No, capitalism is feudalism with loot boxes! Because I could win the lottery.

If you've met any Long Islanders, this tracks.

That last point is why I couldn't play Fallout 4. My son was kidnapped, my spouse was killed, and I need to find out who did it and where they are! Right after I save a library, build a town, and solve some detective mysteries, I guess.

They're saying there was no measurable change in their lives driven by political leadership in the last 16 years? They're arguing in bad faith.

This. Everyone I talk to says, "but socialized medicine has such long wait times." But these same fuckers avoid going to the doctor until it's absolutely unbearable to deal with because it costs to much to find out if it'll get better on its own. So if you're getting symptoms of something and waiting two months anyway, how is your system better?

I'm having a tough time imagining a scenario where you're in too much of a hurry to spend 30 seconds returning the cart, but not too much of a hurry to buy your merchandise and load it in your vehicle.

There will always be wants and needs that go unfulfilled

That's not what 'needs' means.

It's classic Two Santas from the Republicans again.

The fun one is where they brag that older workers are making "substantially more" because they're averaging $22/hr versus $13/hr in 1987. Adjusted for inflation, that $13/hr should be around $35/hr.

More people are working longer for less money.

For the last 40 years or so, Republican voters have mostly been single-issue voters. They care very passionately about one thing, and will let almost anything else slide as a result. Being in favor of cable fees doesn't matter as long as they're anti-abortion. Being in favor of cutting social welfare programs that those very voters rely upon is fine as long as they're anti-trans.

For the most part, each voter only cares about one or two specific things, and the whole picture doesn't really matter to them.

That's a bad take. The case actually affirmed business judgement rule: the idea that the guy running the company knows how to run it better than the shareholders. It's part of why post-war America is considered the golden age of American manufacturing: Publicly traded companies invested in their employees and wages exploded across the board. A 100 year old court decision isn't the primary driver on a problem that's really only developed in the last forty or fifty years.

"Publicly funded" doesn't mean "publicly owned." Plenty of states give grants and tax incentives to film productions to entice them to work there. That's tax dollars going into a copyrighted work.

And being of a public figure has absolutely no bearing on copyright. If it did, paparazzi wouldn't exist, because they wouldn't be able to effectively sell their photos.