Lurker > Skype

DarkRoast posted...

Canceling debt is meaningless without reform of higher education expenses. Congrats, anyone who still has a student loan gets $10,000 off. Sucks to be anyone who hasn't gone to college yet or already paid off their loans. You didn't win the taxpayer lottery.

And to be clear, I'm not against canceling student loan debt. But this is not the way to do it. It's completely arbitrary and simply rewards having loans in 2022. It does absolutely nothing to fix the underlying problem.

Canceling debt and lowering student interest rates, or dramatically lowering the cost of higher education, that would be an actual start. Just shaving off $10,000 with no legislation or price controls just means we are doing what the baby boomers did to millennials when they voted themselves tax breaks. Generation z is going to pay for it.

This is the same half-assed BS that gave us a neutered affordable care act. Democrats need to grow a pair of balls and actually create some reform.

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1562542940508958722?t=s-M84Ui6-loc095gCjosOQ&s=19

It's not just $10000 though. It caps the income repayment at 5% and stops interest growth if you make your monthly payments.

You're right, it needs to be canceled but this isn't a bad start by any means.

Conservatives who love to be "Fuck you, I got mine" sure are whiny other people got theirs.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I have 0 moderations and have been around since the account's creation.

Not surprising that the people unironically agreeing with TC are the ones with a perpetual victim complex.

Stop treating strangers like your personal therapists.

Well yeah, you don't need an account to view an FAQ on...GameFaqs.

This topic is hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Bio really didn't think that one through.

A lot of yikes in this topic.

Oh hey Tommy got banned.

JBaLLEN66 posted...

did he say something remotely conservative

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?s=20&t=g0Fs8wIkhVm70aUWXAs-8A

At this point, it feels like SCOTUS wants to hold on to its majority and prevent Dems from expanding them.

I've worked in similar cases before, this thread runs down why this testimony is a big deal

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1541867974130339841?t=fzI_V0Zqxo1ksjFryirMGg&s=19

Tl;dr: Trump's knowledge that the rioters had weapons and his attempts to force his worker to the capitol speaks to his culpable state of mind in inciting a riot.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Because I'm not going to answer every stupid "this isn't in the Constitution, huh, how about that?!" post when I've already mentioned the 10th amendment.

You mean how the 10th amendment also protects the rights to abortion in states, therefore, not fundamentally unconstitutional?

You didn't think that one through.

Skype posted...

The constitution doesn't also state you have a right to marry. Should SCOTUS strike that down too? You know, since it isn't on the constitution.

Wonder why @ThePrinceFish skipped this post.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Pretty easily, since it's as simple as following the Constitution. The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms, so you do. It says nothing about the right to scrape the "unwanted cells" (of your child) out of your body, so until the legislature says you do per the 10th, you don't. It's really that simple.

The constitution doesn't also state you have a right to marry. Should SCOTUS strike that down too? You know, since it isn't on the constitution.

Lebronwon posted...

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1539988629585543169

It's also funny how the decision itself completely dismisses mass shooting, suicides, and other statistics because a person will find a way to commit those things.

You know, given that banning abortion will just increase the amount of illegal/dangerous abortions.

Not many people just go "I'll just have an abortion if I get pregnant!"

It's a pretty uncomfortable process and not something a regular person wants to go through. But then you have a lot of conservatives try to pain it as women wanting to have them as a hobby

If you have to decipher someone's words, the fault lies with the writer. This is known near every field of academia lol

Some of you nerds act like your eyes are being forced to look at someone's crotch.

Kinda weird, ngl.

RenescoStCewl posted...

Lmao what the fuck? Is this guy serious?

Dude has spent years making the dumbest comments.

Imagine having a 21 year old account and getting your giggles over dumb shit like that.

"I do my own research"

AloneIBreak posted...

I dont want the government silencing people, but private individuals and companies which are even less subject to democratic forces? Go for it.

Yes. Exactly.

Go to your town square and protest. Being banned on a website isn't preventing you from doing so.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The fuck?

Pretty telling when TC talks about being verbally and physically abused by her patients the first reaction out of some folks is "But are they REALLY MAGAs?"

You guys should really hide your hurt feelings better.

At least they get to die with their freedom or something.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Kinda weird for him to be asking about spreadsheets and remembering other users when he has a weird obsession with a certain Lead Moderator.

I wonder if people know exactly how many Trans people are actively competing in sports that "putting them in their own category" is a viable solution.

Are they supposed to compete with just a few other people? It's just a soft way of wanting to say you want to exclude them.

Holding years-long grudges over moderations is some real cringe shit.

TommyG663513 posted...

Me? I hate culture wars and let's have an honest discussion about the truth

Bro, aren't you the one who said gay people were buying cakes to fish out a lawsuit?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Seems odd is all

I'm glad I was able to clarify that it didn't mean anything, then.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Why did you put quotes around innocent life?

Stylistic writing choice that has little to do with the rest of my post.

nfearurspecimn posted...

lol tails made this because atma returned
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/8/3/AAezwvAAC_mP.jpg

Considering how things ended for Thanos, I'd say this is accurate.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The common thread is the loss of innocent human life, as detailed above. Although one is guaranteed to end an innocent life, and one is significantly less likely to involve an innocent person.

On the other hand, you're condemning an unwanted fetus and an unwanting mother to hardship by letting said "innocent life" live. But anti-abortion people never speak about what happens after a baby is out of the womb. In this scenario, you're punishing two people under the guise of pro-life.

Death penalty only serves as a way to feel vindicated for killing someone who's no longer a threat and innocent people who already have established lives still get caught up in the process, as opposed to a fetus that has yet to do anything, nor is even aware.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

One has a tiny chance of killing an innocent human being... the other has a 100% chance of killing an innocent human being.

What?

How are they comparable scenarios?

Why are we comparing the death penalty to abortion lol

Compsognathus posted...

I'm not gonna shed any tears for this dude but my stance on the death penalty is unwavering: as long as there is risk that even a single innocent person is executed, it has no place in civilized society.

So I don't like this ruling one bit.

Same.

Vindication isn't justice, imo.

Caution999 posted...

I'm not the one getting emotional, here. That's you, cupcake.

This aged like milk.

Is that atmasbr?

"Bigger than watergate"

Guess we know you never opened a history book.