Tabloid journalism? It's the liberal media that distorts this stuff. They will take a criminal and pretend the person is just an innocent slob trying to make a living.
Illegal aliens are just the undocumented. They could be harmless.
The real distinction is criminal aliens where they have made it clear that they aren't just here to "pursue the dream".
Criminal aliens have been the priority during the current US administration as it was in the previous one. Within those people, certain crimes are spelled out as a high priority for deportation.
Being flooded with war refugees and migrants that have no interest in assimilation is a different kettle of fish. Compared to that Mexicans aren't so bad and Tea Baggers should lay off a little.
> Doesn't matter, these myths are about scary foreigners. The details are irrelevant.
These details are VERY relevant. There are subtle distinctions between INDIVIDUALS. The individual needs to be judged based on their own circumstances and behavior.
The distinctions do matter. They aren't all just "immigrants". That's just liberals trying to cloud the issue.
>>he thinks the US is anywhere other than far right on the spectrum > > enjoy your for-profit healthcare. im sure you matter almost as much as their profits. keke
Profit means that there are people lining up to sell to me. That means a wide array of excellent options. It doesn't matter if it's housing, lattes or hospitals.
I benefit greatly from this as an actual patient. I wouldn't trade my land of plenty in for any free garbage anywhere else.
Government doesn't set prices and government control supply. That works out very well actually.
The only difference between those two is the matter of degree and whether or not you think that somehow big government will eventually lead to a libertarian paradise.
Either one still leads you to living with your parents because there is a shortage of housing.
> So because people smoke we can't look at any other respiratory irritants? Great logic, you should be a politician.
No. You should be. You want us to get into a fit of hysterics over a number that is obviously small. From a mathematical and engineering perspective, this is assinine.
No. You're the one that should be the politician.
You can subject everyone to nonsense that's highly disruptive and expensive for no other reason than "good intentions".
> If you don't want second hand smoke, stay out of the buildings where smokers smoke. Why must you ban smoking in ALL private businesses?
It will be like binding arbitration clauses in contracts or businesses that don't allow blacks or gays. Good luck finding some place where you don't have to risk your health just to work or shop.
> There is still no proof of second hand cigarette smoke
Sure. Because smoke in general is just SO HARMLESS. You have to be fucking kidding me. Even in the 15th century they were bright enough to realize that smoking was inherently dangerous.
You've deluded yourself into thinking that your brand of toadies serving rich elites are any better than the other brand of toadies serving a different faction of rich elites.
> Activity is good for you. > Soda is bad for you.
Soda used as a replacement for water is bad for you.
This is the "modern" problem.
Soda ceased to be a luxury or a treat. The classic small bottle gave way to the 2 Litre bottle. People started drinking it instead of water.
THAT is bad.
Soda suffers from market saturation. Companies need to make ever more money in order to support unsustainable stock growth. The push for over consumption is one of the downsides of capitalism.
> This story exemplifies the way that the internet has become a waste of my time. Decades ago,
Decades ago access to peer reviewed journal articles was very expensive and pretty much limited to Universities. Now you can just Google the stuff.
The Internet is much like TV. The degree to which it is a vast wasteland boils down to how you choose to use it. Your view of it is more a reflection of yourself rather than anything else.
> The problem isn't the cost itself, necessarily, but the fact that big pharma usually overburden 1st world countries with huge prices for meds and sell cheap somewhere else. I find this ethically wrong.
You mean means based pricing? Seems like a very palatable liberal idea really. The other alternative would be to just say "fuck em", force the 1st world price on them and watch them die.
It would be nice if Valtrex were cheaper. However, I have zero confidence that price controls on generic drugs would occur without ugly collateral damage.
> not allowing any vacation time off, of course this is what we get.
I could comment on how bogus that is but it's not really necessary. Exercise is something you make time for if necessary. Vacations really have nothing to do about it. Even being a workaholic is irrelevant.
Some of you most certainly do. You have a variety of bad ideas that you haven't thought through or you really have no clue about. You want to subject those ideas to the rest of us.
> No, but the study doesn't tell us that bad diet is bad; it quantifies how bad it is and ranks it against other risk factors.
It's still pretty much useless information.
It's like peddling global warming armageddon in order to discourage wasteful expensive over consumption or shitting where you live. You shouldn't really need a hysterical adrenaline overload media narrative to prompt you to clean up after yourself when your Earth Day celebration is over.
> Now compare what a healthy diet costs ( especially feeding a family ) vs the non-healthy variety and you -might- get a clue as to why folks choose to eat what they do.
You mean healthy staples versus processed junk?
Your media narrative is UTTER HOGWASH intended to soothe your inner conspicuous consumer and enable bad habits. Real food is not more expensive.
It actually costs LESS money. What it costs more of is time and effort.
Pretty much ANY thing you are willing to make yourself is going to be cheaper (and much better).
Ready made junk food isn't just "bad for you" it's pretty much inferior in any way (including taste).
Jews like to make trouble and revolt against their imperial overlords. This is in stark contrast to "Palestinians" and the Ottoman Empire. The whole reason the Jews spread to the wind is because the Romans finally got fed up. At that point, you probably didn't want to identify as a Jew. It probably even made sense for you to hate on them just to demonstrate how much of a non-Jew you were.
The Gospels pretty much evolve based on political realities in the Empire.
> The difference is that the anti-Seimites on the right don't want Jews to exist at all. The ones on the left just don't want Jews to exist in Israel. That's quite a big difference!
When you consider recent history, that's on real difference at all. Muslims have half the planet they can feel comfortable in. The Jews can't really count on assimilating anywhere.
"Anti-Zionism" manifests as blatant anti-semitism. This is very true in Europe and is also true in the US.
Nazi Germany should be a big clue about that.
The right wing fringe is tiny and powerless. The liberal establishment is not.
More importantly, these "champions" need to encourage the Palestinians to act like a nation that can live in peace with it's neighbor. Through their shameless hypocrisy, they act as enabler to the Palestinians to prevent any real change there.
The "pro-palestinians" need to eviscerate Gaza and discourage their nonsense.
They also need to lay off the unhinged rhetoric.
And yeah, the idea of a refugee camp outside of Israel is really obscene. These people should be able to get on with their lives like normal people.
Utter nonsense. The Jews have real ties to Israel. It used to be their own country. Their version of Mecca is there as well as other less prominent holy sites. They have continued to live there even since the expulsion.
Some of the claims of "settlement activity" are actually over places were Jews never really left.
Anti-Zionism is an inherent hypocrisy. Either you believe in the rights of indigenous people or you don't. You don't half-ass it by defending this idea for some people but not others.
Every argument against or in favor of the Jews can be applied equally to the Ottomans. That's the way modern civilized ideals work. You don't get to play favorites.
Besides, what kind MORON suggests an ethnic group be forced to associate with someone that committed genuine genocide on them?
Slashdot Mirror
Tabloid journalism? It's the liberal media that distorts this stuff. They will take a criminal and pretend the person is just an innocent slob trying to make a living.
Illegal aliens are just the undocumented. They could be harmless.
The real distinction is criminal aliens where they have made it clear that they aren't just here to "pursue the dream".
Criminal aliens have been the priority during the current US administration as it was in the previous one. Within those people, certain crimes are spelled out as a high priority for deportation.
Being flooded with war refugees and migrants that have no interest in assimilation is a different kettle of fish. Compared to that Mexicans aren't so bad and Tea Baggers should lay off a little.
> Doesn't matter, these myths are about scary foreigners. The details are irrelevant.
These details are VERY relevant. There are subtle distinctions between INDIVIDUALS. The individual needs to be judged based on their own circumstances and behavior.
The distinctions do matter. They aren't all just "immigrants". That's just liberals trying to cloud the issue.
>>he thinks the US is anywhere other than far right on the spectrum
>
> enjoy your for-profit healthcare. im sure you matter almost as much as their profits. keke
Profit means that there are people lining up to sell to me. That means a wide array of excellent options. It doesn't matter if it's housing, lattes or hospitals.
I benefit greatly from this as an actual patient. I wouldn't trade my land of plenty in for any free garbage anywhere else.
Government doesn't set prices and government control supply. That works out very well actually.
> Socialists are left, communists are far left.
The only difference between those two is the matter of degree and whether or not you think that somehow big government will eventually lead to a libertarian paradise.
Either one still leads you to living with your parents because there is a shortage of housing.
>> "Far left, politically."
>
> Only to someone on the far right. See how this works?
No. It's BULLSHIT.
I used to consider myself center-left and I agree with the OP.
> So because people smoke we can't look at any other respiratory irritants? Great logic, you should be a politician.
No. You should be. You want us to get into a fit of hysterics over a number that is obviously small. From a mathematical and engineering perspective, this is assinine.
No. You're the one that should be the politician.
You can subject everyone to nonsense that's highly disruptive and expensive for no other reason than "good intentions".
> If you don't want second hand smoke, stay out of the buildings where smokers smoke. Why must you ban smoking in ALL private businesses?
It will be like binding arbitration clauses in contracts or businesses that don't allow blacks or gays. Good luck finding some place where you don't have to risk your health just to work or shop.
> There is still no proof of second hand cigarette smoke
Sure. Because smoke in general is just SO HARMLESS. You have to be fucking kidding me. Even in the 15th century they were bright enough to realize that smoking was inherently dangerous.
Cigarette smoke contains nasty industrial pollutants.
You've deluded yourself into thinking that your brand of toadies serving rich elites are any better than the other brand of toadies serving a different faction of rich elites.
> Must suck to be an Ivan
It's better than being a communist.
> Activity is good for you.
> Soda is bad for you.
Soda used as a replacement for water is bad for you.
This is the "modern" problem.
Soda ceased to be a luxury or a treat. The classic small bottle gave way to the 2 Litre bottle. People started drinking it instead of water.
THAT is bad.
Soda suffers from market saturation. Companies need to make ever more money in order to support unsustainable stock growth. The push for over consumption is one of the downsides of capitalism.
> This story exemplifies the way that the internet has become a waste of my time. Decades ago,
Decades ago access to peer reviewed journal articles was very expensive and pretty much limited to Universities. Now you can just Google the stuff.
The Internet is much like TV. The degree to which it is a vast wasteland boils down to how you choose to use it. Your view of it is more a reflection of yourself rather than anything else.
> The problem isn't the cost itself, necessarily, but the fact that big pharma usually overburden 1st world countries with huge prices for meds and sell cheap somewhere else. I find this ethically wrong.
You mean means based pricing? Seems like a very palatable liberal idea really. The other alternative would be to just say "fuck em", force the 1st world price on them and watch them die.
It would be nice if Valtrex were cheaper. However, I have zero confidence that price controls on generic drugs would occur without ugly collateral damage.
People have all sorts of deranged ideas about the drug industry fed to them by the media or social media.
> maybe everything Big is Bad now: Big Pharma, Big Government, and the Big 12
Big has always been bad. Things in general scale poorly.
That's why you want a Beowulf cluster of companies or governments.
> not allowing any vacation time off, of course this is what we get.
I could comment on how bogus that is but it's not really necessary. Exercise is something you make time for if necessary. Vacations really have nothing to do about it. Even being a workaholic is irrelevant.
Desk jobs are nothing new.
> No one here on Slashdot wants to harm you.
Some of you most certainly do. You have a variety of bad ideas that you haven't thought through or you really have no clue about. You want to subject those ideas to the rest of us.
What good? They simply won't exist anymore.
Like everything else, it's all a matter of degree. Everything in moderation while avoiding any strange fads or extremes.
It's almost something like I learned in school before the "Food Pyramid" was around. ;-ppppp
> No, but the study doesn't tell us that bad diet is bad; it quantifies how bad it is and ranks it against other risk factors.
It's still pretty much useless information.
It's like peddling global warming armageddon in order to discourage wasteful expensive over consumption or shitting where you live. You shouldn't really need a hysterical adrenaline overload media narrative to prompt you to clean up after yourself when your Earth Day celebration is over.
> Now compare what a healthy diet costs ( especially feeding a family ) vs the non-healthy variety and you -might- get a clue as to why folks choose to eat what they do.
You mean healthy staples versus processed junk?
Your media narrative is UTTER HOGWASH intended to soothe your inner conspicuous consumer and enable bad habits. Real food is not more expensive.
It actually costs LESS money. What it costs more of is time and effort.
Pretty much ANY thing you are willing to make yourself is going to be cheaper (and much better).
Ready made junk food isn't just "bad for you" it's pretty much inferior in any way (including taste).
Jews like to make trouble and revolt against their imperial overlords. This is in stark contrast to "Palestinians" and the Ottoman Empire. The whole reason the Jews spread to the wind is because the Romans finally got fed up. At that point, you probably didn't want to identify as a Jew. It probably even made sense for you to hate on them just to demonstrate how much of a non-Jew you were.
The Gospels pretty much evolve based on political realities in the Empire.
> The difference is that the anti-Seimites on the right don't want Jews to exist at all. The ones on the left just don't want Jews to exist in Israel. That's quite a big difference!
When you consider recent history, that's on real difference at all. Muslims have half the planet they can feel comfortable in. The Jews can't really count on assimilating anywhere.
"Anti-Zionism" manifests as blatant anti-semitism. This is very true in Europe and is also true in the US.
Nazi Germany should be a big clue about that.
The right wing fringe is tiny and powerless. The liberal establishment is not.
More importantly, these "champions" need to encourage the Palestinians to act like a nation that can live in peace with it's neighbor. Through their shameless hypocrisy, they act as enabler to the Palestinians to prevent any real change there.
The "pro-palestinians" need to eviscerate Gaza and discourage their nonsense.
They also need to lay off the unhinged rhetoric.
And yeah, the idea of a refugee camp outside of Israel is really obscene. These people should be able to get on with their lives like normal people.
Utter nonsense. The Jews have real ties to Israel. It used to be their own country. Their version of Mecca is there as well as other less prominent holy sites. They have continued to live there even since the expulsion.
Some of the claims of "settlement activity" are actually over places were Jews never really left.
Anti-Zionism is an inherent hypocrisy. Either you believe in the rights of indigenous people or you don't. You don't half-ass it by defending this idea for some people but not others.
Every argument against or in favor of the Jews can be applied equally to the Ottomans. That's the way modern civilized ideals work. You don't get to play favorites.
Besides, what kind MORON suggests an ethnic group be forced to associate with someone that committed genuine genocide on them?