Crimfresh

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

It has nothing to do with agreement. It’s the premise of spending time in a forum for a product you don’t like, and insulting everyone else. That screams mental illness and a miserable life.

I imagine you must have a pretty sad life if you find yourself spending free time insulting people who enjoy something you don’t like.

There must be some serious mental illness going on to spend time in threads about products you don’t like. I don’t like Ford vehicles, but I don’t spend my time on Ford forums insulting them and their owners because I’m not a miserable loser with nothing to fill my time.

Go find something you enjoy. Nobody is interested in your pathetic trolling.

I’m a firm believer there isn’t a better value than a Shark vacuum. The thing is reasonably priced compared to other high performing vacuums and it works phenomenally. I would recommend it to anyone in a heartbeat.

TLDR; buy a Shark @ sharkclean dot com

Your argument really sucks. You don’t trust the courts or law enforcement to uphold laws, but you’re willing to allow ISP’s, like Comcast (the most hated company in the US), to regulate what speech can be used online? That’s absolute madness and defies all logic.

I’m looking at the image on a very high quality OLED screen. On an OLED, it’s very obviously NOT black. You can see the top of the dress in the light and it’s not at all black. The black on my screen makes that incredibly obvious. Who cares what it is in real life, I’m not judging that, I’m judging the image and black is not a part of the dress, in this image.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/14/man-mother-in-law-blue-black-dress-viral-charged-trying-to-kill-wife

The Guardian’s image is black and blue. The image in this thread IS NOT. My eyes may look red in a photo, that doesn’t mean they’re really red. An image is not a perfect reflection of reality.

It’s going to be a mashup of 1984, waterworld, and Westworld, at this rate.

Thanks for proving I was right. You don’t have shit to back up your bullshit. Capitalism didn’t invent anything, science did that. But you don’t give a shit about being correct, you have capitalist dogma to spread, regardless of facts.

I’ll bet a million dollars your comment is based on a dogmatic belief in capitalism and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever backing it up. You’re basically just making shit up as you go without looking at any data at all. With a rose tinted lense towards capitalism because that’s what you were taught to never question.

To pretend that only capitalists have invented and improved technology is an exercise in ignorance.

Formulate a response of substance or fuck off. You absolutely didn’t disprove a single thing I said. Capitalism didn’t raise the quality of living, technology did that. Capitalists steal everything thing they can, including credit for technological advances. They’ve been taking credit for work done by talented engineers and scientists for many generations.

“The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not al-low plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy.
Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v.
Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ide-ological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giv-ing those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.”

They claimed they had standing. All the liberal justices disagree. This was a partisan lawsuit from the beginning and conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS are legislating from the bench with this ruling and ignoring decades of standing precedent.

No, that argument is a complete lie. Technology is why we have a higher standard of living. Technological advancements have taken place in communist countries. They experience the same increases of quality of living as capitalist countries. This proves that argument false. Capitalism isn’t responsible for technology. That’s just wealthy people pushing a narrative to protect the system that consolidates wealth in their hands. Consolidated wealth at the top of the economic ladder is a well known and documented side effect of capitalism. That’s why capitalism requires strong regulations, not free market dogma.