You should check out the song "Patches" If that's what you're interested in.

The original commenters point was to use this as an example for why Universal Basic Income is a good idea and my point is that without capitalism this doesn't work. You couldn't reproduce this to cover the cost of UBI for everyone. It only works because it lives off of a very profitable industry and services a small group of people.

I'm not seeing the issue here. It did pass. Politicians aren't normally the type to take a moral high ground in issues. If there's money available for your state, you should take it.

Facebook Messenger isn't E2E encrypted. If they wanted their messages immune to warrants they should have used one of a number of different methods available.

This isn't socialism this is capitalism the people of the Seminole tribe are essentially receiving dividends. Without the casino, a capitalist machine in the truest for, there is no money to pay the people.

"Facebook turns over..."

After being forced to by a warrant...

Bitcoin dropped in value, but is still very high and actively traded. It's hardly in the dust bin.

From the title alone you can tell this article is going to be sensationalist because the law doesn't "ban" water breaks. That's not even a mistake it is an intentional lie to make it sound worse.

You're making my point. If it isn't a crime to post the address of a Supreme Court justice then it isn't a crime for Trump to post Obama's address.

If that is human trafficking then every bus picking up illegals in Texas and taken them to the dozens and dozens of other places is also human trafficking.

A Baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake he doesn't want to make. He shouldn't even have to give a reason. Anything less than that is by definition forced labor.

I don't think it's a smart decision. I think discriminating for any reason makes business sense nor will it win you any allies, but it should be legal. Anything less than that is the government forcing you to work.

It's still wrong. I'm perfectly happy to consider all aspects of AA, but so long as any part of it stands on determining someone's admission based on race it will always be racism and I'm not in favor of racism for any reason.

Teams would be very offended if it could afford the spare CPU cycles to read your post.

Inb4 all the people that have to come comment about how they hate In-N-Out because being contrarian is cool.

Oh wait I'm late to the party.

This way is completely wrong. The entire west coast was owned by Native Americans in 1850? So all the land owned by the Spains dating back to the missions established in the 1700s don't count eh?

Yeah right? They never want to address this issue. It's always: "Give the land back to the last group of people who owned it before you colonized it."

And it's always platitudes, but never action. Just look at Ben & Jerry's, perfectly happy to call out colonialism, but when it's point Ed out that their headquarters is in land owned in the last by Indians, they're mum in why they're not returning it.

Agreed totally, precedence makes all the difference here. If there's two people had an established history of agreeing to deals via text with one word answers, it's hard to deny.

You mean the non-heavily moderated platforms allow for discussion on topics you care about by people who disagree with you.

Ultimately I agree with the Affirmative Action ruling. The Equal Protections clause doesn't say, "All racism is bad except some racism for the right reasons, that's okay." it just says there is to be no discrimination based on race.

Affirmative Action was racism with good intentions.