2 Likes
I mean that doesnât help with the current laws though right? Only new laws? Plus the If republicans win their doj will still absolutely fuck us
So republicans could just ram through a ton of bad laws first and WAAF still right?
Better than nothing for sure but still WAAF territory.
Or will Biden doj be able to strike down current laws under that? Hopefully manchin at least allows something to do that.
People are dumb. Saw pics of people pumping gas into plastic garage storage bins, too.
https://twitter.com/ArletteSaenz/status/1392517950725361675?s=20
Pipelines are a weird mashup of control by DoE and DoT. Pete and Jen Granholm facing their first crisis. Also, lol:
ETA, ah here it is (PA, of course, lol):
2 Likes
Iâm surprised shes not smoking. I hope she dropped her phone in there.
Sheâs got nothing on this one.
https://twitter.com/UpBeatSkeletor/status/1392253034814754825?s=19
1 Like
That is actually President Manchinâs plan.
After visiting here my Dad is flying down to my brothers outside Asheville NC. My brother has half a tank. Thankfully he lives 20 min from the airport.
I think Iâm going to give Dad a 5 gallons of gas in an approved container. Surely the TSA has to let him take it on the plane. My brother needs gas.
1 Like
Snap call. Vote now before someone dies
https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1392920863872327686?s=21
4 Likes
Manchin has proposed the deal, but he still opposes it.
22 Likes
is manchin holding out to have all republican senators vote against his bill?
1 Like
I guess its good theres something Manchin will vote for, but since hes against ending the filibuster to vote for it not sure how useful it is
Sure just let this happen you fucking assholes
https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1392838367797186560?s=21
1 Like
One of my buddies works at a high-end plaintiffâs firm and they are all huge Dem donors and he told me they were on a Dem fundraiser call recently and Chuck Schumer straight up said the filibuster was done. I laughed and said mmmk, but who knows?
Whatâs unfortunate is that the second map looks a whole lot more reasonable at first glance than the one that exists now.
This was an infuriating read. Dennett, like all compatibilists, is engaged in a project of redefining what commonly understood terms mean. Like, he writes this:
You find my view âindistinguishable from retributivismâ. This baffles me, since I have all along stressed the âforward-lookingâ justification I have presented. There are non-retributive, non-deontological, consequentialist justifications of punishment.
OK, so punishment is justified by âforward-lookingâ justifications, i.e. the same consequentialism that free-will skeptics use to justify punishment. But then we get this:
For without my kind of desert, no one would deserve to receive the prize they competed for in good faith and won, no one would deserve to be blamed for breaking solemn promises without excuse, no one would deserve to have their driverâs licence revoked for drunk-driving, no one would deserve punishment for lying under oath, and so forth. There would be no rights, no recourse to authority to protect against fraud, theft, rape, murder. In short, no morality.
All Dennett is doing here is redefining âdeserveâ to mean âdid something for which there are forward-looking justifications for reward or punishmentâ. Like if thereâs any difference between âthis person should be punished for murder because we donât want people murdering other people and we have to establish a deterrentâ and âthis person deserves to be punished for murderâ in Dennettâs worldview, then I donât see it. As far as I can see those things are the same to him. And heâs thereby preserving the language of sin and righteousness while rejecting all the consequences of those ideas as understood by like 99.9% of people who believe in them.
Edit: Like if a murderer gets life in prison and someone says âhe deserves to go to the chairâ, they donât mean âsociety would operate more smoothly if we executed this guyâ, they mean âthis is an evil person and Iâd like to see him sufferâ. As a self-proclaimed non-retributivist, Dennett presumably rejects this, but âitâs RIGHT that this person is sufferingâ is what deserve fucking means! Dennett instead subscribes to the view âitâs sometimes NECESSARY we make people suffer for what they didâ, which is also the view of free-will skeptics like me and Caruso. Itâs unclear to me what difference believing that someone âdeserves somethingâ, in the Dennett sense, actually makes. What changes if I do or donât subscribe to this idea?
What if republicans say âWe will needy consider it, kick rocksâ
I have used most payment processing apps but not Venmo. Not for any particular reason other than I always had something else in common with anyone I needed to exchange funds with.
But I certainly would not start using it now. Itâs monumentally stupid it defaults to all transactions being public.