search results matching tag: Predatory

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (36)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (3)     Comments (105)   

Biden’s first year as President: A Beatles remix

JiggaJonson says...

? how so ?

For the people who hate him and anything and everything he does maybe. As for me...

-------------------
-------------------

The bitch the former admin had in charge of the Department of Education tried to fuck me and everyone else who upheld their end of a 10 year contract to teach in inner city schools, with Joe Biden and im proud to say my own state rep

PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s848
Thanks to passing this, now the republican's aren't going to reneg on a 10 year agreement and turn that shit basically into a huge extra debt for me. That's good. Not to mention the recent ruling with predatory lending practices through NAVIENT. I been making double/triple payments on a student loan through them and still not cracked the principle balance for some reason. (the reason is, what they were doing is criminal) (thanks biden!)


PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
My brother became addicted to opioids after a tendon replacement in his heel. Almost OD'd- Biden signed / passed a bill to combat that https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr4981

Thanks Biden!!!


>PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
My daughter's rare neurodegenerative disease received funding to continue to study to treat and help prevent it in the future. That's good. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr3537/text

Thanks Biden!!!


>PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
The American Rescue Plan https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr1319

Thanks Biden!!!


>PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr3684

Thanks Biden!!!




Maybe not a good year if all your friends and fam are dying because they wear red hats instead of masks like fucking dumbasses.

bobknight33 said:

Not a good year for Joe.

Not a good year for the American pocketbook.

Bulldog Has Incredible Reaction To Actress In Trouble

noims says...

My guess is that the value of a few calories would depend on whether the dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded. A cold-blooded lizard or snake can last a lot longer on a small meal than a warm-blooded human.

The debate on whether or not actual dinosaurs were cold-blooded is still open, as far as I know. My favourite point in the argument is that all dinosaurs alive today (i.e. birds) are warm-blooded but perhaps it was exactly that adaptation that let them survive through the mas extinction.

Looking at the predatory dinosaurs in the film, there's no hint of feathers (so they're unlikely to be actual t-rexes), which to me points towards the idea that they're cold-blooded and so a small morsel would sustain them a while.

As for three of them getting involved, to me they're also being opportunistic at the chance of getting Kong. He seemed comfortable enough handling one, but it was definitely not a given. He acted very wary of two of them, so a third joining should really swing things in the dinosaurs' favour. However, it looks like Kong was holding back, and really let things fly when the odds were against him.

bareboards2 said:

So these giant lizards that require a great deal of calories to sustain themselves.... [...]

New Rule: The Tragedy of Trump Voters

newtboy says...

Then we’re back full circle to I'm curious why you think enforcement of existing usury laws (without special rules for those who bribe enough) is the same as new building codes. Removing the special rules for predatory lending companies simplifies the law, it doesn’t complicate it like new, often contradictory building codes (that seem to be being used as an excuse for slow work by his contractor).
I feel like you’re comparing apples to brisket.

smr said:

The last paragraph addresses the irony, which is the entirety of my first comment. I did not expect him, when pushing for a legal/policy solution to her problem, to then start attacking red tape for building codes. Enough loans regulation and you'll have the same thing - complaints about not being able to get a loan and the extended processing times.. Then Bill will do a schtick showing us

New Rule: The Tragedy of Trump Voters

newtboy says...

I think that's at the discretion of the judge, if you asked for 15%, likely you'll get your principal back, if you asked for 1500%, chances are you won't get a dime back as punishment, and may end up owing the borrower if you went overboard trying to collect.

I live in California, building codes change constantly. I agree, it is maddening and often backwards. He was specifically talking about codes for building stand alone solar, which are newer building codes. Even old building codes are often poorly thought out and contradictory. I'm not saying there isn't an abundance of red tape here, especially for building.
That said, his contractor should have been aware of all codes, submitted his plan, and would have approval or notes on what to change in weeks tops. There's something wrong when it takes over a year to get a shed built, some reason his plans weren't approved like they weren't to code.
Citation : personal experience - I installed solar in California, it took 3 days for my permit approval....and only that long because my contractor was being lazy.

That's the thing I disagree with, no new laws are needed at all, just a removal of exemptions/deregulations for businesses that pay large enough bribes (contributions) to elected officials. Even making all credit businesses operate on the same rules, allowing them 30% interest, seems ok, but that isn't reality today. It's unconscionable to allow 1600% interest on loans peddled to desperate people that don't actually qualify for a real, legitimate line of credit, many of whom don't understand it's what they're agreeing to, but the payday loan lobby is well funded and connected.
Citation:
Although U.S. states set their own maximum legal interest rates, a Supreme Court interpretation of the National Bank Act of 1864 preempted state usury laws and created a path toward a national consumer lending economy. The most important federal case in credit card interest rate deregulation was decided in 1978.

Her problems were multifold. The predatory loan took a fixable issue, her terrible customer service, and compounded it with insurmountable and ever expanding debt, which in turn undoubtedly hurt her customer service more, thus increasing her debt..... It sounds like she never should have purchased a service oriented business, and likely overextended herself from day one just to do it.

I'm unsure of your point in the last paragraph.

smr said:

I think you mean they wouldn't have to pay you the interest. They would have to pay you back the principal. And that would be under specific cases and usually when no contract is involved, also all depends on where you live.

Also, I don't think either Bill's building codes are "new" vs. the usury laws being "existing". Please cite to support.

The irony is that additional laws to stop predatory lending are, in fact, what red tape is made of, by definition. So I found it amusing that he would look at her situation, say that Nancy and team were trying to solve it for her by passing new laws, then go on to complain about all the red tape surrounding this building. That red tape exists because someone else before him saw a problem or safety issue or concern, and put yet another policy or law in place to solve it. In reality, as your posts prove, her problem was not that a predatory lender got involved in her life, but that her business was in bad shape because she had gone off the deep end and was thus losing customers.

I could easily imagine a bit where he showed a stack of papers four inches thick that he had to sign to get a loan, and complain about the processing time, then showcase an SMS based loan that works in another country and funds in one day.

New Rule: The Tragedy of Trump Voters

smr says...

I think you mean they wouldn't have to pay you the interest. They would have to pay you back the principal. And that would be under specific cases and usually when no contract is involved, also all depends on where you live.

Also, I don't think either Bill's building codes are "new" vs. the usury laws being "existing". Please cite to support.

The irony is that additional laws to stop predatory lending are, in fact, what red tape is made of, by definition. So I found it amusing that he would look at her situation, say that Nancy and team were trying to solve it for her by passing new laws, then go on to complain about all the red tape surrounding this building. That red tape exists because someone else before him saw a problem or safety issue or concern, and put yet another policy or law in place to solve it. In reality, as your posts prove, her problem was not that a predatory lender got involved in her life, but that her business was in bad shape because she had gone off the deep end and was thus losing customers.

I could easily imagine a bit where he showed a stack of papers four inches thick that he had to sign to get a loan, and complain about the processing time, then showcase an SMS based loan that works in another country and funds in one day.

newtboy said:

I'm curious why you think enforcement of existing usury laws is the same as new building codes.
If you loaned a friend money and charged over 10% interest, in many cases they don't ever have to pay you back anything because that's usury. Payday loan companies are only allowed to charge 1600% because they bribed congress to make them exempt from the law.

We Believe: The Best Men Can Be - Gillette Ad

ChaosEngine says...

Yeah, heaven forfend we end up with a generation of men who think women deserve respect or that violence is a last resort.

That’d be a fucking nightmare.

Toxic masculinity is absolutely a thing, and it harms men as much as women.

But it’s called “toxic” masculinity for a reason. If I said “shit this toxic water is killing us”, would you think I was implying that ALL water is toxic? Of course not. There’s nothing wrong with masculinity or masculine behaviour. But when you define aggressive, predatory behaviour as “masculine” then of course all masculinity is bad. But the problem isn’t masculinity, it’s your fucked up definiton of it. Hence the differentiator “toxic”.

TL;DR don’t be an asshole and no one will bother you for just being a man.

bobknight33 said:

Lets tun boys into boys, not men.

Liberals want a Soyboy Nation of men.
Shame on Gillette for this ad.

$445 AAA Breakthrough Towing SCAM at McDonald's

New Rule: Distinction Deniers

newtboy says...

HOLY SHIT!
I completely retract my defense. That's completely different from the early report I saw, which indicated otherwise.
Imo, after the first rejection, that's totally out of line.
He deserves to be lumped in, if true. That's predatory behavior.
I was wrong.

ChaosEngine said:

Maybe you should actually read the article before commenting on this?

Warning: it's a terribly written article that spends a lot of time on completely irrelevant details, also very NSFW, but to summarise (quoting from article):

When Ansari told her he was going to grab a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’”
...
She says Ansari began making a move on her that he repeated during their encounter. “The move he kept doing was taking his two fingers in a V-shape and putting them in my mouth, in my throat to wet his fingers, because the moment he’d stick his fingers in my throat he’d go straight for my vagina and try to finger me.” Grace called the move “the claw.”

Ansari also physically pulled her hand towards his penis multiple times throughout the night, from the time he first kissed her on the countertop onward. “He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”

But the main thing was that he wouldn’t let her move away from him. She compared the path they cut across his apartment to a football play. “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.”

Ansari wanted to have sex. She said she remembers him asking again and again, “Where do you want me to fuck you?” while she was still seated on the countertop. She says she found the question tough to answer because she says she didn’t want to fuck him at all.

End quoting.

I find it difficult to believe Ansari is "inexperienced". He's 34, famous, good-looking and funny. Hell, he wrote a damn book on the subject.

Now, even though I've lost count of the number of times I've said this, to be perfectly clear: I DO NOT THINK ANSARI IS GUILTY OF A CRIME.

But I also don't think that behaviour is acceptable. He acted like a total asshole.

But since we're talking about degrees of harm, you can still be an asshole and do actual harm without committing a crime.

Should his accuser have just left? Probably. Does that excuse his behaviour? Nope.

Harvey Weinstein, Trump, Systemic Sexism: A Closer Look

BicycleRepairMan says...

FUCK, i hate it when someone i agree with makes a poor argument, Yes, Trump is a self-admitted sexist and sexual harraser, and perhaps worse (even in that field), and he is totally unfit for any pulic office, but his (unwarranted) assault on PR's mayor cannot be explained by sexism; case in point: his latest twitter barrage(among many like it) was against bob corker (old, white,male, republican) or, in Trumps words "liddle corker" and its all because he lashes out uncontrollably against ANYONE that ushers the slightest hint of criticism of him or his ideas. And this is the problem with Trump: He is just.. insane.. the guy is not stable. Regardless of his sexism, racism,sexual predatoriness, HE IS NOT FIT FOR OFFICE.

New Rule: Fee F**king

MilkmanDan says...

@newtboy -- I used a credit card (Discover) almost exactly as you described while I was going to college. Get a balance to pay for normal stuff, but pay it ALL off at the end of every month.

But I don't think the credit card companies hate people like us for 2 reasons:

1) For every one of us, there's a buttload who pay the minimum rather than the entire balance.

2) In my case, I think that in 4 years of college I forgot to pay off my balance (simply forgot to send in the check) once or possibly twice. I remembered a bit late and called Discover to see what to do, and they would tell me to pay the balance (or the minimum payment, not that I actually did that) plus a late fee.

I can't remember how much the late fee was. Maybe about $20? Anyway, at the kind of monthly balance I was running (not high), I'd wager that $20 was equivalent to maintaining an actual balance and paying the interest for a month or two or three. Which makes Maher's argument that they are "profiting from people's mistakes" reasonably accurate.


...On the other hand, Discover had "cashback bonus" awards of .5 to 1% or so, from which I stocked up and claimed somewhere in the $50-100 range over the 4 years, definitely enough to keep me in the net positive range in spite of a $20 late fee or two. That tells me that the magnitude of my "mistakes" must have been tiny in comparison to average credit card users.

I don't think Discover is an evil company per se for "preying" on people that don't use the card in the same way that you or I would. Paying a $20 late fee was a fully reasonable thing to charge me with. On the other hand, there's many many examples of predatory type fees that really do take advantage of people for "offenses" that are way less egregious, even things that have previously been considered standard use of the product / service in the past (paying WAY more for an extra inch of legroom, checked bags, food, etc. on airplanes comes to mind). Many of those arguably do cross the line into "evil" territory, I think.

Economic Hitmen

How to (Not) Fix your Laptop

poolcleaner says...

I'm a laptop serial killer...

*gazes over stacks of dead laptops and random computer parts*

Sometimes I masturbate all over these carcasses. I mean, no. I don't. Ever.

Do that...

If only I had been born with the simple desire to learn electronics...

-- Instead, I was born a luddite into an era of technocracy that my feeble, easily offended, confused and aggressive mind cannot comprehend.

Now I am destined to commit predatory electronic abuse on a daily abuse.

*punches monitor, tears it from the computer, screams into the night and throws it crushed and dying into the heap*

ELECTRONICS!!! AGHHHHH..! The pure and total ANGUISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*runs screaming out of the house, operates overheating vehicle 100,000 miles over the recommended oil change sticker reminder to the nearest best buy; purchases something using money like its arcade credits; drives home and plugs the heathen VGI cable into its oozing port*

Please... kill me.

Woman Refuses to Leave Uber Car

Drachen_Jager says...

True, everyone in service has difficulty with some customers and there are such incidents.

However, Uber drivers get paid shit, especially after taxes, fuel, maintenance, and vehicle costs. They have no training or support and there's no only minimal screening. Uber is a totally predatory model that capitalizes on drivers who are desperate or too stupid to know they're being abused. All the while there's no real reason Ubers shouldn't be legislated the same as cabs except the system is corrupt and allows the wealthy to come in and make their own rules.

newtboy said:

I'm not sure how that will help....as if Taxi drivers never get rude and/or lose their shit?

That said...it is a service badly in need of regulation and licenses.

If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans

Mordhaus says...

You are really digging your own hole deeper. It is exactly this attitude that makes people dislike vegans. We are, by base nature, predators. We reside at the top of our food chain, barring accident or stupidity, because we are superior to the creatures that would (and do) eat us if they are given a chance.

If you choose to give up your birthright won through millenniums of evolution to be an apex predator, that is your option. Those of us that are comfortable with our predatory natures will still be chowing down on the food that we like. Sorry if it hits you in the feels.

ahimsa said:

“Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.”- Carl Sagan/Dr. Ann Druyan

Lion King Addresses the Crowd

modulous says...

I see the lion waited for a round of appaws and Kenya believe it - nothing! Seems a little impolite to deny him; what are these people? Animals? I Savannah slap them for their silence its untrue. Well, the mane thing is the message was given, but that bastard is always lion so I don't feline trusting him to be honest. I'm not going to panther speech even if it was about gun ownership - except that boring predatory claws digression - it was full of pathos, and I think I saw a bit of Aramis wedged in his teeth too.

And no complaining this time! Cub be worse.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon