The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Pogroms happen when the hated group is unable or unwilling to defend itself and the authorities are at least willing to look the other way. Neither condition holds here.
In New Jersey if you don't have your paperwork (especially insurance), the cops tow your car and leave you by the side of the road, any time, day or night. They did this even before cell phones were common.
The law is on the store's side, as I described below. They only have a valid lawsuit against the original storeowner, if he hasn't actually declared bankruptcy, and he's likely insolvent even if he hasn't. The law allows a consignors goods to be lawfully taken by the lender/repossessor in this case. So extralegal measures are all he has.
Seems to be mostly anti-immigration types trying to cut off social security. Immigrants seem to be generally for all gibs.
Certainly not, and it's ridiculous to say so. Capturing a few of the photons bouncing off your body and clothes does not affect your bodily integrity in the slightest; if you have a reasonable objection to being filmed (in public), it must be something else.
The IRS allows you to declare "other income" without giving its source. The catch is you can't deduct expenses against it.
The repossession makes their case stronger; they repossessed the store, which extinguished the junior security interest of the consignor, because he didn't file a UCC-1.
The people who want to cut off Social Security for "boomers" (really Xers) and who want to take the houses of old people because they aren't using them appropriately are pretty much the same. The group which thinks old people's money is no good and if you aren't working now, you shouldn't be able to pay for things is a subset of them. You can't appease them (or anyone, really); victory anywhere would only embolden them. Otherwise I'd be more open to cutting off SS.
The "deal" is older than the Boomers. And any cutting-off won't fall on most of the boomers; the reality of numbers and the speed of politics means it'll be Generation X which is cut off, plus maybe a few of the youngest boomers.
Old age social security benefits in the US are not means tested. This is a weight-bearing component of the system -- it's funded by a special tax on all workers, and provided to all those who paid into it. That's what keeps it from just being considered plain old welfare, and what makes it the "third rail" of politics.
As for occupied houses literally rotting in Australia... isn't the country generally rather dry for that? Even in my wet area of the US, if you avoid being flooded from below and keep the roof from leaking, and don't set it on fire, the house will be OK structurally for a very long time.
Also, a couple holding onto a house to keep the health care system from getting it rather than their children goes against the narrative of greedy elders who don't care about their children.
Downgrading from a 3 bedroom suburban home with a quarter acre of property to a 2 bedroom condo in a lower cost of living area can finance a hell of a lot of health care.
No, it really can't. You'd think so, but transaction costs are high, condo fees are high, and healthcare is hellaciously expensive.
If you want to stop working either have enough kids or get enough money that you're not on the public purse.
This is called "altering the deal". Anyway, aren't you one of those who swears that old people's saved money is no good and they should actually have to personally provide for themselves in their dotage, or have their kids do so?
The courts are apparently very reluctant to consider A(iii).
ETA: I expect that since the guy who sold them was a "collector", the goods were not considered "consumer goods", thus failing on (C).
The real villain here is the Universal Commercial Code. It turns out that a consignment agreement isn't a consignment agreement. If you attempt to enter into one, what you have actually done is transferred title of the goods to the consignee and retained only a security interest in them. So if the consignee then loses his inventory to a creditor, the creditor gets the consignor's goods free and clear and the consignor has only a worthless debt owed by the bankrupt consignee. All 100% legal. You can avoid this, if you're a commercial lawyer, by filing a form (UCC-1) which declares your interest in the goods; this gives you a security interest superior to the other creditors. Of course, random people doing a one-time sale of whatever would never know to do this. Presumably this law was written by banks or other creditors.
There's no real comment on cultural values from what whores earn, only economic ones; this is just supply and demand as applied to jobs you find distasteful for some reason. And you may not like supply and demand, but that dislike is about as useful as not liking the second law of thermodynamics; it's going to work anyway.
Even regardless of the moral aspect of the situation, the fact that a prostitute can make so much money is a huge slap in the face to people working hard for a living.
Dude, you're in corporate marketing. Complaining about what whores make is a bit ironic.
If the numbers keep going up but everyone is employed wiping the asses of boomers and sexually pleasuring tech AI millionaires, have we really improved society?
Somebody's gotta do the disgusting jobs, and it makes sense that they'd pay well if few want and/or are able to do them compared to the demand for them.
You are stepping into and speaking with authority on a conversation you know nothing about and declaring you know more than the world's total panel of experts and interested parties who hold a variety of opinions.
That's a low bar nowadays.
Vaccines are a population health level initiative that in many places the government is on the hook for.
There you go again, lumping vaccines together. I'm talking about flu vaccine, specifically, here.
I'm mad about what happened with COVID too, but that doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I didn't believe in flu vaccines before COVID. COVID just increased my confidence in that rejection.
Yes.
If nobody wants it, it won't happen.
The people who aren't posting but rather engaging in violence want it.
What is more likely you, sitting at home with no public health or medical background (and potentially no background in research/stats etc) has discovered that the flu shot is a big conspiracy and does nothing of value or that the entire public health apparatus, medical research (and maverick researchers trying to make a name for themselves by questioning the status quo) for the entire planet are wrong?*
Probably about 3:1. In my favor. It has become clear that some portion of the medical establishment is really, really attached to vaccines.
Not all conspiracy theories are created equal. The flu vaccine has been around long enough to be very well studied and not lucrative enough to generate the level of coordination that would be required here, furthermore because flu trends change year after year, you have actual experts trying to assess how effective things are on a yearly basis.
Gray and Klotzbach did hurricane forecasts for 20 years before admitting they were of no value. Experts can be wrong for a long time.
Not to mention rioting on inauguration day. And after the election in 2016.
You have already admitted that the flu vaccine does not prevent infection, so the guilt trip about friends and family and elderly parents is without basis also.
I do not believe the CDC estimates. I expect the actual number of hospitalizations prevented is on the close order of zero. I once ran a correlation of the CDC-stated vaccine effectiveness against flu deaths for that year; it was slightly negative.
Look, this "pussy" shit may work with your buddies but it's not going to work on the Internet. It doesn't make one more of a man to get a vaccine that doesn't work and even makes you mildly sick.
The flu vaccine is crap and the assumptions made to get it to show a mortality reduction at all are questionable. If you're the kind of person who doesn't wear a seat belt, you probably won't get the vaccine either, and your traffic death will be part of the "all cause mortality" that vaccinated-seat-belt wearers are compared against.
The COVID vaccine gave me a week of symptoms, each time. Then I got COVID, which gave me two weeks of symptoms. I should have skipped that one too.
- Prev
- Next

Funny no one ever says this about finance bros, eh? (Who appear to prefer the 11/10 Russian hotties)
More options
Context Copy link