for the rising cost of living over the past two years, these borrowers will have to make those same changes instantly when these payments return.
A better way to bring us out of this bad situation is a phased in approach. Quarter payments for 4 months, half payments for 4 months, 3/4 payments for 4 months, then full payments.
We shouldn't repeal section 230, we should enforce it appropriately. I don't even believe it needs to be changed, just applied differently. Companies that censor aggressively are publishers.
It is my genuine opinion that sites shouldn't even be censoring illegal content. That's the job of law enforcement and the courts. If our law enforcement and courts cannot do this effectively (timely), then that's a problem with the law enforcement and courts, and that problem should be addressed at the source. The roadblocks that make it difficult/slow for a court to remove illegal content are there for a reason, subverting those protections by giving the power to the website is silly. But I understand that's a pipedream, and probably an unpopular opinion here for various reasons.
He shouldn't have been out on bail, because he shouldn't have been in prison, because possessing a loaded gun is not a crime per the Constitution.
Leftist laws didn't stop this man from shooting people, even though he was literally caught violating them, best case scenario for these laws to work. They should be abolished across the board.
As I understand it, the laws are pretty strict and require very specific verbiage and written consent for you to be able to collect biometric data.
Which is pretty much a fine law.
And White Castle did genuinely fuck up.
However, they fucked up once in regards to this person's data. These courts are saying that they fucked up every single time she clocked in and out, which is bullshit. They deserve to lose in court and pay this person (maybe even all of their employees in the state of Illinois), but they shouldn't pay this person for every single time she clocked in and out.
There should also be some degree of leniency since it was a clear, genuine fuck up, not nefarious data collection or whatever. They should still have to pay since they made a mistake, but it should be reasonable.
Well, yea, but that's how all fingerprint identification works. Even if it wasn't hashed and the fingerprint data was stored explicitly, the only way to tell if a fingerprint is that person's fingerprint is to take a record of that fingerprint, then compare it via the same system.
You don't need a physical finger present to do this verification, if that's what you're asking. They can take the "new record" from a fingerprint they got via dusting or whatever.
They can tell if any given fingerprint is that person's fingerprint, but they cannot say what her fingerprint looks like (unless they find a fingerprint that matches).
It's the same as your password. A website can't tell what your password is based on the hashed version they stored, but they can tell that the password you enter matches.
I'll also add that there are a lot of "uneducated" and "poor" white people throughout the country, West Virginia being a great example.
But, for the most part, these people have values and are happy. "Poor" is subjective, and "uneducated" means a number of things.
The biggest real problem places like these have are drugs, which chemically force people to abandon their values, once they make the bad decision to start into them.
Do you know how many poor white people I know that refuse to take government assistance because it goes against their values? Even I think that's silly, since they're forced to play in the system anyway, so they should take advantage of it. But it's a good example.
Probably the worst part about this law is that it won't actually stop employers from collecting and storing indefinitely biometric data.
All it will do is add yet another piece of paper to your new-hire paperwork, that you're expected to sign, and if you don't sign it, you won't have a job.
The contract will say any/all biometric data, when all they really use is your fingerprint. But you'll be forced to sign away everything because of this law, because it'll be the standard paperwork.
It's not much different than the "accept all cookies" bullshit. Nobody reads it. It's just a nuisance that people click through as fast as possible. They could throw in anything they want to that agreement. Bureaucratic bullshit.
When your boss sees you show up to work, they are using their brain's biometric record.
You make a good point. But a better point is security cameras. By making a law that forbids any biometric data being stored without explicit consent, then all security cameras that happen to see your face (or, technically, anything about you), would be illegal without explicit consent.
Methinks with the current way the law is interpreted, if an employer took the security footage, and processed it to record specific features about a person's face, courts would find that employer guilty. But if they just have the security footage and don't process it that way, they wouldn't be. Even though they aren't actually recording any additional data, they're just using the data they already have. It's all so stupid.
The same logic can be used to justify microchips.
It's wrong. There are ways to secure systems from data theft without biometrics. Passwords have worked for decades. If you're worried about social engineering attacks for your less-than-intelligent employees, then you set up 2FA with a physical device. This is damn near the same as biometric 2FA, you just use a card instead of your finger.
The difference in security between a key card/flash drive and a finger is incredibly small, and not worth mentioning in the vast majority of applications. And even these applications usually have greater vulnerabilities to consider first (it's like putting in a third deadbolt on your door, when you have glass windows).
I remember being in school and being taught the Constitution, which became something of us kids thought was a "grown-up" thing to know about, thinking we were so smart now having this knowledge. Probably because it felt like a "loophole" which we were dying to apply. Anyway, I distinctly remember being told about various other things throughout the rest of the school year and kids, including myself, questioning how they aren't against the Constitution.