This is more commercial real estate. Who mentioned homes?

You knee jerk reactionaries are hilarious. You whine about people being triggered, but one scary word can make your whole brain shut down, to the point you can't even comprehend plain English.

This is it exactly. Commercial real estate. This is why even state government agencies are being pressured to get back in the office: most states lease their office space.

If the wealthy elites want something, the media will print endless stories about why it is necessary and why, in fact, everyone already loves doing it. The government will pass any laws necessary to get the thing done, in a remarkably bipartisan and timely manner.

There are a number of studies that show that the preferences of the average voter means nothing. They literally have no bearing on what becomes law. The only thing that matters is the preferences of the top money hoarders. When the elites agree on something, it becomes law immediately. When the elites need help, it happens on the Monday after the crisis, not months later or not at all.

We need to elect politicians who loudly declare "Fuck the rich." If they are not willing to proudly and loudly stand AGAINST the owning class, they will definitely not stand for the working class. Make them say it outright, so the rich hear them saying it, "Fuck the rich. We're coming for the money they took from the working class."

More than just a regular old rich people's bank, this is THE bank for laundering dirty Russian money so the oligarchs can use it outside of Russia. If it goes tits up, the world will rejoice, as a major source of Evil dark money will be gone. Online discourse will become less rancorous as Russian troll farms don't get paid. And the Ukrainians will have an easier time wiping the floor with the sorry excuse for an army the Russians can field. So all in all? This is cause for celebration!

Shut the fuck up Ivan. Go die in a ditch with the rest of the orks. Be sure to put some sunflower seeds in your pocket first so your life will have served a purpose.

Did you forget to log out of your alt account SuperKendall? I wasn't responding to anyone named "KlomDark."

Porn is like any other addiction industry. The money all comes from the whales. Just like gambling or meth, 10% of customers make up 90% of the revenue stream. 90% of us don't pay for porn, but 10% of us pay for a lot of porn.

Now you are just being dumb. There is no way in hell to shoot down a balloon and guarantee it lands in a lake or river. It was high up and had a huge balloon which, even deflated, would catch the wind.

If this were a republican administration, I bet you'd be saying how genius this all was.

Oh for crying out loud, it was the smart thing to do. What if it had something deadly onboard?

And please, you right wingers only try to second guess our intelligence services when a Democrat is in the White House. If it was a Republican, you'd be crowing about how smart it was.

Did you ever think maybe we knew it was there all along? There are two other very good reasons not to shoot it down: first, we might want the Chinese to know our nuclear weapons systems are fully up to date and operational. Second, we might be feeding them false information.

No, because of the way copyright works, it does have to be that way. No game developer want their copyrighted IP associated with whatever trash game some dipshit edgelord wants to write. Yeah, sure, you can put Mickey Mouse in your loli-rape game. LOL, never going to happen, and you are dumb for thinking it's a good thing.

NO game company is going to let some other IP into their games. And very few games would benefit even from letting in the companies own IP, from other series. As a gamer, I do not want to see your cowboy in my sci fi game.

So, you'd have to give the companies control over what goes into their games. Making the whole concept pointless.

So not only are you wrong, you're an asshole about it to boot, because you haven't thought this through and don't have any actual, good, reasoned arguments in favor. You just want what you want. And critical thinking is obviously not something you want to do.

Argentina is not banning emoji, Italy is not requiring all babies to be dressed in pink or blue, and Morocco is not going to require GPS to tax bicycles by the mile.

-

If you don't like my source then perhaps you can provide one that is better.

I just reviewed every result on the first page of Google search for: beef greenhouse climate. EVERY SINGLE ONE explains, in one way or another, that beef has a significant and grossly disproportionate impact on the climate. The Economist, Scientific American, The Guardian, Forbes, World Resource Institute, Vox, BBC, Science(published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science), Sciencedirect, the United Nation's FAO, and countless more. Take your pick. Or you could try
Environmental impact of meat production with over 200 sources cited.

Global warming in general, and the impact of beef in particular, are all way past the point where denialism requires actively avoiding and disregard wall-to-wall sources saying the same thing.

If we are concerned about the global warming impact of eating beef then I'm thinking we did so well with the big emitters of coal, petroleum, natural gas, cement, and metal refining, that we are looking to the teeny tiny impact of beef.

If you are bleeding from multiple wounds, I'm sure you know full well that was not a valid argument AGAINST bandaging the easily fixed bleeding immediately, while experts attempt to get the more severe and difficult bleeding under control.

We have not remotely halted global warming. We have barely begun to slow it down, due to decades of sabotage by denialists. The only way we can possibly solve this problem is a few percent at a time in many different ways and many different places. As all of the top Google search results explain, reducing beef consumption is the quickest and easiest thing we can do to immediately and significantly shift things several percent in the right direction. Several percent translates into years of difference, and a lower peak temperature.

As for the rest of your post, I very carefully checked and double checked. Not one sentence was remotely addressed how much impact beef does or does not have. I'm not sure why, but you spent four paragraphs 100% dedicated to arguing that your signature is false and absurd.

-

Fuck you. I'm not the guy who you responded too but I agree with them. Gamergate was a recruitment campaign for neo-nazis and plenty of alt right fuckwits like Steve Bannon have admitted that in print. https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Good deeds make people feel good because evolution rewards winning strategies with pleasure. Doing good deeds, acting in a prosocial manner, improves your chances for survival and procreation. There is literally no other reason that doing them would feel good.

We don't define things as selfish just because they make you feel good. We define them as selfish if they only benefit the self, and no other. What you are doing is trying to justify real, actual selfishness, which only benefits the individual, by claiming anything that makes you feel good is selfish.

That is a very selfish take on selfishness. It belittles true acts of selflessness and raises selfishness up to be an immutable truth of human nature. In short, it is an excuse be selfish and anti-social, dressed up in dime store philosophy and grade school level sociology.

Beef is one of the top cause of climate change?

Yes.

I thought I'd look that up and a study from Oklahoma State University says beef production causes 1.9% of the CO2 emissions from human activity.

That's called confirmation bias. You went looking for a specific answer, you ignored all of the reliable sources and all of the evidence contradicting the answer you wanted, and you latched on to the first random thing that kinda-sorta looked like the answer you wanted.

In this case you quote a fragment about CO2, and you utterly disregarded methane. Methane is 25 to 80 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, and beef production accounts for approximately one third of all human caused methane in the US.

Beef is indisputably an order of magnitude more environmentally damaging than any other category of food. You could buy anywhere from 10 to 200 pounds of virtually any non-meat food, eat one pound and literally burn all of the rest, and it would have less environmental impact than a pound of beef. Beef is obviously only one of many contributors to global warming, but it is a significant factor.

Global warming is not remotely "solved". Temperatures are rising, we haven't stopped the increase, we haven't even managed to slow the increase. Temperatures are still on a basically straight-line increase. There are various initiatives to eventually try to get things under control, but we're nowhere near achieving that. Temperatures are going to continue to rising for decades to come, because denialists have spent the last decades devoted to sabotage.

-

Came here for the clippy joke, was not disappointed.