That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
In this new alt-right world, so many classic video games will need to be remade so that the Nazis are removed and instead we're all shooting the real bad guys (moveon.org members, Woody Allen fans, etc).Holman wrote:Hopefully we can get tweets from every war movie director reminding the alt-right that the Nazis are the bad guys.
I'm looking forward to fighting Mecha-Streisand!Captain Caveman wrote:In this new alt-right world, so many classic video games will need to be remade so that the Nazis are removed and instead we're all shooting the real bad guys (moveon.org members, Woody Allen fans, etc).Holman wrote:Hopefully we can get tweets from every war movie director reminding the alt-right that the Nazis are the bad guys.
Actually that's how I got a friend to vote for Hillary. When your choices are Jabba the Hut and Darth Vader, you vote for Jabba.Holman wrote:Is that the new Jabba movie?
Why theIsgrimnur wrote:But it does contain sucralose, which, per the city, is an equivalent thing.
? I've seen studies saying diet drinks aren't good for you either.They don't know why though. And the science there is pretty weak still - versus say sugar where the science is strong. For example, these type of artificial sweetener studies are routinely done on obese people - so they've never been able to truly "un-confound" the reasons why there is weight gain seen when they are substituted versus water. Either way - NJ or Chester County, PA welcomes the tax free propel purchases. It literally is a bridge ride away.stessier wrote:Why theIsgrimnur wrote:But it does contain sucralose, which, per the city, is an equivalent thing.
Which would be one 'case' of 12-500 ml bottles.Holman wrote:The tax, incidentally, is 1.5 cents per ounce, so that buyer with the pictured receipt was picking up 6 liters of that stuff.
I predict it will spectacularly fail at that regard. It was designed poorly and is far, far too high a tax. Making it a few percent on top would have made it largely invisible. As designed it is high enough to reduce the spend to alternates (or alternate locales) and will hurt local business and under perform. Heck it could reduce sales drastically for other goods and lead to an overall loss of tax revenue. People could think - heck I'm going out of the city anyway to grab soda - might as well do my whole shopping run there. Also this will hit the poor far more than the wealthy (they'll just get in their car and drive a mile to avoid the tax). It on the surface appears to be an almost hilariously bad implementation of a tax as you'll ever see.Holman wrote:That beverage tax isn't an attempt to limit sugary beverage consumption; it's paying for pre-K education in the city. Given the constraints Harrisburg has put on Philadelphia, a consumption tax was the only option.
The tax, incidentally, is 1.5 cents per ounce, so that buyer with the pictured receipt was picking up 6 liters of that stuff.
Yeah, quite a few drink brands, including Propel, sell their drinks in packets/powder form, so you just mix it in with water. I wouldn't drink that crap if you paid me (I don't need my water to have more salt than a small order of french fries) but if someone really feels that they need it for the "vitamins" - they can help themselves and the environment by not purchasing it by the case.Isgrimnur wrote:Which would be one 'case' of 12-500 ml bottles.Holman wrote:The tax, incidentally, is 1.5 cents per ounce, so that buyer with the pictured receipt was picking up 6 liters of that stuff.
I foresee an advertising opportunity to really push stuff like the Mio and SodaStream concentrates, since you're not paying the tax on all of the water.
It's already a marketing tool:malchior wrote:I predict it will spectacularly fail at that regard. It was designed poorly and is far, far too high a tax. Making it a few percent on top would have made it largely invisible. As designed it is high enough to reduce the spend to alternates (or alternate locales) and will hurt local business and under perform. Heck it could reduce sales drastically for other goods and lead to an overall loss of tax revenue. People could think - heck I'm going out of the city anyway to grab soda - might as well do my whole shopping run there. Also this will hit the poor far more than the wealthy (they'll just get in their car and drive a mile to avoid the tax). It on the surface appears to be an almost hilariously bad implementation of a tax as you'll ever see.
Some tasty schadenfreude there, if this is legit.Brian wrote:
Why not? Look at the approval percentages when people are asked about ACA vs Obamacare.RunningMn9 wrote:There is no way that's real.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of Joe Public.RunningMn9 wrote:Because it just can't be. You can't be buying insurance through the ACA while thinking that it's different than "Obamacare". I don't accept that that is possible.
In a world where someone can carry a "Keep govt out of my Medicare" sign, anything is possible. Morans are out there. Although that exchange does look suspiciously pat.Max Peck wrote:I'm with RM9. It's funny as hell, but too good to be true (although it does capture the essential truth of people voting against their own interests because they swallow the party propaganda hook, line and sinker). Barring evidence to the contrary, my money is on hilarious hoax.
After watching PBS newshour last night, I don't believe you are correct. They had a series of interviews with people on interviews clamoring to get on the exchanges in a panic to get their benefits for 2017 before Obamacare gets the screws put to it who were all concurrently railing on how Obamacare needs to be repealed as the first priority.RunningMn9 wrote:Because it just can't be. You can't be buying insurance through the ACA while thinking that it's different than "Obamacare". I don't accept that that is possible.
I was looking for the article, but I can't find it. I believe it was from 2015 and it was a series of interviews with people in a few of the southern states that were talking about how their state-sponsored health care plan saved their life but that they hated (with all of their heart) Obamacare. Of course they didn't realize in any capacity that the Affordable Care Act was providing them with health care (through their state-sponsored plan) so of course they looked stupid. I found it to be a depressing take on the situation and a PR failure - but the partisanship of the issue cannot be denied.LordMortis wrote:I can't speak for the truth of the picture. Only the plausibility.
Having a situation where you've potentially made a large number of people vote against their own interest? That's impressive. Also, horrifying.I heard from Obamacare enrollment counselors who had seen this confusion play out firsthand, too. “When we’re approaching people about getting signed up on health care, one of the first questions they have is, ‘Is this Obamacare?’” says Michael Wynn, one of Oller’s co-workers. “So we would tell them, ‘No, this is not Obamacare. This is a state-run plan.’”
This was a story I heard a lot, but it was not the one that fit the Obamacare enrollees I met. All but one knew full well that the coverage was part of Obamacare. They voted for Trump because they were concerned about other issues — and just couldn’t fathom the idea that this new coverage would be taken away from them.
“I guess I thought that, you know, he would not do this, he would not take health insurance away knowing it would affect so many peoples lives,” says Debbie Mills, an Obamacare enrollee who supported Trump. “I mean, what are you to do then if you cannot pay for insurance?”
He doubled down this morning, vowing to block any "deranged liberals" who told him they were the same thing.Smoove_B wrote:On topic:
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one. I like he is complaining about fending off a horde of liberals. A quick google search would illuminate your life buck-o.Skinypupy wrote:
