Of course. Believe all women until they accuse either a) a Democrat or b) a criminal who just so happens to be useful to out narrative. So much for me too.

But if they accuse anyone to the right of Marx? OH YES BELIEVE HER BY DEFAULT.

Anyone know anything about audio? Whenever I am playing audio on two different applications on my pc. the audio gets muffled for one. I've tried this with youtube, spotify, and some other audio sources and compared it with videogame audio.

For example, I'll be playing a videogame, lets say I'm playing Dark Souls. So I'm playing this and maybe I want to play music on spotify in the background. Normally this would be fine, but last week or so, its been super muffled and garbage audio for the spotify. Same situation is applicable to youtube.

it's a question of app dominance

Like priority?

yep

Ok. I'll look into that.

i normally run multiple media players at once...and some browser media players ...u can set that no app has priority or 1 or more has priority

👍

So question. Am I the a-hole in this situation? This is a screenshot from the colorado.gov main website about masks and Covid which clearly says that a person does not need to wear a mask if they have a medical issue that a mask may interfere with. I have been going to my local gym that requires masks. I wear one to get in but take it off when I run, which they allow as long as you have it around your neck, but for anybody who puts even light pressure around their neck when running knows it feels like you are being chocked. Not only do I have asthma, the smoke from all the fires makes me sometimes have a shortness of breath, like I can only breathe in 80% of what I normally could even with an inhaler. I have been called out by 2 employees for not wearing a mask and even had the owner call me and ask me to just wear it around my neck. Should I just wear it down around my neck, and am I an a-hole if remind the employees that they are required to ask if I have a medical condition before making me wear a mask?

nah, remind them of the law. thats your job when someone clearly doesnt know it. wish you luck dealing with idiots.

better to remind them it's not a law, no mandate, ordinance nor guideline is a law

any law in the usa has to be passed constitutionally, and only then approved by senate then president(national), or governor(state level)....the first phase is normally done via public announcement and discussion on the topic with the public before going to committee then to the representatives(both national and state/city level)

courts decide on the law, but they do not make the laws

Thank you my fellow Zeds <:salut:730846445732888630>

How does everyone feel about BREXIT and Candence Owens?

Candace Owens is a badass. Brexit is a necessity.

Brexit was a good thing, and we need more people like Candace Owens. She's smart and beautiful. Not afraid to speak her mind and exudes confidence. That right there is a role model. I dont follow her very closely, but I think she definitely is a badass. (especially after she wiped the floor with Cardi B in front of their combined audiences LOL)

I'm okay with Candace. I just hope she's learned since her project that was bordering on 1984 levels of madness

Brexit? Get em Limeys.

Never should've joined in the first place, it was only because the Labour Party destroyed the Empire, nationalised our economy to hell, gave the Unions unlimited power, raised taxes through the roof, made unaffordable public spending commitments that weren't reduced until Thatcher ending the so-called "post-war consensus", but they still have a legacy today. They made us the sick man of Europe an a second class nation. Attlee received $2.7 billion in Marshall Plan Aid and $4 billion more from America during his premiership, along with $1 billion from Canada and 4 million ounces of gold from South Africa, well over $130 billion in todays money. How much went to the colonies? How much went toward infrastructural or industrial modernisation? Next to none, the bulk only went to nationalisations and demagoguery. He implemented forced labour in Malaya, after they'd just been occupied for 4 years and the same in Africa, to the families of the heroes that had fought the Japanese for 4 years in Burma and driven the Italians out of East Africa. That caused the Malaya and Kenyan rebellions which destroyed Churchill's plans to entice foreign investment to the colonies for businesses to train and hire the natives there and raise the tax base of the colonies (along with the franchise which was tied to tax). As the tax bases grew then the governments would be able to pay for things like improving schooling which would make the next generation to be more skilled. Once each colony reached first world/dominion status, they'd get full responsible self government within the Empire/Commonwealth, with free trade, we'd share the burden of defence and also coordinate on foreign policy. Investor confidence was instead in the toilet as both rebellions took a decade to put down, every colony painted as a powder keg ready to explode at anytime - who would want to put their money in somewhere like that? Africa and the Middle East are a mess today and the Commonwealth is a fart-in-a-bottle

Agreed

though trump is doing a great job of making peace in the middle east

Where can I found source for that survey? And more generally where can I find more official statistics of this kind ? Thanks!

fbi crime statistics

try past 20yrs

SirW00f#8599 thanks for that, it was bit obvious. Now, I think that mentioning source in memes makes it “next level”.

Lmao

Yes it does

If abortion was banned in the US, it'd be increasing the overall birth rate by 25% (4 mil born, 1 mil aborted per year). Statistically if you have a child out of wedlock you're much more likely to be poorer, the child is also much more likely to turn out negatively (crime/drugs/suicide/dropping out etc) if they're raised by a single parent. As most children aborted would've been unplanned and likely out of wedlock, we'd generally recommend adoption/the foster system instead for them. How could we pay for nearly 1,000,000 extra children per year entering the foster/adoption system? It costs roughly $200k to raise a child until they're 18, and $200k*1 million = $200 billion, it'd be impossible to fund that through charity. I'd gladly take whatever tax increase if it meant stopping children being killed, but I'm not dumb enough to believe all of my extra taxes would go towards children alone, or that when a Democrat was elected that my taxes would magically go back down - they could even go towards funding things like more abortions since it'll be decided by states even if Roe is overturned.

How would all those kids be paid for? Would you risk socialism (high taxes/government control etc) in order to stop abortion?

Also most of the arguments applied to the unborn child e.g brain waves, heartbeat, unique DNA, pain sensation etc could also be applied to animals too, but I'm still a carnivore as are most people are, all for our own convenience. Animals can have relationships with each other and humans to some degree, they can show emotion to some degree also, certainly more than an unborn child would. Also the arguments for population control for hunting game is the same argument the left and greenies make for killing unborn children

That is very interesting thought process. First, I don't think if abortion was banned, or mostly banned, all one million aborted would now be born. I'd think that number would go down first because people would have to go back to patterns before Roe v Wade and be more careful with the added benefit of modern contraceptives.

Secondly, if I could be guaranteed most of a tax increase would go to the foster system I'd be in favor of that, thou I do prefer it where currently a lot of it is paid by charity and and religious organizations. When I get out of college and have a stable job, fostering and adoption is something I plan to do and wish more people would consider it an option. It's obviously not for everyone and has challenges that go on top of what would already be raising a child but more people could do it then currently. To help that cause, the cost to foster and adopt, particularly domestic, should be cheaper so not just the upper income people can afford to do it. It's a reason some companies now include adoption benefits to complement maternity/ paternity benefits, particularly when it's a cheap thing for a company to offer benefit wise when most people won't use it.

You'll trust a politicians word on how your taxes will be spent? They have 1000 things to spend on already, it's impossible to guarantee it unless it's you in office. Also if a Democrat comes into power your taxes will either stay at the same rate or go even higher, they'll have the same revenue as the previous incumbent had and you'll get no say really where it goes then. It could also split the Republican party also because of the high taxes, which is traditionally antithetical to Conservatism. Today in the US there's 440k kids in the foster system altogether and it's already heavily burdened for things like funding already. Only around 135k are adopted every year. If banning abortion lead to even a 60% decrease in unplanned pregnancies due to more carefulness with contraceptives, it's still be doubling the burden of the system instantly, which would compound every year. I also do think more people should adopt, but I think the only way to make it feasible to have all of those kids looked after would be to force people to take them. Things like tax incentives or company benefits it'd be tough to get the amount of engagement needed as kids are a lot of work and take 18 years to raise. It'd have to be around a $11,000 tax break per year to be enough.

Do you have any ideas on how to make the cost of fostering/adoption cheaper @Stargatemaster96 ? It'd probably help, but I can't think of anything since things like price controls are a disaster and I stay away from it. If we outsourced more manufacturing to the sweatshops of Asia/Africa it'd probably make the cost of living a lot cheaper, but put millions out of work and destroy the economy

most of ur taxes doesn't do shit in the cities/states ...most of the shit gets paid for in fines on everybody

the taxes pay for the perks of political officials mostly

One of the ways to lower the cost is all the legal fees and licenses. If you become a foster parent and later adopt a foster, many of the fees, training, and licenses are waved by the state. However direct adoption (not even talking private adoption that can be $100k+) even out of foster care can cost $60k+. While fostering is great, not everyone wants or is able to do that and instead want to just adopt.

Also, you may be aware but beside the child tax benefit you would get anyway, there is an extra tax benefit which I think is a monthly check as long as a child is a foster (thus technically in states care) for foster parents. I don't know how much it is, I'm fairly sure it depends on the child based on their age and if they have any extra extenuating circumstances, but it's actually non insignificant.

foster a child, state supports the child and the foster parent, but foster a pet, state washes it's hands and foster parent is req'd to cover all costs and report to mandatory medical checkups for the pet

i don't foster pets, i adopt them