ActivityPub Viewer

A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a request with the right Accept header to the server to view the underlying object.

Open in browser →
{ "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "type": "OrderedCollectionPage", "orderedItems": [ { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1367153638660640779", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "An issue that is flooding the social media now is Madonna's daughter, and her oh so brave and forward thinking/acting choice of not shaving her underarms. Well, no, stop it.<br /><br />First of all, there have been women from every generation since the 60's doing this to make a statement. And it has not in any dramatic way, swayed the preference of most Americans. There are other nations that have more \"free hair\", but those too didn't tend to sway the general view of Americans.<br /><br />On top of that, when a celebrity, or otherwise famous person does this, and sticks it in the face of everyone (as is done when you pose for an Ad as she did) it isn't about the issue, it is about them gaining more attention for THEMSELVES.<br /><br />She even notes that she believes that \"privacy\" was the reason she \"kept her wits about herself\", but now is throwing that \"privacy\" away. I mean, right? She is choosing to put herself out there and using THIS as some extra \"talking point\". And with that, contrary to the screams of the \"free hair\" folks, comes with both potential positive reactions and negative ones.<br /><br />I see post after post from folks saying that it is not the choice of anyone else what others do concerning their underarm hair. And to that I say yes and no.<br /><br />First of all, we choose our partners. And in that process we tend to gravitate to things we find attractive and are repelled by things we find unattractive. These things may or may not be the determining factor in our choices, but they all play a part. From height, weight, skin color or shade, eye color, hair color and style, body hair, intelligence or lack of, and on and on the things which make us who we are and how others see us ARE factored into the matter. And so while our grooming choices are OURS, for anyone to think they are OURS ALONE and that they should not or do not, play a part in what others think is not just ignorant, it is stupid.<br /><br />And then we have to also remember that people like this woman here, didn't just make a personal choice and go about life. They actively promote it and get everyone else involved by virtue of their promotion.<br /><br />This goes back to a standard for the Left though. They pull the same garbage on \"judging\" in general. They love to shout that no one should judge others (but that is not true at all, even from a Christian standpoint), but then have NO problems when folks \"judge\" them positively or agree with them in how THEY judge others. It isn't the \"judging\" they don't like or want, it is when they are judged to be LACKING that is the problem. <br /><br />And the same was true with this Ad and the responses it has been getting. Some love it. Some shrug it off. And others openly state they don't like it nor underarm hair on women. But it is only the NEGATIVE responses that seem to really bother the \"free hair\" or \"anti-social norms\" folks. REEEEEEEEEEEEE Yeah, we get it, and no one is really going to change their minds on the matter. Ironically though, most on the LEFT also prefer shaved underarms for women. And how do you know? Look around at society. See who is and who is not, shaving their underarms.<br /><br />That said, grooming practices for both women AND men have changed over time, and also in various locations. Facial hair for men is a good example. And body grooming for MEN has seen a change as well. But the trick is to find someone who finds YOUR choices in the matter to be appealing. And you will ALWAYS have an easier time doing that if your choices align with what is the social norm. And the farther from that, the less your odds become. This is not a matter of \"should\" or \"should not\", but IS. And more folks who live in the \"should\" or \"should not\" would be better served living in the \"IS\" and making choices accordingly.<br /><br />Cheers!", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1367153638660640779", "published": "2022-04-30T15:00:27+00:00", "source": { "content": "An issue that is flooding the social media now is Madonna's daughter, and her oh so brave and forward thinking/acting choice of not shaving her underarms. Well, no, stop it.\n\nFirst of all, there have been women from every generation since the 60's doing this to make a statement. And it has not in any dramatic way, swayed the preference of most Americans. There are other nations that have more \"free hair\", but those too didn't tend to sway the general view of Americans.\n\nOn top of that, when a celebrity, or otherwise famous person does this, and sticks it in the face of everyone (as is done when you pose for an Ad as she did) it isn't about the issue, it is about them gaining more attention for THEMSELVES.\n\nShe even notes that she believes that \"privacy\" was the reason she \"kept her wits about herself\", but now is throwing that \"privacy\" away. I mean, right? She is choosing to put herself out there and using THIS as some extra \"talking point\". And with that, contrary to the screams of the \"free hair\" folks, comes with both potential positive reactions and negative ones.\n\nI see post after post from folks saying that it is not the choice of anyone else what others do concerning their underarm hair. And to that I say yes and no.\n\nFirst of all, we choose our partners. And in that process we tend to gravitate to things we find attractive and are repelled by things we find unattractive. These things may or may not be the determining factor in our choices, but they all play a part. From height, weight, skin color or shade, eye color, hair color and style, body hair, intelligence or lack of, and on and on the things which make us who we are and how others see us ARE factored into the matter. And so while our grooming choices are OURS, for anyone to think they are OURS ALONE and that they should not or do not, play a part in what others think is not just ignorant, it is stupid.\n\nAnd then we have to also remember that people like this woman here, didn't just make a personal choice and go about life. They actively promote it and get everyone else involved by virtue of their promotion.\n\nThis goes back to a standard for the Left though. They pull the same garbage on \"judging\" in general. They love to shout that no one should judge others (but that is not true at all, even from a Christian standpoint), but then have NO problems when folks \"judge\" them positively or agree with them in how THEY judge others. It isn't the \"judging\" they don't like or want, it is when they are judged to be LACKING that is the problem. \n\nAnd the same was true with this Ad and the responses it has been getting. Some love it. Some shrug it off. And others openly state they don't like it nor underarm hair on women. But it is only the NEGATIVE responses that seem to really bother the \"free hair\" or \"anti-social norms\" folks. REEEEEEEEEEEEE Yeah, we get it, and no one is really going to change their minds on the matter. Ironically though, most on the LEFT also prefer shaved underarms for women. And how do you know? Look around at society. See who is and who is not, shaving their underarms.\n\nThat said, grooming practices for both women AND men have changed over time, and also in various locations. Facial hair for men is a good example. And body grooming for MEN has seen a change as well. But the trick is to find someone who finds YOUR choices in the matter to be appealing. And you will ALWAYS have an easier time doing that if your choices align with what is the social norm. And the farther from that, the less your odds become. This is not a matter of \"should\" or \"should not\", but IS. And more folks who live in the \"should\" or \"should not\" would be better served living in the \"IS\" and making choices accordingly.\n\nCheers!", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1367153638660640779/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1367131962635980818", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "FROM TUG OF WAR TO FISHING<br /><br />(04/30/22) - The political and social spectrum in the United States, and how it moved, used to be relatively accurately described as a \"tug of war\", with a right and left, and a middle that reflected the true center of the spectrum. And that middle changed as the rope was pulled further right or left. The right and left also changed as it was pulled right or left. This is because the rope (or length of the spectrum) was pretty much a constant.<br /><br />This however, has not been the case for at least 20 years.<br /><br />We have gone from a tug of war with fixed ends on a relatively fixed length of rope, simply being moved right or left and the \"middle\" being pretty much centered between them; to a model more like fishing. The right have not in any major way moved at all, while the left was cast away from the right, taking the line with them. The middle didn't even change much either, because these two groups were not \"fixed\" to the line as it sped away to the left.<br /><br />But since in the past people saw each group \"fixed\" to the rope, and a rope that was pretty much a constant length, they think it still applies today. Clearly though, it does not. However since the mental image is still burned into the minds of most people, the left is claiming that the right is now shifting further right to PULL everyone (and the spectrum) with them (as was the case in a tug of war). And this not true at all.<br /><br />The right is not moving further right. They are not moving the end of the line on their end at all (as would be concerning a tug of war rope). They are simply reeling in the line that the left took and ran with (as in was cast when fishing, or when a fish takes the line and runs with it). And the right and center never moved in any major way. Maybe there was a step for the center, and a couple inches for the right, but not in any notable way; and ironically those movements were actually to the left and not right.<br /><br />What actually changed was the length of the line, transforming from a fixed tug of war rope to an ever extending fishing line going in ONE direction. And it was being extended at a horrific speed. The only ones really moving were the left, pulling the line out farther and farther, and faster and faster. We went from tug of war to fishing. And we are now simply having to, as I stated, reel the line back in.<br /><br />And there you have it.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1367131962635980818", "published": "2022-04-30T13:34:19+00:00", "source": { "content": "FROM TUG OF WAR TO FISHING\n\n(04/30/22) - The political and social spectrum in the United States, and how it moved, used to be relatively accurately described as a \"tug of war\", with a right and left, and a middle that reflected the true center of the spectrum. And that middle changed as the rope was pulled further right or left. The right and left also changed as it was pulled right or left. This is because the rope (or length of the spectrum) was pretty much a constant.\n\nThis however, has not been the case for at least 20 years.\n\nWe have gone from a tug of war with fixed ends on a relatively fixed length of rope, simply being moved right or left and the \"middle\" being pretty much centered between them; to a model more like fishing. The right have not in any major way moved at all, while the left was cast away from the right, taking the line with them. The middle didn't even change much either, because these two groups were not \"fixed\" to the line as it sped away to the left.\n\nBut since in the past people saw each group \"fixed\" to the rope, and a rope that was pretty much a constant length, they think it still applies today. Clearly though, it does not. However since the mental image is still burned into the minds of most people, the left is claiming that the right is now shifting further right to PULL everyone (and the spectrum) with them (as was the case in a tug of war). And this not true at all.\n\nThe right is not moving further right. They are not moving the end of the line on their end at all (as would be concerning a tug of war rope). They are simply reeling in the line that the left took and ran with (as in was cast when fishing, or when a fish takes the line and runs with it). And the right and center never moved in any major way. Maybe there was a step for the center, and a couple inches for the right, but not in any notable way; and ironically those movements were actually to the left and not right.\n\nWhat actually changed was the length of the line, transforming from a fixed tug of war rope to an ever extending fishing line going in ONE direction. And it was being extended at a horrific speed. The only ones really moving were the left, pulling the line out farther and farther, and faster and faster. We went from tug of war to fishing. And we are now simply having to, as I stated, reel the line back in.\n\nAnd there you have it.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1367131962635980818/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1366374493051686924", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2022<br /><br />(04/28/22) - It's that time of year again; the push to further Government control to attack the citizens of the nation. The U.S. House of Representatives is advancing The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022.<br /><br />We already have more than enough laws on the books, and procedures in place to deal with terrorism, both external and internal. And we have seen time and again where the FBI and other agencies have had people and groups on their \"watch list\" only to do NOTHING and allow them to commit horrific crimes of terror. And we have also seen the FBI outright orchestrate, or attempt to, criminal acts to include terrorist acts. But no, we need MORE laws, and MORE government power concerning the matters?<br /><br />NO WE DO NOT.<br /><br />And once again, this push is being done in the guise of \"safety\" while targeting only ONE side or part of the spectrum that is, or may be, a problem. Here is the summery from the CBO on the bill:<br /><br />\"Under current law, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigate, prosecute, and work to prevent acts of terrorism—both domestic and international in nature. H.R. 350 would require each of those agencies to operate offices dedicated to investigating, preventing, and prosecuting domestic terrorism and would authorize the appropriation of whatever amounts are necessary for those offices.<br /><br />Under the bill, the agencies would be required to produce a joint report every six months that assesses, quantifies, and characterizes domestic terrorism threats nationwide, including threats posed by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. Each agency’s domestic terrorism office would be directed to focus its resources on the most significant threats, as determined by the number of incidents from each threat category identified in the joint report during the preceding six months.\"<br /><br />That is their own words, not mine. Sure, \"including\" means there are others, but note the focus. Seems pretty one sided to me. They don't put in writing, \"black supremacists\" or \"black nationalist groups\", or countless other bigoted groups out there that have actually caused more harm and committed more terrorism in the United States in the recent past than \"white supremacists\" or \"neo-Nazis\" have. In fact we had over 2 years of BLM and other groups of their ilk literally burning cities down and continually making threats to do MORE of it if they didn't get their way. But that isn't terrorism I guess, right?<br /><br />Wrong. It most certainly is.<br /><br />Also in the bill they try to link hate crimes, and even hate speech into the mix for terrorism and thus they can take \"anti-terrorism\" measures against them. And we all know what the current Administration and the Democrats in general consider both hate crimes and hate speech. It is simply a one sided metric that considers damn near anything done or said by one side to be hate speech and hate crimes and NOTHING the other side does or says is.<br /><br />Keep in mind as well that the left tried to use the Patriot Act and other anti-Terrorism laws and procedures against parents who simply spoke out against schools and teachers who were doing things they did not approve of. But yes, let's allow for MORE \"laws\" and procedures to be put in place that clearly do not actually deal with REAL problems, but are meant to be used to crack down on political or social opponents.<br /><br />Again, there are more than enough laws, agencies, and procedures in place to deal with ANY issue we as a nation face, to include domestic terrorism. We don't need any more, and the presented Act does not help make our nation safer, it simply gives the Government and their alphabet agencies wider latitude and reasons to target and harm (under the color of law) those who are not actual terroristic threats, but simply social and/or political opponents of those in power.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1366374493051686924", "published": "2022-04-28T11:24:24+00:00", "source": { "content": "PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2022\n\n(04/28/22) - It's that time of year again; the push to further Government control to attack the citizens of the nation. The U.S. House of Representatives is advancing The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022.\n\nWe already have more than enough laws on the books, and procedures in place to deal with terrorism, both external and internal. And we have seen time and again where the FBI and other agencies have had people and groups on their \"watch list\" only to do NOTHING and allow them to commit horrific crimes of terror. And we have also seen the FBI outright orchestrate, or attempt to, criminal acts to include terrorist acts. But no, we need MORE laws, and MORE government power concerning the matters?\n\nNO WE DO NOT.\n\nAnd once again, this push is being done in the guise of \"safety\" while targeting only ONE side or part of the spectrum that is, or may be, a problem. Here is the summery from the CBO on the bill:\n\n\"Under current law, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigate, prosecute, and work to prevent acts of terrorism—both domestic and international in nature. H.R. 350 would require each of those agencies to operate offices dedicated to investigating, preventing, and prosecuting domestic terrorism and would authorize the appropriation of whatever amounts are necessary for those offices.\n\nUnder the bill, the agencies would be required to produce a joint report every six months that assesses, quantifies, and characterizes domestic terrorism threats nationwide, including threats posed by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. Each agency’s domestic terrorism office would be directed to focus its resources on the most significant threats, as determined by the number of incidents from each threat category identified in the joint report during the preceding six months.\"\n\nThat is their own words, not mine. Sure, \"including\" means there are others, but note the focus. Seems pretty one sided to me. They don't put in writing, \"black supremacists\" or \"black nationalist groups\", or countless other bigoted groups out there that have actually caused more harm and committed more terrorism in the United States in the recent past than \"white supremacists\" or \"neo-Nazis\" have. In fact we had over 2 years of BLM and other groups of their ilk literally burning cities down and continually making threats to do MORE of it if they didn't get their way. But that isn't terrorism I guess, right?\n\nWrong. It most certainly is.\n\nAlso in the bill they try to link hate crimes, and even hate speech into the mix for terrorism and thus they can take \"anti-terrorism\" measures against them. And we all know what the current Administration and the Democrats in general consider both hate crimes and hate speech. It is simply a one sided metric that considers damn near anything done or said by one side to be hate speech and hate crimes and NOTHING the other side does or says is.\n\nKeep in mind as well that the left tried to use the Patriot Act and other anti-Terrorism laws and procedures against parents who simply spoke out against schools and teachers who were doing things they did not approve of. But yes, let's allow for MORE \"laws\" and procedures to be put in place that clearly do not actually deal with REAL problems, but are meant to be used to crack down on political or social opponents.\n\nAgain, there are more than enough laws, agencies, and procedures in place to deal with ANY issue we as a nation face, to include domestic terrorism. We don't need any more, and the presented Act does not help make our nation safer, it simply gives the Government and their alphabet agencies wider latitude and reasons to target and harm (under the color of law) those who are not actual terroristic threats, but simply social and/or political opponents of those in power.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1366374493051686924/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1364686893303730181", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "WRONG! <br /><br />It is not about who ages better, but when in life each reach the height of their sexual marketplace worth. Woman are most valuable on the sexual marketplace between late teens and about 30 years old. Men on the other hand reach their peak MUCH later in life. And we as a species have a biological programming \"desire\" based on these factors.<br /><br />But the modern feminist movement has lied to women over and over about things, and thus women are NEVER HAPPY. Too many women think they can \"have it all\", when they simply can't. But neither can men!<br /><br />Women have also been told they can act like men and be happy. But then when they do, they tend to feel shame, unfulfilled, and NOT HAPPY. That is because we are not the same. And that is a GOOD THING.<br /><br />In addition, women have been told that their marketplace value is HIGH all the time, and it is not. Young women enjoy the benefits they see being in their prime and height of their \"value\", but then when they put things off until later, they get pissed off that the world does not see them like they were seen years before. They think they still have that high market value, as if they were in their 20's, but now middle age or grandmothers. And how society valued THOSE has always been different, but still greatly important.<br /><br />Many women today don't want to age, or to embrace their new stages in life. They want to be locked into the period they enjoyed in their 20's. But that is not how reality works. And thus, they are angry.<br /><br />See a pattern here?<br /><br />Men also experience this, but in REVERSE. Our marketplace value low when we are in our 20's and HIGH when we hit 40 and 50. And if we are successful, that can carry on even longer. And this is by design. But men don't sit around bitch, pissing, and moaning that we are not seen to be as valuable as the older guys who worked their asses of to reach the points they now find themselves in. Instead men WORK THEIR ASSES OFF to become worthy of the marketplace value they may see later in life.<br /><br />Both men and women are \"allowed\" to age. And society and BIOLOGY values the aging of both men and women. It simply does it differently. The roles we play in society and BIOLOGY are not on the same timelines, and NEITHER timeline is \"nice\" or \"fair\" depending on the lens you view it by. But it is what it is. And no amount of trying to blame society for that changes reality.<br /><br />Again, see a pattern here? Reality and what happens when you refuse to understand it, or accept it.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1364686893303730181", "published": "2022-04-23T19:38:29+00:00", "source": { "content": "WRONG! \n\nIt is not about who ages better, but when in life each reach the height of their sexual marketplace worth. Woman are most valuable on the sexual marketplace between late teens and about 30 years old. Men on the other hand reach their peak MUCH later in life. And we as a species have a biological programming \"desire\" based on these factors.\n\nBut the modern feminist movement has lied to women over and over about things, and thus women are NEVER HAPPY. Too many women think they can \"have it all\", when they simply can't. But neither can men!\n\nWomen have also been told they can act like men and be happy. But then when they do, they tend to feel shame, unfulfilled, and NOT HAPPY. That is because we are not the same. And that is a GOOD THING.\n\nIn addition, women have been told that their marketplace value is HIGH all the time, and it is not. Young women enjoy the benefits they see being in their prime and height of their \"value\", but then when they put things off until later, they get pissed off that the world does not see them like they were seen years before. They think they still have that high market value, as if they were in their 20's, but now middle age or grandmothers. And how society valued THOSE has always been different, but still greatly important.\n\nMany women today don't want to age, or to embrace their new stages in life. They want to be locked into the period they enjoyed in their 20's. But that is not how reality works. And thus, they are angry.\n\nSee a pattern here?\n\nMen also experience this, but in REVERSE. Our marketplace value low when we are in our 20's and HIGH when we hit 40 and 50. And if we are successful, that can carry on even longer. And this is by design. But men don't sit around bitch, pissing, and moaning that we are not seen to be as valuable as the older guys who worked their asses of to reach the points they now find themselves in. Instead men WORK THEIR ASSES OFF to become worthy of the marketplace value they may see later in life.\n\nBoth men and women are \"allowed\" to age. And society and BIOLOGY values the aging of both men and women. It simply does it differently. The roles we play in society and BIOLOGY are not on the same timelines, and NEITHER timeline is \"nice\" or \"fair\" depending on the lens you view it by. But it is what it is. And no amount of trying to blame society for that changes reality.\n\nAgain, see a pattern here? Reality and what happens when you refuse to understand it, or accept it.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1364686893303730181/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1363513166578847752", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "If it weren't for strawmen these anti-capitalist folks would not have anything to complain about. Here is an example of one of their strawmen. \"Living above your means\" has nothing to do with what you choose to purchase or how you choose to live UNLESS YOU CAN NOT AFFORD IT. If you can afford it, you are not living above your means. PERIOD.<br /><br />This isn't about living above your means, it is about envy. Everything these people complain about concerning those who are wealthy or even ultra-wealthy can be applied to ANYONE since there is always someone who earns less or has les than someone else. And NONE of it has to do with living off of other people, since in reality if you are a WORKER, you are being PAID. The ones who are truly living off of the work of others are not the rich or ultra-rich but the POOR and ULTRA-POOR who may be getting tax payer funded services, monthly \"incomes\", food-stamps (now an EBT cards), etc. But these anti-capitalists don't seem to have a problem with THAT.<br /><br />And let's be perfectly clear, everything in their lives is possible because of.... capitalism; to include the platforms they spout their nonsense on.<br /><br />Again, there are people of all income brackets that live above their means; and there are those who do not. It is not dictated by what tax bracket you are in, but whether you can actually afford the things you have or the lifestyle you live. PERIOD. The rest is simply envy and strawman garbage.<br /><br />Cheers!", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1363513166578847752", "published": "2022-04-20T13:54:31+00:00", "source": { "content": "If it weren't for strawmen these anti-capitalist folks would not have anything to complain about. Here is an example of one of their strawmen. \"Living above your means\" has nothing to do with what you choose to purchase or how you choose to live UNLESS YOU CAN NOT AFFORD IT. If you can afford it, you are not living above your means. PERIOD.\n\nThis isn't about living above your means, it is about envy. Everything these people complain about concerning those who are wealthy or even ultra-wealthy can be applied to ANYONE since there is always someone who earns less or has les than someone else. And NONE of it has to do with living off of other people, since in reality if you are a WORKER, you are being PAID. The ones who are truly living off of the work of others are not the rich or ultra-rich but the POOR and ULTRA-POOR who may be getting tax payer funded services, monthly \"incomes\", food-stamps (now an EBT cards), etc. But these anti-capitalists don't seem to have a problem with THAT.\n\nAnd let's be perfectly clear, everything in their lives is possible because of.... capitalism; to include the platforms they spout their nonsense on.\n\nAgain, there are people of all income brackets that live above their means; and there are those who do not. It is not dictated by what tax bracket you are in, but whether you can actually afford the things you have or the lifestyle you live. PERIOD. The rest is simply envy and strawman garbage.\n\nCheers!", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1363513166578847752/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1363208928489377798", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1363208928489377798\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1363208928489377798</a>", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1363208928489377798", "published": "2022-04-19T17:45:35+00:00", "source": { "content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1363208928489377798", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1363208928489377798/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362953299287871495", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "I keep seeing folks say that Colin Kaepernick deserves a chance to play in the NFL again. To that I say two things. <br /><br />The first is that he HAD that job and he sat on the bench because of poor performance. Then he cared more about \"protest\" than improving his playing abilities. And THEN after he was given his pink slip he decided to piss all over the NFL by saying it was like being a SLAVE. So he HAD his \"chance\" and it didn't work out.<br /><br />Second, he has been given tryouts and spotlights more than any other free agent or \"I want to play\" person I have ever seen. It is not like the teams don't know he is there and wants to play again. But thus far NO ONE WANTS HIM. So the answer thus far is \"no\".<br /><br />This is like any other \"job\". You can apply all you want, but no one is FORCED to hire you. If you can sell yourself well enough, or have what the employer wants/needs, they will most likely hire you. It is that simple.<br /><br />And him not being picked up has NOTHING to do with him being half black. The NFL is FULL of black and half black players. And the NFL has plenty of players who back BLM or think cops are racist monsters just gunning down poor black folks who \"didn't do nujffin\". So....... think about it.<br /><br />Cheers!", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1362953299287871495", "published": "2022-04-19T00:49:48+00:00", "source": { "content": "I keep seeing folks say that Colin Kaepernick deserves a chance to play in the NFL again. To that I say two things. \n\nThe first is that he HAD that job and he sat on the bench because of poor performance. Then he cared more about \"protest\" than improving his playing abilities. And THEN after he was given his pink slip he decided to piss all over the NFL by saying it was like being a SLAVE. So he HAD his \"chance\" and it didn't work out.\n\nSecond, he has been given tryouts and spotlights more than any other free agent or \"I want to play\" person I have ever seen. It is not like the teams don't know he is there and wants to play again. But thus far NO ONE WANTS HIM. So the answer thus far is \"no\".\n\nThis is like any other \"job\". You can apply all you want, but no one is FORCED to hire you. If you can sell yourself well enough, or have what the employer wants/needs, they will most likely hire you. It is that simple.\n\nAnd him not being picked up has NOTHING to do with him being half black. The NFL is FULL of black and half black players. And the NFL has plenty of players who back BLM or think cops are racist monsters just gunning down poor black folks who \"didn't do nujffin\". So....... think about it.\n\nCheers!", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362953299287871495/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362794541211455489", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "MONDAY MORNING MUSE. REEEEEEE<br /><br />(04/18/22) It's another Monday morning. And I will begin it with some musings on the Left and Elon Musk/Twitter. Well, sort of.<br /><br />I will start by saying that I don't care about Twitter. I view Twitter as a giant toilet with the turds of our society stinking up the place. They don't represent the views of most Americans, and the MSM needs to stop using them as a barometer for the \"mind of the nation\". IT IS NOT.<br /><br />Next I will state that I don't care what Elon Musk does concerning Twitter or anything else. I don't care how much money he has, or what he has to say about anything.<br /><br />And now I will again openly state that I don't care WHY he is doing what he is concerning Twitter. I have said that I don't believe it has a thing to do about \"free speech\" and nothing I have seen to this point leads me to change that view.<br /><br />What I am going to focus more on is how the Left are dealing with this.<br /><br />And they are LOSING THEIR MINDS!<br /><br />Twitter is a social media platform, and that is it. And it is one of many. It is not the only source for information or connection with others. And while the MSM likes to use it as a barometer for the \"mind of the nation\", it simply is not. It is an echo chamber for the sludge of the nation. And the problems we have now concerning \"voice\" do not change or get \"fixed\" by Musk owning Twitter or not. The problem isn't Twitter, the problem is what causes a place like Twitter to be what it is.<br /><br />That aside, the Left are now anti-ultra rich again; well sort of. When someone who is ultra-rich does something in opposition to their beliefs, agendas, or mental illnesses, they scream to high heaven. THEN it is that the ultra-rich should not own this, or have this much wealth, or be involved or influence politics, and on and on.<br /><br />But the truth is that they never have a problem when those ultra-rich who are on \"their side\" does ANY of that. In fact they think it is quite alright. The Left and their ultra-rich own the vast majority of Mainstream Media and other media outlets. They own and control the largest social media platforms. And they influence politics on a global scale.<br /><br />And as folks know, I am more than happy to play it either way, but not BOTH ways. Pick a lane and stay in it. Make a standard and apply it equally to ALL. And that goes for EVERY matter, not just this one.<br /><br />Then there is the matter of perpetual gaslighting. What we see from the Left is nothing short of 1984 with brighter colors. And I for one will never play along with it, nor roll over and let them steamroll reality and our nation flat.<br /><br />And there you have it. Cheers.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1362794541211455489", "published": "2022-04-18T14:18:57+00:00", "source": { "content": "MONDAY MORNING MUSE. REEEEEEE\n\n(04/18/22) It's another Monday morning. And I will begin it with some musings on the Left and Elon Musk/Twitter. Well, sort of.\n\nI will start by saying that I don't care about Twitter. I view Twitter as a giant toilet with the turds of our society stinking up the place. They don't represent the views of most Americans, and the MSM needs to stop using them as a barometer for the \"mind of the nation\". IT IS NOT.\n\nNext I will state that I don't care what Elon Musk does concerning Twitter or anything else. I don't care how much money he has, or what he has to say about anything.\n\nAnd now I will again openly state that I don't care WHY he is doing what he is concerning Twitter. I have said that I don't believe it has a thing to do about \"free speech\" and nothing I have seen to this point leads me to change that view.\n\nWhat I am going to focus more on is how the Left are dealing with this.\n\nAnd they are LOSING THEIR MINDS!\n\nTwitter is a social media platform, and that is it. And it is one of many. It is not the only source for information or connection with others. And while the MSM likes to use it as a barometer for the \"mind of the nation\", it simply is not. It is an echo chamber for the sludge of the nation. And the problems we have now concerning \"voice\" do not change or get \"fixed\" by Musk owning Twitter or not. The problem isn't Twitter, the problem is what causes a place like Twitter to be what it is.\n\nThat aside, the Left are now anti-ultra rich again; well sort of. When someone who is ultra-rich does something in opposition to their beliefs, agendas, or mental illnesses, they scream to high heaven. THEN it is that the ultra-rich should not own this, or have this much wealth, or be involved or influence politics, and on and on.\n\nBut the truth is that they never have a problem when those ultra-rich who are on \"their side\" does ANY of that. In fact they think it is quite alright. The Left and their ultra-rich own the vast majority of Mainstream Media and other media outlets. They own and control the largest social media platforms. And they influence politics on a global scale.\n\nAnd as folks know, I am more than happy to play it either way, but not BOTH ways. Pick a lane and stay in it. Make a standard and apply it equally to ALL. And that goes for EVERY matter, not just this one.\n\nThen there is the matter of perpetual gaslighting. What we see from the Left is nothing short of 1984 with brighter colors. And I for one will never play along with it, nor roll over and let them steamroll reality and our nation flat.\n\nAnd there you have it. Cheers.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362794541211455489/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362458826913091603", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "EASTER IS NOT ABOUT JESUS, OR IS IT<br /><br />(04/17/22) - It is happening again today, as it happens every year on this day. But it happens on other similar days as well. It is the arrival of the \"Easter doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. It's origins come from a pagan religion.\"<br /><br />Well, ok. But yes and no.<br /><br />You see, most every cultural holiday in the West comes from a blending of many things, both religious and social. And there are historical and social reasons for this. The three major holidays are Easter, Halloween, and Christmas.<br /><br />None of those holidays as celebrated, and practiced today, would be recognizable to those who did so at their conceptions. They would look at what we do now and see some things which may look familiar, but their context, reasons for having them, and the purpose of the holiday itself would probably confuse and even anger those who practiced them in ages past.<br /><br />In fact, the way we celebrate and practice most of these holidays today would look odd to people even 100 years ago. And often times the way we celebrate them here in the United States VS some other parts of the world can look much different.<br /><br />So when you see people online profess such lofty and critical statements, know that it has nothing to do with the issue they are talking about. The vast amount of information lacking in their statements, or even longer posts, tend to be so much that it only shows the statements are meant not to truly educate but to once again find any reason to slam Christians and Christianity. Sadly those doing it tend to also be the ones who seldom pass up the opportunity to take a healthy dump on almost anything.<br /><br />Yes, Easter is about Jesus. But as celebrated in modern culture it is about more than JUST Jesus for many. And for some it has NOTHING to do with Jesus. None of this validates or invalidates the holiday in any way, the same way that when people celebrate their child's birthday on some OTHER day does not invalidate that celebration.<br /><br />What matters is what is in your heart and WHY you are celebrating it. Modern holidays that have taken on a social, or secular aspect, tend to blend religious, cultural, and general social/secular aspects to form a celebratory event that has something for damn near everyone. And there are historical reasons for this, as well as simply evolution from a \"human social\" perspective.<br /><br />Happy Easter to all, He has risen. <br /><br />", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1362458826913091603", "published": "2022-04-17T16:04:57+00:00", "source": { "content": "EASTER IS NOT ABOUT JESUS, OR IS IT\n\n(04/17/22) - It is happening again today, as it happens every year on this day. But it happens on other similar days as well. It is the arrival of the \"Easter doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. It's origins come from a pagan religion.\"\n\nWell, ok. But yes and no.\n\nYou see, most every cultural holiday in the West comes from a blending of many things, both religious and social. And there are historical and social reasons for this. The three major holidays are Easter, Halloween, and Christmas.\n\nNone of those holidays as celebrated, and practiced today, would be recognizable to those who did so at their conceptions. They would look at what we do now and see some things which may look familiar, but their context, reasons for having them, and the purpose of the holiday itself would probably confuse and even anger those who practiced them in ages past.\n\nIn fact, the way we celebrate and practice most of these holidays today would look odd to people even 100 years ago. And often times the way we celebrate them here in the United States VS some other parts of the world can look much different.\n\nSo when you see people online profess such lofty and critical statements, know that it has nothing to do with the issue they are talking about. The vast amount of information lacking in their statements, or even longer posts, tend to be so much that it only shows the statements are meant not to truly educate but to once again find any reason to slam Christians and Christianity. Sadly those doing it tend to also be the ones who seldom pass up the opportunity to take a healthy dump on almost anything.\n\nYes, Easter is about Jesus. But as celebrated in modern culture it is about more than JUST Jesus for many. And for some it has NOTHING to do with Jesus. None of this validates or invalidates the holiday in any way, the same way that when people celebrate their child's birthday on some OTHER day does not invalidate that celebration.\n\nWhat matters is what is in your heart and WHY you are celebrating it. Modern holidays that have taken on a social, or secular aspect, tend to blend religious, cultural, and general social/secular aspects to form a celebratory event that has something for damn near everyone. And there are historical reasons for this, as well as simply evolution from a \"human social\" perspective.\n\nHappy Easter to all, He has risen. \n\n", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362458826913091603/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362112131754889227", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "With Musk's latest antics, the left are losing their minds. But what is worse in all of it is seeing the MSM, leftist talking heads, and PEOPLE in general showing what outright envious, evil, hate filled, communists they all are. <br /><br />The latest statement being spouted is that \"Billionaires should not exist\". People are professing that those who become ultra wealthy and successful should not exist. Their incomes and properties should be capped, with the rest of it going to \"everyone else\". Yet they are also saying that the billionaires are the greedy ones. It is greedy to keep what you legally EARNED, but not greedy to want to take that from the other person? Pure insanity, and disgusting.<br /><br />But where would this end? If you got rid of the billionaires, it would be millionaires that are targeted next. Then those who make 3/4 of a million a year. Then $500,000 a year. And down and down it goes, until EVERYONE is a target.<br /><br />And none of this even takes into account what these ultra-rich people do with their money and how many others it benefits... or society in general.<br /><br />Are all of these ultra-rich people \"good\" people? No. But they are not all \"evil\" either. And to begrudge someone that which they EARNED says more about those doing it than the other way around. It's disgusting and evil. PERIOD.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1362112131754889227", "published": "2022-04-16T17:07:18+00:00", "source": { "content": "With Musk's latest antics, the left are losing their minds. But what is worse in all of it is seeing the MSM, leftist talking heads, and PEOPLE in general showing what outright envious, evil, hate filled, communists they all are. \n\nThe latest statement being spouted is that \"Billionaires should not exist\". People are professing that those who become ultra wealthy and successful should not exist. Their incomes and properties should be capped, with the rest of it going to \"everyone else\". Yet they are also saying that the billionaires are the greedy ones. It is greedy to keep what you legally EARNED, but not greedy to want to take that from the other person? Pure insanity, and disgusting.\n\nBut where would this end? If you got rid of the billionaires, it would be millionaires that are targeted next. Then those who make 3/4 of a million a year. Then $500,000 a year. And down and down it goes, until EVERYONE is a target.\n\nAnd none of this even takes into account what these ultra-rich people do with their money and how many others it benefits... or society in general.\n\nAre all of these ultra-rich people \"good\" people? No. But they are not all \"evil\" either. And to begrudge someone that which they EARNED says more about those doing it than the other way around. It's disgusting and evil. PERIOD.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1362112131754889227/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1361662661099524104", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "It is being reported that Germany has seized the property of a private citizen based on the actions of the government of their country. The Yacht -- named Dilbar -- is now impounded in a Hamburg, Germany shipyard. It is owned by Gulbakhor Ismailova, the sister of Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, one of Russian's richest citizens and a close advisor to Putin, particularly on economic issues.<br /><br />And social media is on fire with the vast majority of people cheering this action by Germany. But should they be doing so?<br /><br />How would they have felt had the assets and property of US citizens been \"seized\" by uninvolved countries around the world because of our military actions someplace else over the years? How about over the past 40 years? Or maybe the past 20 years? How about NOW?<br /><br />How one views this matter shows what their true intellectual and moral character is.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1361662661099524104", "published": "2022-04-15T11:21:16+00:00", "source": { "content": "It is being reported that Germany has seized the property of a private citizen based on the actions of the government of their country. The Yacht -- named Dilbar -- is now impounded in a Hamburg, Germany shipyard. It is owned by Gulbakhor Ismailova, the sister of Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, one of Russian's richest citizens and a close advisor to Putin, particularly on economic issues.\n\nAnd social media is on fire with the vast majority of people cheering this action by Germany. But should they be doing so?\n\nHow would they have felt had the assets and property of US citizens been \"seized\" by uninvolved countries around the world because of our military actions someplace else over the years? How about over the past 40 years? Or maybe the past 20 years? How about NOW?\n\nHow one views this matter shows what their true intellectual and moral character is.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1361662661099524104/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1361490740416352259", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "\"Walking away from the Olympic Games was a win in itself. I know a lot of people thought I failed because they expected me to go out with five or six medals, but walking out of it was my biggest win,\" Biles said on Wednesday at the 43rd annual Simmons Leadership Conference, in conversation with Brené Brown. \"I had to put myself into consideration for one of the first times throughout my career. Most of the time, I've always put myself on the back burner, because I've always cared and thought about everybody else before myself.\"<br /><br />She continued, \"I was like, 'You know what? I have to do what's best for me, what's safe, and what's healthy for me.' \"<br /><br />And to that I say, hogwash.<br /><br />The fact that she didn't win all the medals some thought she might wasn't the cause for disappointment. It was her choosing to not compete when she was there TO compete and represent the United States. If she tried and failed, no one would have had a problem with it. But she didn't even TRY. She backed out. And THAT is what so many take issue with.<br /><br />But so many others are patting her on the back (to include herself) for this losing mentality. They say she looked out for herself, and that was what was important.<br /><br />But was it? Was it really?<br /><br />I don't think so. She was not there simply competing for herself, but for the United States. She was not injured. And it was not like she had never experienced \"pressure\" before.<br /><br />This is more dumbing down or softening things for mentally and emotionally fragile people. Like I said, I would expect that at much lower levels of competition, not at the Olympics. And the fact that she and others are still trying to spin this as something great, positive, and heroic is disgusting. More so at a \"leadership\" conference. Leadership my ass.<br /><br />But there you have it.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1361490740416352259", "published": "2022-04-14T23:58:07+00:00", "source": { "content": "\"Walking away from the Olympic Games was a win in itself. I know a lot of people thought I failed because they expected me to go out with five or six medals, but walking out of it was my biggest win,\" Biles said on Wednesday at the 43rd annual Simmons Leadership Conference, in conversation with Brené Brown. \"I had to put myself into consideration for one of the first times throughout my career. Most of the time, I've always put myself on the back burner, because I've always cared and thought about everybody else before myself.\"\n\nShe continued, \"I was like, 'You know what? I have to do what's best for me, what's safe, and what's healthy for me.' \"\n\nAnd to that I say, hogwash.\n\nThe fact that she didn't win all the medals some thought she might wasn't the cause for disappointment. It was her choosing to not compete when she was there TO compete and represent the United States. If she tried and failed, no one would have had a problem with it. But she didn't even TRY. She backed out. And THAT is what so many take issue with.\n\nBut so many others are patting her on the back (to include herself) for this losing mentality. They say she looked out for herself, and that was what was important.\n\nBut was it? Was it really?\n\nI don't think so. She was not there simply competing for herself, but for the United States. She was not injured. And it was not like she had never experienced \"pressure\" before.\n\nThis is more dumbing down or softening things for mentally and emotionally fragile people. Like I said, I would expect that at much lower levels of competition, not at the Olympics. And the fact that she and others are still trying to spin this as something great, positive, and heroic is disgusting. More so at a \"leadership\" conference. Leadership my ass.\n\nBut there you have it.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1361490740416352259/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1361356827001884676", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368", "content": "NOTHING IS FREE AND YOU WILL PAY, IN MORE THAN ONE WAY<br /><br />(04/14/22) - The left is once again trying to cancel tax payer backed student loan debt. Schumer stated in a virtual event yesterday (State of Student Debt Summit), “I have talked personally to the president on this issue a whole bunch of times. I have told him that this is more important than just about anything else that he can do on his own,” and continued with “We’re making progress folks. We are making progress. The White House seems more open to it than ever before.\"<br /><br />He has been pushing for student debt forgiveness of up to $50,000 per borrower. But this is purely criminal. And it is not HIS money to forgive. It is the tax payer backed money.<br /><br />But he knows that this will buy votes. People don't care about the consequences for this type of \"forgiveness\". SOMEONE will be left holding the bag. When debt is \"forgiven\" there is always a loss to some party. It doesn't just magically become a non-issue.<br /><br />The Department of Education announced last week that it would extend the pause on federal student loan repayment, interest and collections through August. And frankly I have NO issue with that. A pause is fine. But outright forgiveness of the debt is NOT.<br /><br />No one forced any of these students to enter into the student loan contract. Many students finance their schooling through other means aside from tax payer backed loans. From working more than one job, to scholarships and grants from private institutions, there are countless alternatives to the tax payer backed loans. And this is an area that the government, nor tax payer money, should have NEVER gotten into. It only encourages bad decisions, lack of accountability and a system that then feeds on this to its advantage.<br /><br />And again, in the end, someone ends up holding the bag. Someone already paid and is waiting on the return of the money. And that will eventually be passed on down to YOU in this case. YOU foot the bill. You will either pay higher rates elsewhere, or more fees elsewhere, or taxed more elsewhere. But you WILL pay. And it isn't you that SHOULD pay, it is the one who took out the loan that should!<br /><br />If they are allowed to do this, what is next in the ploy to buy votes? VA Home Loans forgiven? I have used this very loan backing because I have served my country in the military. Should MY backed loan be \"forgiven\" as well?<br /><br />NO! I entered into the contract, and it is MY debt to pay. As is my car loan, credit card debt, and every other debt I incurred willingly and freely. Student loans are NO DIFFERENT.<br /><br />As I stated what they are trying to do is outright criminal. It isn't morally right either, quite the opposite. It must not be allowed. Sadly we know that those who would vote based on this will still give them their votes whether they succeed or not. But if we stop this \"forgiveness\" from happening, at least the tax payer isn't stuck with the bill THIS TIME. And that is better than losing on both fronts.", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1361356827001884676", "published": "2022-04-14T15:05:59+00:00", "source": { "content": "NOTHING IS FREE AND YOU WILL PAY, IN MORE THAN ONE WAY\n\n(04/14/22) - The left is once again trying to cancel tax payer backed student loan debt. Schumer stated in a virtual event yesterday (State of Student Debt Summit), “I have talked personally to the president on this issue a whole bunch of times. I have told him that this is more important than just about anything else that he can do on his own,” and continued with “We’re making progress folks. We are making progress. The White House seems more open to it than ever before.\"\n\nHe has been pushing for student debt forgiveness of up to $50,000 per borrower. But this is purely criminal. And it is not HIS money to forgive. It is the tax payer backed money.\n\nBut he knows that this will buy votes. People don't care about the consequences for this type of \"forgiveness\". SOMEONE will be left holding the bag. When debt is \"forgiven\" there is always a loss to some party. It doesn't just magically become a non-issue.\n\nThe Department of Education announced last week that it would extend the pause on federal student loan repayment, interest and collections through August. And frankly I have NO issue with that. A pause is fine. But outright forgiveness of the debt is NOT.\n\nNo one forced any of these students to enter into the student loan contract. Many students finance their schooling through other means aside from tax payer backed loans. From working more than one job, to scholarships and grants from private institutions, there are countless alternatives to the tax payer backed loans. And this is an area that the government, nor tax payer money, should have NEVER gotten into. It only encourages bad decisions, lack of accountability and a system that then feeds on this to its advantage.\n\nAnd again, in the end, someone ends up holding the bag. Someone already paid and is waiting on the return of the money. And that will eventually be passed on down to YOU in this case. YOU foot the bill. You will either pay higher rates elsewhere, or more fees elsewhere, or taxed more elsewhere. But you WILL pay. And it isn't you that SHOULD pay, it is the one who took out the loan that should!\n\nIf they are allowed to do this, what is next in the ploy to buy votes? VA Home Loans forgiven? I have used this very loan backing because I have served my country in the military. Should MY backed loan be \"forgiven\" as well?\n\nNO! I entered into the contract, and it is MY debt to pay. As is my car loan, credit card debt, and every other debt I incurred willingly and freely. Student loans are NO DIFFERENT.\n\nAs I stated what they are trying to do is outright criminal. It isn't morally right either, quite the opposite. It must not be allowed. Sadly we know that those who would vote based on this will still give them their votes whether they succeed or not. But if we stop this \"forgiveness\" from happening, at least the tax payer isn't stuck with the bill THIS TIME. And that is better than losing on both fronts.", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/entities/urn:activity:1361356827001884676/activity" } ], "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/outbox", "partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1256339938643812368/outboxoutbox" }