I’m starting to think maybe the username isn’t just a username, and the account is literally for a wall panel to express its views.

Of the entire list, I guess I’d pick Grassley.

At least he’s from the old school of partisan bickering.

Remember when Obama wearing a tan suit was enough to keep the right frothing at the mouth for weeks?

Anyone who thinks tariffs will do anything at all positive for the American working class is absolutely clueless.

All they do is make prices jump for consumers. It doesn’t put domestic goods at an advantage because the domestic producers of those goods increase their prices artificially to achieve parity with import pricing.

So prices go up for the consumer with the extra money going to either:

1. For imported goods, to pay the tariff, a tax, to the government, which in this case wants to use that tax revenue to offset tax cuts for the wealthy.

or

2. For domestic goods, it’s pure straight profit for the unethical corporations who are price gouging their domestic customer base. They’re not giving the consumer a break on price and they’re not sharing the profits by giving employees raises. Hell, they’re not even taking advantage of the competitive advantage to ramp up production and create jobs. They’re just pocketing that extra cash for doing exactly what they’re always doing…passing it on to, you guessed it…the wealthy.

Uh…great story?

It wasn’t until I saw this pic that I realized that a platypus and a tardigrade look alike.

Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.

People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.

Legally it’s totally okay, actually.

I know this is all very unpopular opinion here on Lemmy, but it’s fact.

I kinda get it though…it’s not like these armed forces are producing the movie themselves.

The studio wants to make a movie about/involving these entities. They want it to be as realistic as possible and the entity itself has the authority to give them access that it could also deny.

If you’re in charge of, say, the Marines PR department, you’re constantly trying to make the Corps look good and boost recruitment. If you can do this for next to nothing against your budget by granting access to a studio making a film that will give you essentially free PR, that’s a great move. The bigger the movies potential, the more the entity in question is motivated to support it.

On the other hand, if the film is going to make your organization look bad, no PR person with a functioning brain is going to help that project in any way.

Idunno, I feel like these organizations do enough actually bad things, that I don’t feel the urge to crucify them for cultivating image and working to generate positive PR.

“What time is it?!”

“It’s two o clock in the morning.”

“Is it too early for breakfast?”

“Yes!”

“Oh good… suppertime!”

Is the church still active?

If it’s recently defunct or relocating, I’d bet this is the parsonage, assembled on a shoestring budget from the church offering, and using whatever materials they could source as absolutely cheaply as possible.

I’m guessing that either a member of the congregation or family connection of same is a siding guy and was able to get all of this for free or obscenely cheap from somewhere, or was able to get it donated, and rather than waste it or decline what they couldn’t put on the outside, they decided to save money on drywall and paint and put it inside as well.

Same with the furniture, etc. this just reeks of “super tight budget but with excesses in certain odd specific areas because we got it donated”.

Maybe not the absolutely most, but in strict terms of “tastiness divided by work”, I have made crock pot pork chops that have got to be in the top 5% for that ratio.

Basically get small boneless pork chops when they’re on sale, and put however many you want (I usually do 4-6) in the crock pot with two cans of Cream of Chicken soup and a packet of dry ranch seasoning.

Stir that shit all together and turn it on low, then go to work.

When you get home enjoy your delicious, savory, juicy pork chops.

Really the only way you can get lower effort than that is something that’s pre-made (like a boxed oven meal or something that is microwaved) or something that requires no prep at all, like just eating an apple or something.

In theory.

In practice, it has to be approved by your supervisor and is only for times when it won’t interfere with progress on actual work.

So all they’ve gotta do is give you a lot of work to do…or just say no…and you don’t get that anymore.

They do both.

When I bought my car in 2015 it came with the free trial but I specifically did not sign up for a subscription. When the trial ran out they started hounding me and I basically struck a deal: I’ll get a year subscription but if and only if you invoice me. Mail me a bill in the mail and I will write you a check and mail it to you or make a one time payment on your site. No auto-enrollment.

The first two years they did this no problem. The third year they put up a big fuss and told me that wasn’t something that was possible. I asked how it was possible for the past two years and he said I must have misunderstood. So I said okay, if that’s not possible then I guess I’m done with Sirius and hung up. A few days later I got another email and called in again and asked that rep for the invoice option and she said while it’s not commonly done, she’d make an exception for me.

The year after that I tried three different reps and nobody would invoice me so I cancelled and haven’t signed up since. They still sent me mail and email for years, and somehow they fucked up their database and when my parents bought their car (same make, different model) now I’m getting all of their ad email from Sirius again, but they did stop (intentionally) emailing me after about two years of no contact.

Might change your thoughts on blindness as an insult by attending a sporting event where a ref or ump makes a questionable call…but broadly speaking, I think your comment is definitely a worthwhile contribution.

We need to allow

Oh crap, I guess we didn’t realize we were sitting on the remote with the button that prevented that!

Honestly, I appreciate the “good vibes” tone here but it’s painfully naive in any practical sense.

I ain’t even mad at her, I’m just jelly.

Right. The term that would probably fit the context would be “infantile”, which again has negative connotations.

English has a long history of descriptors of intellectual deficiencies becoming contemporary insults then terms to be avoided because of that insensitive use, then the use continuing until everyone’s kinda desensitized to it but now it can’t be used in the original context.

See also: idiot, imbecile, moron, etc.

Currently going through that process: “retarded”.

I think they were kidding but at the same time I think you very fundamentally misunderstood their overall strategy.

I think your view is overly optimistic and naive, but for their sakes I hope that’s how it goes down.

But if I was a gambler, I would bet all my chips against that being what actually happens.