They're saying there was no measurable change in their lives driven by political leadership in the last 16 years? They're arguing in bad faith.
This. Everyone I talk to says, "but socialized medicine has such long wait times." But these same fuckers avoid going to the doctor until it's absolutely unbearable to deal with because it costs to much to find out if it'll get better on its own. So if you're getting symptoms of something and waiting two months anyway, how is your system better?
So Rogue is like Dean Pelton in this?
Gay doesn't even begin to cover it.
There will always be wants and needs that go unfulfilled
That's not what 'needs' means.
In your opinion, who is worse?
The fun one is where they brag that older workers are making "substantially more" because they're averaging $22/hr versus $13/hr in 1987. Adjusted for inflation, that $13/hr should be around $35/hr.
More people are working longer for less money.
For the last 40 years or so, Republican voters have mostly been single-issue voters. They care very passionately about one thing, and will let almost anything else slide as a result. Being in favor of cable fees doesn't matter as long as they're anti-abortion. Being in favor of cutting social welfare programs that those very voters rely upon is fine as long as they're anti-trans.
For the most part, each voter only cares about one or two specific things, and the whole picture doesn't really matter to them.
That's a bad take. The case actually affirmed business judgement rule: the idea that the guy running the company knows how to run it better than the shareholders. It's part of why post-war America is considered the golden age of American manufacturing: Publicly traded companies invested in their employees and wages exploded across the board. A 100 year old court decision isn't the primary driver on a problem that's really only developed in the last forty or fifty years.
That's because you're reading the chart wrong. It's showing the change in wealth for those age brackets across time.
People that were 40 in 1990 had a bigger share of the wealth than people who are 40 in 2020.
"Publicly funded" doesn't mean "publicly owned." Plenty of states give grants and tax incentives to film productions to entice them to work there. That's tax dollars going into a copyrighted work.
And being of a public figure has absolutely no bearing on copyright. If it did, paparazzi wouldn't exist, because they wouldn't be able to effectively sell their photos.
The difference being the PS4 wasn't backwards compatible. The remaster was intended for people who hadn't and couldn't play the PS3 version.
PS5 is backwards compatible, making this a little more bullshit.