What happened in 1972?

So now we have both irrational and fractional fucks, we have all real fucks, and since we can have “twisted fuck” we can rotate any fuck through any angle and we have the entire complex fuck plane.

Nothing makes your crosser than people criticising trump, and nothing makes you happier than downplaying the criticism. You love to call people liars who disagree with you. I hope you’ll give it a rest sometime soon when the polls have closed and you’ve run out of time to stand up for Trump, but I guess not because Trump isn’t going to shut up any time soon and you’ll not run out of things to defend him from.

Or, if you prefer,

No nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, nut, no nut, Nut, Nut, NUT.

That’s 16 nuts in a 30 day month. It’s not no nut November and it’s not non stop nut November, it’s intermittent nut November.

https://lemmy.world/u/damnedfurry

Read a few pages and you’ll see the pattern. Nearly all of it supporting Trump or Republicans or picking holes in people who criticised them. You’re not in the slightest bit objective, you’re all for Trump. If you were actually objective, you would have more criticism for disgraced former president Trump and his five lies a minute deranged, deluded, reality denying self absorbed approach to everything.

I love this post. Thank you.

Strange that the king of misinformation comes in for so little criticism from you and so much praise.

My point is that you’re username suggests objectivity, calm rationality and balance, but you’re incredibly partisan, feeling-driven and pretty rude to people who criticise guess what? No, not science, not facts, not rationality, but Donald Trump, the science-denying idiot disgraced former president who is well known for using the word “truth” to mean things he likes to hear and “fake” for things he doesn’t like to hear, the liar of liars, the king of untruth, and the toddler of emotional maturity.

So no, the fact that it makes you cross that lots of women are checking that their husbands can’t find out how they voted, or even that Google thought they might, and that you’re calling people names for thinking it might be happening, doesn’t particularly convince me that this is not happening.

Username does not check out.

Thanks, I hate it.

I don’t know why Janet thought that the working conditions would be nice at the evil laboratory. It’s not exactly evil to take good care of your employees now, is it?

Your claim to be a worker because you did half an hour’s work in a month for a landlord’s income that’s so large you can afford to discount it by £300 a month isn’t the winning argument you think it is.

Yesterday I heard they were reducing the amount people on universal credit can have their payment reduced for utility debt etc, which is good. It’s not all completely horrible, there are some silver linings.

Then your income wouldn’t be affected in any real way by raising taxes on those shares and getting cross that Starmer taxing unearned income is affecting you badly is bothincorrect and missing the point.

Starmer is raising tax on unearned income instead of working people’s taxes, which is very fair for a change, and you’re splitting hairs over definitions of who counts as workers. You’re so missing the point.

Why are you so cross about this? He only means that he’ll tax their unearned income a bit more, and if they really are working people out won’t affect them much.

The extent to which it affects workers is the extent to which they aren’t workers. It isn’t the logical gotcha you seem to think it is.

If Starmer suggested taxing football income you would be being a bit daft if you claimed that it was going to hurt the guy you just replied to on the grounds that he earned fifty quid from football.

“But he’s a worker too and he’s not rich and you promised not to tax him” is sillier than saying that he isn’t covered by the promise to not raise taxes on working people.

That’s because (and this is the bit that’s not quite got through to you somehow yet) the vast, vast, vast majority of his income is from working, not from football.

But if he said “income from owning shares isn’t eligible for PAYE taxation and therefore isn’t covered by a pledge to not increase taxes on workers’ earnings” he wouldn’t have a headline and you would be accusing him of talking like a politician and breaking promises.

But no, he was asked this in the context of some disingenuous question like “bbbut you promised not to raise taxes on working people, and this will hurt working people, aren’t people with a hardworking fast food day job and a tiny bit extra from a few shares or renting out their spare bedroom just to make ends meet exactly the working people you promised not to raise taxes on?”

And Starmer says no, and now we have a headline because a bunch of shareholders who are experts at hoarding money because it’s all they really care about are as pissed as they ever get because tHe GovErNmunT iS tAkiN aLL MY mUnnY.

It’s the daily telegraph, for goodness sake. When did they ever care about ordinary people’s finances?!

Owning a house isn’t a job but maintaining one is.

I think you just agreed with each other a little bit.

Thank you.