So that they can identify you and your friend ride together frequently and they need to make sure they can link you if you decide not to bring your work cell and AirPods to the “illegal” protest you rode with your friend to as part of your “domestic terror organization” since you and your friend also happened to go shooting at that gun range that one time for his birthday, and you were once in a Walmart with some other “co-conspirator”. The types of allegations that have already been used to smear citizens and officials alike. So yes, it is very helpful…to the “them”, not the “us”.
And all along, the people will say they had no idea what was really happening that they kept voting for, while deep down, they knew exactly what they were voting for and why. And that description doesn’t apply to a single party. If you disagree with either sides totalitarianism and their march toward it, you will eventually be branded and potentially arrested on whatever charge will prevent you from voting in the future. Or at least that’s how it goes any/everywhere else that has gone down that path. Hopefully cooler heads in both parties prevail. It always saddens me that the non-“decision makers” of both parties don’t just band together to get things done they both can agree on (which is a lot). There is a lot more people at the bottom than the top in those houses, yet they both willingly kiss the ring of their leaders.
I do love how everything is always “vibe-coded” regardless of any amount of effort, collaboration, or oversight that may have gone into the use of any AI. It really captures the nuances of the conversation.
Out of curiosity, did you willfully choose to not understand the circumstances that prosecutors are being forced to carry hundreds of cases, too many to even read before they are in court, and then they are forced to stand in front of judges and face contempt while they are asked to explain why the government, who the prosecutor has no real control over, is violating yet another judicial order?
It isn’t just a matter of prosecutors picking and choosing…it’s underfunding, DOGE, and then those that are left are treated as adversarial the moment they complain about conditions or case loads. (Just like your comment does.)
Very true, though it isn’t like we need to look very far to find similar instances of government and media collusion to control stories, laws passed to protect companies from liability for direct causally linked chemical dumping known to induce tumors, cancer, neurological diseases and other things, so on and so forth.
Every country seems willing to trade the lives or livelihood of citizens, much less people of other countries, to ensure their status quo. Some just pay more lip service to “rights” they will violate at the drop of a hat when push comes to shove.
Are you really trying to equate murder with naming a Bluetooth device and that a child should have their life ruined on the same scale as if they were equivalent in impact or intent, with little knowledge of the actual situation or intent?
Weird how you want kids to be punished for stupid mistakes. If you drive, you probably put more people lives in danger last week than that kids fitness tracker. When you speed, you put lives in danger (statistical fact, none of that “but I am good driver crap”) — will you ask for the death penalty if a cop sees you going 1mph over?
Or do you only want strong punishment for others as is usually the case with such opinions?
Are those drugs required for driving by the people who use them? I would expect if so, they would be tested more thoroughly before putting people on the road with a new drug, much like I’d rather not have someone driving toward me at a combined opposing speed of 100-120mph, two feet apart, while relying on “we didn’t think it will be a problem but we didn’t bother to test”.
That said, there is certainly room for an improvement in funding so that the FDA could go through processes more efficiently, but “efficiency” is rarely ever achieved by cost cutting because it confuses cause with effect.
I think enforcement would be poor and therefore abuse would be high, but it could be granted that they're not safe for driving and therefore if you own a pair, you must switch to different (your old regular dual focus lenses) when driving.
And all along, the people will say they had no idea what was really happening that they kept voting for, while deep down, they knew exactly what they were voting for and why. And that description doesn’t apply to a single party. If you disagree with either sides totalitarianism and their march toward it, you will eventually be branded and potentially arrested on whatever charge will prevent you from voting in the future. Or at least that’s how it goes any/everywhere else that has gone down that path. Hopefully cooler heads in both parties prevail. It always saddens me that the non-“decision makers” of both parties don’t just band together to get things done they both can agree on (which is a lot). There is a lot more people at the bottom than the top in those houses, yet they both willingly kiss the ring of their leaders.
reply