adultswim_antifa
2d ago
•
100%
Obviously they will believe he is still alive and that he won the 2024 election (and 2020).
adultswim_antifa
3d ago
•
98%
Of the 3 attempted assassins, this is the only one that is seems libbed the fuck up. Who other than the lib seriously believes you can just point out the conflicts of interest and something will happen? Bud, it's conflict of interest all the way down at this point.
adultswim_antifa
3d ago
•
100%
Don't forget about UNIFIL and UNRWA.
adultswim_antifa
4d ago
•
100%
What's being claimed here? That the soviets made the nazis portray themselves as organized mass murderers to make Hitler looks bad? Nazis killed 6 million jews and 7.8 million soviet POWs and civilians in their camps.
adultswim_antifa
4d ago
•
100%
As an atheist, I'd change the title of the post to "there's a type of atheist that disgusts me". I think religious beliefs are an expression of material conditions and the political culture, so those are what I focus on. And the material conditions and political culture breed all kinds of strange nonreligious belief systems that people should be more skeptical of. But I genuinely do not care what people believe as long as they do not use it to justify hating marginalized people, especially if they find meaning or peace in it. I don't think people find meaning or peace in QAnon, but I know Christians who are genuinely very good people and do not want them to stop believing if it makes them happy.
adultswim_antifa
4d ago
•
100%
Bernie's gotta be wondering if he died and went to the bad place.
adultswim_antifa
5d ago
•
100%
True if you replace every instance of "Hamas" with "Israel".
adultswim_antifa
5d ago
•
100%
The police are still going to be evil racists that should not be allowed to have guns even after cannabis is legalized federally.
adultswim_antifa
6d ago
•
100%
None of the black people I've known were drug dealers 
adultswim_antifa
7d ago
•
100%
In an interview with The Associated Press, Robinson said he doubts that China can sustain its economic prosperity as long as it keeps a repressive political system.
Yet another westoid claiming China is on the brink of collapse.
"There's many examples in world history of societies like that that do well for 40, 50 years," Robinson said by phone. "What you see is that's never sustainable ... The Soviet Union did well for 50 or 60 years. Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world at the time of the First World War. What our theory predicts is that's a transitory situation."
Now I guess we can acknowledge that the Soviet Union was quite a success until the arrival of the god damned Pizza Hut. 60 years of the USSR would be 1977 and if these burgerbrain economists are willing to say maybe up to 60 years, I believe they know in their hearts it was a bit longer than that. 
adultswim_antifa
7d ago
•
100%
I used some formula from physics to calculate my IQ and I have an IQ of 2 million which is pretty incredible. And that's just physics.
adultswim_antifa
1w ago
•
100%
Can't say I'm surprised 
adultswim_antifa
1w ago
•
100%
I absolutely do not care in any way about an oleophobic coating which has probably been gone for years. But it would not stop me from cleaning a brand new phone periodically because phones are pretty gross and the oleophobic coating is not going to last anyway.
adultswim_antifa
1w ago
•
100%
Fuck that, party over country every time. 
The second half of the page is more of the same. Pretty sure you don't need a special kit to wipe your screen with a little rubbing alcohol.
adultswim_antifa
1w ago
•
100%
adultswim_antifa
1w ago
•
100%
every day, millions of people go to work and build, maintain, invent, or use the means of production to generate revenue. Then once a quarter, a bunch of people get together and decide how much of that money to pay, in dividends and buybacks, to the shareholders, who legally own the very means of production mentioned earlier. That isn't a get rich quick scheme, it's a get rich slow scheme. And just like in any scam, they are not giving you anything back. You are paying them from your surplus value. Shareholders trade shares between each other, but they rarely buy shares from the company so they literally do not transfer money to the company on a regular basis, and the amount raised through issuing shares is very small compared to the amount companies pay shareholders over time. So they are very literally not paying you to work for them. Then some guy shows up where you live and says he has a legal document that means he owns your home, so you have to give him half your paycheck. 
I'm not a lawyer, but I know tech companies run social media platforms to create data models about users for ad platforms. It seems to me that they could attempt to integrate themselves into a fediverse network and still harvest data, and not even provide services. So perhaps a software license could require that content posted to the platform by users is by default licensed under CC-BY-SA-NC or something that would prevent this.
Golf courses? Monoculture farming? Suburbs? Highways? Wall Street landlords? People not living in commie blocks? Good luck with that $25,000 for first time buyers though. 
> The fourth little piggy built his out of leftist infighting, and the wolf was finally defeated.  https://existentialcomics.com/comic/553
Feels good. Gonna miss the good corners (trueanon and thedeprogram) of , but the site is pretty much unusable now anyway.
He also says "He gets an A+ in not being Donald Trump."  and "He’s been excellent on Ukraine." https://twitter.com/GaryWinslett/status/1706108642133434873 It still frustrates me that democrats hate FDR. Me? I don't want a "New Deal" that can be revoked, I want the whole fucking thing, I want the bourgeoisie to suffer, I want them to be trapped on this planet with no place to hide, with a class conscious proletariat that is done fucking around. That's why FDR wasn't good enough for me. You neoliberal scumbags don't even get the privilege of not liking FDR.
 https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-bolsonaro-be-hospitalized-monday-two-operations-2023-09-11/
4 hour gap? Looks like he almost forgot to never forget 9/11. 
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/512448 > cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/512446 > > > [credit to the creator](https://twitter.com/dwight_tokem/status/1434934662850301958?s=20)
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/512446 > [credit to the creator](https://twitter.com/dwight_tokem/status/1434934662850301958?s=20)
[credit to the creator](https://twitter.com/dwight_tokem/status/1434934662850301958?s=20)
You might think there is some sort of reason why stocks go up. We're told that it has to do with profits or expectations of future earnings. That's bullshit. As is usually the case, the truth is actually much stupider. At any given time, there's a certain amount of cash, bond, and stock. Each of those needs to find an owner. In the case of cash and bonds, the value is pretty easy to calculate. However, the value of stock is almost entirely speculative. When one comes into someone's possession, the person may find their portfolio no longer has the composition of cash/bond/stock that they prefer, so they will rebalance their portfolio by selling bonds and buying stocks. Usually a computer does this. Does the computer go to the stock factory and order the manufacture of new stock? No, the computer buys stock off a seller, and this results in bidding the price of the stock up slightly. In the long run, the prices of all stocks are bid up or down until everyone has the amount of stock, *denominated in dollars*, that they want. Due to the persistent myths of 401ks, efficient market hypothesis and its inbred cousin, modern portfolio theory (this one isn't even a hypothesis?), people allocate into stock and bonds based on their age rather than any rational idea of expected returns. People also have an unusually high allocation into stocks compared to bonds in this era of low interest rates. Therefore stock prices expands to meet the required number of dollars in order for everyone to have the amount of stocks they want to own, *denominated in dollars*. But there is nothing written into the fabric of the universe that says those stocks need to have a valuation that makes any sense at all. * If everyone were to desire 90% of their portfolio in stocks, the stock prices would increase until it was true. * If everyone wanted safer assets and wanted 10% of their portfolio in stocks, the stock prices would decrease until it was true. * If everyone wanted 100% of their portfolio in stocks, they would be infinitely valuable, and obviously the money to cash out would not exist. There is an aggregate portfolio for all investors and the stock prices fulfill whatever the aggregate portfolio requires. Stock prices are like a gas that expands to fill the space available. Cash and bonds together are created (both as forms of debt) at a rate of about 8% per year, therefore stocks generally increase in value by a rate of about 8% per year. The space available is expanded by various forms of debt. It also expands when people want to own more stock, and shrinks when people want to own less stock. There is definitely some point where stock valuations are objectively fake, like some sort of collective delusion of wealth, because they cannot be converted back to cash that doesn't exist. When our society celebrates record S&P500 highs, we are either celebrating the creation of more debt, or simply declaring ourselves to be even richer today than yesterday because **we love the stocks**. The amount of stock and its true value doesn't change as much as the amount of debt and how much people love the stocks. Summary: The S&P 500 is a big ouija board and we just friggin love when line go up