https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/26/21/86613891-13503507-image-m-21_1719432446080.jpg

Tatjana Strobel, 53, a published author, revealed she took ayahuasca every other day over three months. She described the experience as like a 'Netflix series' of her previous lives

JUST IN: 🇰🇵 North Korea says it will soon be making an important announcement

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) June 29, 2024

Both are cyborgs. Both had iconic boss fights. Both have yellow wives hidden offshore somewhere like Steven Paddock.

I still don't know how to make polls lol

People are, of course, 100% on board with this and not being dramatic at all

I know, I know. The BBC is not a reliable source, cope.

I have no idea why they are doing this but former commie leader and American hater Evo Morales has denounced it so it must be a good thing. Hopefully it leads to a lot of helicopter rides for leftist scum.

Cute twinks of reddit clutch pearls

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dp8h9v/bolivia_presidential_palace_stormed_in_apparent/

Most stable South American shithole

/r/Bolivia for those who speak lettuce picker

https://old.reddit.com/r/BOLIVIA/comments/1dp75m6/que_esta_pasando/

"Chevron has proved to be fundamentally misguided."

"Experience has also shown that Chevron is unworkable." pic.twitter.com/ubc297hivO

— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) June 28, 2024

The Chevron doctrine stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). It established a legal test for determining when courts should defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers. The doctrine involves a two-step process:

Step One: The court asks whether the statute's language is clear and unambiguous regarding the issue at hand. If it is, the court must follow the statute's plain meaning.

Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, the court then considers whether the agency's interpretation is "reasonable" or "permissible." If the agency's interpretation meets this standard, the court defers to the agency's expertise.

This doctrine recognizes the expertise and policy-making prerogatives of administrative agencies and allows them to fill in the details of broad legislative frameworks.

TLDR: fed agencies can't make up rules

Not sure exactly what's going on, but a bunch of the early power users are insane creeps I think? The baddies include people called anonsee and kairi as well as pedos and zoophiles if anyone wants to try find the goss.

examples of spicy stuff:

• https://aegis.blue/Notice+of+Labeler+Termination

• https://bsky.app/profile/bitdizzy.bsky.social/post/3kvmg42btrs27

• https://bsky.app/profile/himboblacksmith.bsky.social/post/3kvmbq2eedc2i

• 

P.S. I object to bard-posting on principle, but penny remains an active user

mick peepee small OOOOOOOO mcklargecokc mpeepeesmaul (peepees mauler) maul peepee !r-slurs callpeepeesmaull

https://old.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/1do62wt/all_the_denver_basic_income_project_is_a_failure/

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a15eec7a812dee108e7c/1718722914185/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf

They organized the recipients in the following groups, "Eligible applicants were randomly assigned to one of three payment groups: A) $1,000 a month for 12 months, for a total of $12,000 in a year; B) $6,500 upon enrollment and $500 a month for the subsequent 11 months, for a total of $12,000 in a year, C) $50 a month for 12 months, for a total of $600 in a year."

This is odd, why don't they have a control group that received $0 per month? Could it be that they knew most of these people would find housing of their own volition regardless of the payment provided, and that by excluding an actual control group, they don't have to compare against the null results???

Maybe by providing $50/month to people that would find housing anyway, they could claim that participants showed these incredible improvements (ignoring the fact that the payments are not the reason why)?!?!? No, that would be disingenuous! Leftists wouldn't do such a thing!!!

Actually, that's exactly what's going on here. If you look at Figure 16 on page 27, it turns out that the $1000/mo payment is statistically no more likely to reduce the probability of a participant being unhoused as compared to the $50/mo payment. Does anyone actually believe that $50/mo is enough to solve homelessness? No, that's silly.

Leftists want to believe that UBI will work SO BADLY that they take taxpayer money, funnel it to a group of homeless people they know do not need it (they deliberately chose participants without disabilities and illness), construct a purposely deceptive "study" based on this scientifically unsound process, and then plaster the "promising results" all over the internet, using leftist propaganda accounts on X to trick people.

!peakpoors