epbart

(Edit to add: I re-read your post and see you weren't asking about how to offload a dead car yourself, so please ignore the rest of my reply.)

You could try to donate to an org like this one:

vehicles for veterans

My limited understanding is that they'll tow the dead car away for free. I think the only money you might get is via a tax write-off... but no clue what that really means.

In theory (if you care), they'll auction off your car and a percentage of the proceeds then goes to veteran charities.

There are other veteran serving orgs, and orgs with other purposes, like "cars for kids" (a Jewish one)... in case you want to look around. Some are more scammy than others.

quote:

---

What even is that?

---

Academic tAlignment

quote:

---

You abdicate any use of common sense

I'll say I predicted this route, too.

---

I noticed your later post after I already submitted. Congrats, I guess. I don't doubt you've heard that line before.

My premise remains. I mean, you're entitled to not use common sense or reason and to hide behind technicalities and hide behind the law to make your points on here. You'll likely never be proven wrong... except for maybe a sacrificial lamb here and there. But it also does not make you right.

I'm a bit of a platonist, and as such, I value the principle of justice more than the laws that men make in an effort to uphold justice. I don't think I'm wrong in saying with the legal system as it is... sometimes justice doesn't get done. Sometimes it's a case like the one discussed here a few years ago about a woman being raped, the rapist being spared allegedly due to connections to higher ups in the town (speaking to connections and corruptions as I alluded to in my previous post), and the rapist successfully suing her for custody of the child she had as a result of that rape... I might have the details on this wrong; if so, whatever. And as I said before, the law pretty much failed in achieving justice in the case of Al Capone's worst crimes. It was only through luck and an indirect path that the government finally got him. Do you disagree?

So, yeah, common sense matters. Sometimes people clearly see matters and the law only complicates matters and makes achieving justice harder than it needs to be. I stated my case in the previous post. I wasn't wrong. People (especially government and NGO types) lie. They waste funds. They sometimes commit fraud in their applications and know they will not use funds the way they describe. People tend to do that for money... I think at least some of the most obvious cases of people were caught for PPP loan fraud and possibly convicted (as another broad example for the context of defrauding the government happening and not being a figment of the imagination). It happens on both sides of the aisle and I don't think even you want to really debate that point. I'm not confused about the unlikelihood of justice being done, but to say fraud isn't happening or wasn't found is rather preposterous. I mean, yeah, I'm sure Abrams-- to go back to my example-- will have been thorough enough to not get prosecuted, but its pretty obvious (common sense) to know her getting $2B for her new green project is fraud... by any other name if you wish.

You can't ignore common sense just because you recognize its potential application but have the law on your side. It isn't a credit to you to think you scored a victory because you anticipated someone citing it. It's a valid and highly valued tool for human beings who employ it... ask anyone who credits themselves with having it if they value it and if they would miss it if they became mentally compromised.

And that plays into this: just because it isn't easily prosecutable, doesn't mean it's not fraud... a rose by any other name, if you will. In business and government, terms are made to obscure the real intention of things. Do you debate that? Common sense, observation, and a better than average understanding of human behavior and discernment tell me its fraud, and those monies were requested and given with both sides understanding that a decent amount of those funds would go towards activism in some way... and not just giving microwaves to people in Atlanta. I stand by my opinion. Am I in an echo chamber or am I an NPC?

quote:

---

Yeah lots of waste and some things called waste that are more functions of scaled operations (like the software license examples).

Very little fraud. But then the echo chamber spun waste into fraud, and the NPCs ran with it

---

Lots of waste, indeed.

Very little fraud? Disagree.

By your logic Al Capone didn't murder people or have them murdered either. And he wasn't a criminal in any other capacity either. He was just a tax cheat, right?

Personally, I think Capone either murdered or had several people murdered, and engaged in several other criminal activities. I have no hesitation making that claim despite the inability of the government to prosecute him for it. Does it mean I'm an NPC or exist in an echo chamber... just because I can't prove it in a court of law?

Similarly, I will make the claim-- just to cite one example-- that the Stacey Abrams led NGO, Power Forward Communities, is both a scam and received a $2 billion grant under fraudulent pretenses. See here (old TD thread) in case you missed this story:

LINK

Some excerpts...

quote:

---

"As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been," the EPA administrator continued. "It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue."

"For an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant—it doesn't just fly in the face of common sense, it's out and out fraud," Daniel Turner, the executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, alleged in an interview with the Free Beacon.

---

And, yes, I saw her later rebuttal, as discussed in another thread where she claimed she demonstrated how giving more efficient appliances lowered energy bills:
LINK

Based on my observations of Abrams and her prior activism, and based on comments like these from the first thread I cited:

quote:

---

Power Forward Communities lists a large number of partners on its website that it works with to implement its mission. Among its partners are the Southern Economic Advancement Project and Fair Count, two left-wing nonprofits founded by Abrams in the wake of her 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election defeat.

The Southern Economic Advancement Project, which seeks to boost racial equity and "economic power" in the South, is a fiscally sponsored project of the Tides Center, a group known for giving millions of dollars to left-wing environmental and social activist organizations, according to Influence Watch.

Power Forward Communities' list of partners also includes the American Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO, two powerful Democratic-aligned labor unions.

---

I have little doubt that only a modest amount of this money might ever make it to Abrams' stated goal. Do you think I'm really out of line for suspecting most of the funds might line her pockets and the pockets of her buddies, and will go towards financing more activism?

Yes, I openly state the above example to be fraud. No, I don't think it will be prosecuted-- especially since Biden's admin was in on it. Just because police, judges and government officials might turn a blind eye to it (Are you going to argue that doesn't ever happen either?), or there isn't enough evidence to prosecute, does that make it not fraud? Or do you think Capone wasn't a murderer?

Am I unreasonable? Am I an NPC or in an echo chamber? Do explain.

Again, I'm forced to say that as much as I hate seeing your name mockingly invoked in various threads for being a contrarian douche when you haven't even posted in those threads (it happens in the first Abrams thread I cited), you get called out for a reason. You abdicate any use of common sense and higher faculties like reason or respect for a broader sense of justice to advocate for technicalities. You hide behind the law.

It's an irony that you go around calling people out for being in an echo chamber and you don't recognize your own... "muh echo chamber".

Given that there is evidence of waste that approaches the level of fraud (It's apparent that there is fraud, but it isn't appropriate to overstate it yet), I think there's a case to go the special prosecutor route, like the Dems did with Jack Smith and Bob Mueller.

I don't know the process and limitations if Bondi appoints one vs Congress and how the scope would change vs DOGE as it is, or if it can work directly with DOGE, but seems like it would free the DOJ to give it more resources... To be honest, my only criticism of DOGE is that they stayed so small. The kids are talented and work fast, but I have to think Musk could've assembled at least a couple more teams to blitzkrieg more agencies on week 1 before other agencies could prep / resist / hide evidence.

And although it would be unlikely, I think Matt Gaetz would be effective-- and highly entertaining-- in that role.

quote:

---

This doesn't even get into calcium fluoride (good) vs sodium fluoride (toxic) and sodium fluoride is what they put in the water.

---

I was listening to the Darkhorse podcast / Brett Weinstein... couldn't tell you which episode as it was at least 3 or 4 years ago... and iirc they were talking about a town in Oregon or Washington that was getting rid of fluoridated water. And he brought up that there was only one not very robust study decades ago that became the basis for the mass decision to add fluoride.

To your point, that one study used a different type of fluoride than the one they started adding to water. It may have been stannous fluoride, which is the form used in some but not all toothpastes. (To assume different forms of fluoride act the same in the body is like assuming carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide kinda act the same, too.)

If true, the practice was started on shaky ground. To the extent subsequent studies said it was good, I'd be curious to track the funding behind them before I put much faith in the results (would be like tobacco companies funding studies to say smoking is healthy/harmless).

That's a damn fine poem. Don't think I've seen it before. Not sure you picked it in particular because of my own playfully alliterative turn of phrase you quoted ("lovely use of language"), but I thoroughly enjoyed the rich use of alliteration throughout. Helped give it a nice, muscular rhythm.

I've seen it said that poetry precedes written language. Makes sense in a way as rhythm and rhyme make language more memorable... important in societies with oral traditions. But even if it isn't as necessary as it once was, it just makes reading things more pleasant. I lack your skill at constructing verses (I'm still impressed with how quickly you made that Jaxson Dart ditty after the Ole Miss game) but still like to play with words and phrases in my posts when I can.

And I agree with your sentiments. A drunken scouser from Liverpool mocking the other team with his mates-- is vastly more musical and infused with local pride and brotherly love than some of the protestors of recent years.

quote:

---

Why are protestors so bad at chants?
Repeating the same stupid thing over and over, then parroting a moronic chant that they screw up.
United and defeated don't even rhyme

---

... Saw this earlier and your thread sparked a thought which has continued to bounce around in my mind. Might as well get it out:

A lovely use of language and right use of words speak to proportion and harmony. They point towards beauty and creation-- attributes of the Good.

What isn't good... evil if we have to label it for now... can mimic beauty and proportion superficially, operating as a spirit of temptation (a "false light" if you will). Even then, there will be something lacking and inferior beneath the surface. It can approximate beauty, but perhaps not truly achieve it as its heart is not true.

These type of protestors operate from a place where evil removes its mask. There is no pretension of beauty attempting to attract people to the dark side or even confuse them. They're united only by their participation in a spirit of destruction. It's fascinating in an abhorrent way, but that's what I see in most of these modern leftist protestors. The 60s were before my time, but there was at least a naive appeal to "peace, love, and harmony" for some of them. I don't see that now. There is no noble message or higher principle coming through-- only hate and a mindless desire to destroy based on whatever messaging their NPC minds receive. They're ugly inside and out, and their vulgar, ugly language and shrill screams (commemorated in more than one meme) match the rest of them.

It would be surprising to hear anything as pleasant as a rhyme, or as playfully spirited as a soccer chant out of them.

quote:

---

She will do two dudes at once, but not three.

---

Setting healthy boundaries is very responsible of her.

If I were avoiding going to a doctor, I think I'd research medical grade honey before maggots.

This is not medical advice.