Sadly, reading comprehension of Lemmy users leaves a lot to be desired.
I also think many that misunderstand something would rather entrench and make a ridiculous argument than admit any kind of fault.
Sadly, reading comprehension of Lemmy users leaves a lot to be desired.
I also think many that misunderstand something would rather entrench and make a ridiculous argument than admit any kind of fault.
Tapped out tenderloin?
But. But. But it says "do no evil," right on the box! ಠ_ಠ
I have two pickup trucks that are basically identical, only separated by year of manufacture - a 1990 and 1991 Chevy Silverado. The 1990's transmission is bad.
Eh, I think it's more related to survivorship bias of the movies we remember. Most movies from decades ago were utter trash then too, we mostly remember the good ones while most of the rubbish fades away and is forgotten.
You're talking about income tax rates, and I agree that the top tax rates should be higher, but this won't fix the problem because billionaires don't make their money from salaries. Most of their money is theoretical and tied up in ownership of shares of a company.
They can sell shares or earn dividends to make money, so capital gains should also be taxed at a much higher rate. But billionaires often choose not to sell shares either because they have a better option...
They take out low interest rates loans using their shares as collateral. The interest rates they are charged are generally going to be far lower than the interest on their stocks that stay invested,. This is where most of their liquidity comes from, because loans aren't taxed, and in some regard is almost an infinite money glitch for billionaires.
I think we need to make it illegal to use financial holdings as collateral for loans, at least for starters.
Good point, but it's not that either. I guess most of the people here don't watch the ground crews at the airport before boarding - it seems these clamshell panels are opened between every flight (or at least very frequent intervals) for engine inspections and probably oil sampling. The far and away most likely cause is the ground crew forgot to latch the panel back up after performing their inspection.
This happened in port, not international waters. Normal rules will apply. Seizing assets from a foreign company may be a little more difficult if it comes to that, but it'd probably be in Maersk's best interest to pay up rather than lose the ability to do business in the U.S.
Uh, the normal way. Fines, lawsuits and potentially sanctions, if needed.
Maybe not if it were an American company on the brink of collapse, but Maersk is a Danish company - and an exceptionally wealthy/profitable one at that. The cities, governments, and companies that are all affected by this will be eager to collect their pound of flesh from Maersk.
You're definitely right, and I kindof lumped those together - it's hard to write a complete response during a poop break at work.
I was not aware of 'athiest christian nationalists' being a thing. Fascinating.
I also didn't adequately explain that I feel 'modern' Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ, much less the content of the Bible even as a whole. It seems it's much more a justification of their targeted hatred.
This argument completely ignores the impact this has on regular people. People who end up late to pick up their kids from daycare and end up owing extra money when they can barely make ends meet as it is. Yeah, this may have some marginal impact on the capitalist class, but it will be far more painful for the employees who WILL be held accountable for being late to work and may easily end up fired, and certainly will not be paid for the time they miss. Let alone the life safety issues this type of demonstration creates. This is holding your peers ransom because of something you want and you take away their autonomy to decide whether or not to take part. If you can't convince people to join your cause willingly, maybe your cause isn't as good as you think it is.