You can always get credit, the only question is how much will it cost.

If you’re asking why does Best Buy offers credit cards and your dentist doesn’t, it’s because Best Buy might not get your sale. They want you to see the product and buy the product and if you don’t have the money they want you to borrow the money without leaving the store. It’s all about reducing friction between your wallet and their register.

Your dentist doesn’t need to reduce those obstacles to purchasing. You need dental work, and they bill you. If you can’t pay, that’s a you problem.

Conservativism is, and always has been, a misdirect. It isn’t an ideology. It’s something you say so that it sounds like you have principles, but there are no inherently conservative principles.

Check your history books, it’s always been this way.

Conservatives establish their priorities by first drawing a circle on the ground around themselves, and the deciding who is with them inside the circle. Everyone inside the circle is a member of their group, the Self. The Self is good because they are inside the circle, and the circle was drawn to define who is good.

And that’s it. Everything else is a flexible derivation of that decision. Policies that are good for the Self are good because the Self is good. Policies that are bad for the Self are bad. You get the picture. Everything a Conservative does or says is in service of defending and advancing the Self’s interests.

Importantly, anyone outside the circle is the Other. The Other can be bad, or they can be irrelevant. The Other cannot be good, because they aren’t the Self. If the Other tries to oppose the Self, the Other is bad. If the Other does not oppose the Self or even assists the Self, they are irrelevant.

If the Self lies or cheats or murders, then those were necessary acts in service of the Self, and therefore good. If the Other acts heroically or honorably or respectfully, it is irrelevant.

The good news is that you can be inside the circle, as long as you agree to go along with the game. Support everything the Self does, oppose anything the Other does to stop you, and refuse to acknowledge the inherent ridiculousness of your lack of fundamental beliefs.

Top of the tank, as in the lid, so you can close the flapper and prevent the bowl from overflowing.

I don’t understand your argument.

Eh, I’m a firm believer that society has no business legislating and regulating thoughts. Regulating and taxing churches, while satisfying, would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

I’m not advocating for letting anyone die, nor am I suggesting forced veganism. My suggestion would let some people make less profit. Those people are willing to let a lot of people die to increase their profits. The climate crisis has killed people, and will kill far more than expensive corn would.

Our current population levels are going to experience a steep decline because people already cannot afford basic needs like food and rent and so they are not having children. Pesticides are not the only defense against total crop collapse due to blight. In fact, we’re doing more damage to pollinators than pests as a result of overuse of pesticides. Entire food chains rely on the birds and bugs industrial farming is eliminating, and the water runoff is poisoning the fish that keep our streams and rivers clean.

To be clear, RFK is completely wrong in his reasoning, and I don’t believe in doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. We should ban pesticides because pesticide use is a net bad for humans. Pesticides increase profits at the expense of ecosystems, and that in turn impacts humanity.

Sure, but it could be one of the best things for the environment. If crops are suddenly more expensive because of pests, then meat becomes more expensive to produce, then more land is left to re-wild because farming is not as lucrative.

We already grow more than enough food to feed everyone. If we’re worried about people being able to afford food, then let’s subsidize that instead of ethanol and corn syrup.

Slams! Duh duduh duh duduh let boys be boys

My wife gets mad at me when she asks my opinion between different shoes. “Which ones are more comfortable?” They both look great, but we’re going to be standing and walking a lot.

That’s an interesting take. So basically a cheater isn’t being drawn into anything because of a specific desirable trait that you lack, it’s just that he’s a piece of shit who wants to cheat.

Should have been a complete rejection, but I’ll take it

I’m surprised Roberts didn’t go the other way. When they heard the case, I figured it was because they wanted to rule in favor of the religious schools.

Ok, as a man, I can see that these are two different hairstyles. Visually, it’s obviously the same person but with slightly different configurations of hair. Where I’m lost is that this meme seems to imply that one is better than the other. Which is the superior look? I don’t know. That doesn’t mean I cannot differentiate between the two, it means I am out of touch with whatever is stylish at the moment. There’s nothing objectively more or less beautiful in these photos. Maybe one style is easier to maintain, and the difference is supposed to sugest that one of them takes better care of their hair? Or maybe they are too fussy and vain to a fault? This is specialized knowledge that can only be shared via communication. You cannot discover it on your own like some scientific truth. You must learn it from someone else who knows.

The people who are snarky about people not knowing something like this are the worst sort of snobs. Not only are they mocking people who haven’t been included in the secret, they are wasting an opportunity to share knowledge to do it.

You can still elect representatives, you just remove money from the equation. Candidates are given a public forum to share ideas, provide their credentials, and debate issues. Voters use a STAR voting system to vote for all the candidates they like. Special interest groups are free to speak and advertise all they want, but they cannot promote or attack a specific candidate.

It’s more or less how local primaries work, just on a larger scale.

Parties are just a power transfer from voters to oligarchs. Coalition governments are just as easy to manipulate as two-party systems. Politicians shouldn’t be permitted a short-hand explanation of what they stand for. They should be required to make a full throated defense of their positions on the record. Parties provide political cover to do unpopular things while pretending to not be in a position to stop it.

Unfreeze me for a week each year. I get to spend a day catching up on what’s happened, mourning the dead, and then a few days exploring what’s new, and then a day planning next year’s excursions.

Here’s the thing. No.

We don’t really have two parties. We have oligarchs in control of both parties, and both parties work together to make sure no more parties can exist. They do this by making it seem like the right and the left are opposed to each other, but really both work together to keep you down.

We can’t fix this with parties. What we need to do is abolish parties. Prevent rich people from consolidating power. Give no small group of power-hungry bastards the ability to control everything. This means a drastic overhaul, and the people in power are not going to give it up willingly. They won’t fight fair, they won’t accept the results of an election unless it goes their way, and they won’t give you an opportunity to win.

If? Feels like we’re already there. It can, and will, get worse, but we’re already sending American children to death camps and putting dissenting politicians in prison.

I mean, if we’re being pedantic, geek was a term for a specific circus performer who would eat gross things and hammer nails into their faces. Anything to gross out the audience. The term expanded to mean “weirdo” over time, and became associated with the term “nerd.” It has further evolved with the popularity of the phrase “geek out” to mean someone with strong enthusiasm for a specific topic. That’s the most recent popular definition of the word.

Either way, any legitimate “geek” would already know that they shouldn’t expect Alexa to respect their data privacy.

“I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for secretary of state,” said Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen,

You literally didn’t have to do that. You knew exactly who he is and exactly what he was going to do. You could have voted against him.

But I guess your regret is some small comfort.

Multi-pass