Comment Re: $2000 for a bag of shrooms? (Score 1) 68
Say a whole bunch to say you don't understand mental health or psychedelics at all.
Gross bruh.
Say a whole bunch to say you don't understand mental health or psychedelics at all.
Gross bruh.
Apparently psilocybin makes people redundant.
All fractals are infinite.
You obviously haven't taken any psychedelics.
If you do see dragons and other manifestations of full bodied creatures as a result of taking psilocybin you are insane and should be in a mental hospital.
It's certainly not the mushrooms.
No one believes in deity without evidence.
People ignore evidence of things all the time.
Especially arrogant people.
Scientists and academics are the worst performers.
Just read any scientific journal and it is obvious.
Most new discoveries start out with the same trope: scientists, for the first time, have questioned an particular unfounded assumption that had no experimental evidence to recommend it, but which they had vigorously defended as fact for decades.
As long as it doesn't descend into audiophile levels of pedantry and woo you're completely ok.
"This wooden lens gives a warmer and richer feel than those sterile glass lenses."
People are misunderstanding how the Supreme Court struck down Biden's last student loan debt relief plan. They did not say he lacked the authority to do it. What they said is that because the dollar amount was higher than an arbitrary threshold Congress does not have a constitutional right to delegate that authority without explicitly stating it word for word.
No, the SCOTUS simply pointed out that Biden's actions were contrary TO STATUTE, and that the separation of powers prevents him from just waving his wand and ignoring that. The SCOTUS didn't pick some dollar amount out of thin air, nor set some precedent about dollar amount thresholds. They recognized the structure of a law written by congress, and recognized that Biden's handlers were trying to skate around it for purely political reasons.
You telling people we have to change out the Supreme Court in order to find a way to give more unchecked, counter-constitutional executive power to an administration like Biden's is some seriously toxic stuff.
They do not need to allow or disallow anything, like all other free energy devices it will die on its own merits but still maintain a cult following.
The technology being described isn't "free energy." It's a low-energy capture device made from expensive-to-make and fragile substances that probably won't sustain very well out in the real world. It transfers a modest amount of energy from the tiny kinetic movement of water droplets in humid air as they - in their random movements - bang into the walls of the material described. A very large, very dense cube of this material might produce a few kilo watt hours of juice in a steady enough way to be useful under some specific circumstances. Who in the summary or article is saying anything about "free?" It will involve a lot of expensive, fiddly fuss to put it to work.
The disconnect is that a judge has declared that a person said something they never said, and never intended to say.
That's pretty terrifying.
"Twitter files" - ah yes, the fabricated bullshit from *checks notes* pedophilic south-african "afrikaner" apartheidist nazi Elon Child Abuser Musk... YAWWWN.
Come back when you have something remotely credible that hasn't been fake-edited and outright fabricated from a ridiculous bullshit factory.
Wow. This is quite painful for you, isn't it. Let me guess: you lost your job at Twitter censoring content, huh? That's a shame.
The Supreme Court didn't rule anything about the Constitution.
Wut? This was entirely about the separation of powers. As in:
What they ruled was that because this is so much money Congress doesn't have the right to delegate authority.
Right, sort of. That's constitutional issue. The court looks at the matter at hand, and then says, "Nope, what he's trying to do is unconstitutional." Note that the constitution doesn't spell out dollar amounts that make the power to raise and assign the spending of money a legislative activity. The threshold isn't in dollars, it's in statute. If congress doesn't pass a bill supporting a specific type of spending, nobody else gets to. The constitution is structured that way on purpose, and there's no little dollar-dial that pushes the constitution aside when you dial it down from "Medium High" to "Low."
That's why this is an overstep and it's why they're legislating from the bench. Like it or not they just overruled Congress.
How to tell us you haven't actually read the Heroes Act without saying it out loud, right? And that aside, yes, the Judiciary absolutely has the power to overrule congress when congressional activities (legislation, certain kinds of committee actions, etc) don't pass a test of constitutionality. But that's not the case here. Congress didn't do anything unconstitutional, the executive did.
If you don't like the law then repeal the heroes act.
Why? It's fine as is, and has nothing to do with someone from Suburban DC in a dual-income household making $250,000 having a plumber from Idaho work part of his day to pay off some of that prosperous couple's law school debt.
But you don't have the votes to do that so you use the courts instead.
No, Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer didn't have the votes to actually pass legislation aimed at the broader (non-Heroes-Act targeted) audience whose mid-term votes they were looking to buy, so Biden's handlers took a stab at abusing executive power knowing it would still work as a sales pitch for low-information, constitutionally illiterate college students even though it would of course fail scrutiny later. Pelosi, of course, said this out loud in advance, in specific detail. Her own chamber's and party's constitutional lawyers TOLD the Dems this was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, and she said it. Because she knew this is exactly how it would wind up.
Activist Court? Sure, if by "activist," you mean, "acting as the check and balancing power exactly as intended by the founders who wrote the constitution and people of the nation who ratified it." If acting to preserve the separation of powers and keep the power of the purse in congress is "activism," sure, why not, call it that.
Demember during the disasteous Obama administration, the US government made it legal to practice propaganda campaigns against the US people.
This is likely what we are seeing here.
As we learn more the likelihood of a leak is being replaced with the likelihood of intentional creation and release.
A leak is just a rouse.
Yes, except that isn't true. 20 seconds on google will find you stuff in UK, Russia, Mexico and pretty much the rest of the planet with rare exceptions. I don't know of any North Kora UFO reports, for example.
20 seconds on Google will also find you ample reports on how the Egyptian pyramids were actually made by aliens, and how mermaids, unicorns, and various forms of Sasquatch/Yeti/Bigfoot are running circles around "scientists" that just can't seem to find a single scrap of Yeti poop, a Sasquatch bone, or a tuft of Bigfoot hair despite - we're assured - thousands of years of them living in the woods behind your house.
20 seconds of Google will indeed find you reports of UFO stuff from all around the world
Yup and what about $2 billion to Kushner, crickets.
You mean the $2B that you can actually point to as being an investment in businesses that aren't a nest of phony shell LLCs, and which actually pay taxes on earnings, and which didn't distribute cash to ex-wives, and grandchildren? You mean $2B that was actually handled with proper paperwork, and about which both the investor and the company in which the money was invested are happy to discuss with anyone who asks?
Let's compare that to the web of meaningless Biden-spawned LLCs that don't actually produce anything, aren't operating as foreign agents with proper State paperwork, exchange all kinds of internal emails and texts about how to conduct their organizing meetings in secret and use code names and words to obscure the fact that loads of cash are funneled to them from the CCP and corrupt entities in the Ukraine that got beneficial treatment from The Big Guy. See? Exactly the same! Right.
The FBI just got done telling congress that they literally can't vouch for the life of the whistleblower who informed them about a straight-up quid pro quo between millions flowing from Biden's protected interests in Ukraine and bank accounts run by shells of shells of LLCs formed by the Bidens while he was VP. I know, you don't want to hear about any of that because it takes the fun out of your narrative.
Mises called it "malinvestment."
The company should never have existed at all. Cheap credit and exploitative employment practices were the only thing holding it up.
> It's called responsibility.
Yes, because the gun people
Thinking you're going to make ANY sort of constructive comment on this by invoking "the gun people" shows how deliberately mal-informed you are on the topic.
"The" gun people aren't the lazy, casual owners who allow their firearms to be handled by people too young or too witless to be safe with them. Untold millions of people owning the 400+ million firearms in this country manage just fine, just like most also manage to keep young kids from backing the family car out into the street. If there was a problem with "the" gun people, it would be on a scale so enormously huge compared to the rare (but wildly hyped by the media) event of an unsupervised child doing something dreadful with a firearm.
"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai