Which do you think will gain more popular support funding 10 guys looking for exoplanets, or keeping 10,000 construction workers from losing theirs to illegals ?
Can you expand on that? Because it looks a lot like a false equivalence. How is funding for "10 guys looking for exoplanets" mutually exclusive with "10,000 construction workers from losing their [planet? job? something]"? You're suggesting that if we spend our money on one of those, then we can't have the other one? Do the 10 guys have to be looking for exoplanets, or could they be doing anything that advances science? Do the 10,000 people need to be working in construction or could they be doing any manual-labor job? Or any job at all, maybe?
Moreover, why exactly are the guys losing their jobs to "illegals?" It's already illegal to hire people not allowed to be in the country, so why are their employers firing the US citizens and hiring undocumented workers to take their place? Shouldn't one of those ten thousand people report their employer?
Also, why are these even being compared? Those ten guys use government funding, sure, assuming that they're working for NASA, but why exactly are those ten thousand manual laborers being paid with public dollars? Don't they work for private companies? Are we subsidizing another industry now?
I'm not whining about anything, people are trying to assert that there are no reasons to switch from Apple and that's simply not true.
This leads to issues like Windows updates that destroy certain pieces of hardware
I must be one of the lucky ones then, I've been building my own computers for the last 25 years and the number of hardware devices which have been destroyed by Windows updates is exactly 0. For me though, the reason why I build my own is not because it's necessarily cost-effective, I'm not trying to minimize the price at the expense of everything else. I build my own so I can put together something that works for me. My current gaming computer has been running with zero hardware failures since 2011 when I built it for Skyrim. The only thing I've done since is to recently upgrade the video card. So, even though I don't set out to minimize cost, having a computer still running flawlessly 7 years later without a single SSD or memory or any other failure does turn out to be a good deal. As far as glitchy software, that's limited to games, and I'm not going to be switching to a Mac for gaming any time soon. No reason to cut off my nose to spite my face. I also have a computer hooked up to the TV that I built just for that, which has been going for about the same time. With that one, my priority was noise so I chose a case and fan and component layout that would minimize noise (many large, slow fans). I had to vacuum the dust out of that once, but that's been doing pretty well too.
There was a guy who got a Zune tattoo. Who cares? Whatever.
OK. So, Android users aren't the only people who care who uses Apple. OK? That was the point.
I’m saying that if you are a long time Apple customer then you rely on Apple to take care of you and for your stuff to continue to work for a long time which it does.
OK, great. Does that mean there is no reason to switch away from Apple? No, it doesn't. There are reasons, and there are costs associated with switching because of how deeply people get into the ecosystem, and how Apple tries to lock people in. You should know, they've had you for 25 years. Think about what happens if the next computer you want to buy is 50% more but the performance doesn't scale with the price. Are you going to switch to a different brand? Of course not, you'll buy the new one because you're too invested, the cost of switching is more expensive to you than the obvious premium you're paying. It should be said that this has been the case for the majority of the time you've been a customer of theirs, too. The experience you get with Apple is not unique to Apple. It's not like they're the only company who offers customer support.
Because no-one is making a phone for $390 and selling it at $390. I like it so much will probably not even upgrade next year either, making for a good three year run on a phone.
You should look at OnePlus. I bought the first one in 2014 for $350, paid in full, I own the device. When the OnePlus 5 came out in 2017 my original was doing fine but I bought two, for $450 each or something, because my wife needed a new phone. Again, we own the phones, we aren't renting them from a carrier and paying the price back in monthly charges. My OnePlus One still works fine, although the Five does have dual sim cards, international radios, etc that warranted an upgrade. I didn't need to upgrade because of any issues with bad hardware or software, though, I could have gotten another year or two at least out of the One.
If you want to sit in your bubble and act like an iPhone is the single biggest source of enjoyment in today's world then that's fine, but don't act like you're using the iPhone for any reason other than your rabid devotion to Apple. There are plenty of companies out there doing good things with their products who aren't sitting on enormous piles of tax-avoiding cash, but if you want to shovel your money at Apple then go right ahead. Again, just don't act like Apple is doing something that no other company is doing other than hoarding huge piles of cash that they aren't paying taxes on.
The only people who care that someone has an Apple product seems to be those who use Android.
People who drive around with Apple stickers on the back of their car would seem to offer a counterpoint to that argument. I've seen cars with 3 or 4 Apple stickers on the back in a neat row, apparently they want to make their car as attractive a target as possible for a smash-n-grab.
I use it because I've used one for years and don't see any reason to change.
There are better products for the same price or less, which is a reason to change. There ARE reasons to change, but once you get deeply enough into the Apple ecosystem then it becomes a burden to move to a different platform. Which goes back to the headline about how Apple gets away with making their products more expensive.
My guess is that their board didn't learn a basic tenet of software development
What makes you think board members or execs necessarily know anything about software development? Their job is running a business, correct? Wouldn't development be under the purview of the CTO and everyone below them?
From what I heard, according to the communications, the frigate was at fault. It didn't want to turn because it was "only" 900m from shore.
I mean, turning isn't really a requirement, unless you don't want to lose one of your five largest ships which costs as much as your entire defense budget for a year.
What they are saying is instead of going with the natural time (noon is midday, and midnight is... well, midnight), they want to keep the shifted time where we get up an hour earlier, so that we have more daylight later in the day after work.
So they're saying they want to stop DST and just move to a different time zone.
You forgot to reply to explain why we can have government health insurance but not have it apply to everyone, or why we can have public education but it needs to stop after a certain point.
I'm sure you have good arguments for the current health care system but just got busy.
If you could start your condescending reply with "Well, erm...", that might help you get started with your argument.
Just in case you still think you have some sort of argument that the current system or some version of it is the way to go.
Take a look at this. Our price per capita is almost 2.5x the average for OECD countries. So, ask yourself, is the quality of care that we receive also 2.5x better? Because it should be. Is the quality of care here double that in Japan? Because it should be, or else we're getting ripped off. If you're wondering whether or not we're getting ripped off, go look at the salaries of health insurance CEOs.
Take a look at the Koch brothers study as well. Don't focus too much on that scary $32 trillion number though, instead understand that we would pay $33 trillion over the same period under the current system. It is NOT more expensive, and anyone trying to sell that line has no faith in the capabilities of Americans.
And, since I've already made the point, let me allow Bernie to re-state it for me:
If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same.
So tell me again that it's not really the federal government's job to provide quality health care for its citizens. Whose job do you think that is, private industry? The "free market?" Because we have plenty of data showing how well that's been working out. Why is the term "pre-existing condition" so high up in the health insurance debate? Is it maybe, just maybe, because the common experience of everyone who has to deal with the health insurance industry is that they are known specifically for denying coverage on procedures that people require to be healthy?
It is absurd to act like it is NOT a government's job to ensure that the people that it serves are healthy. If we depend on the government for our nation's security, why is depending on them for our health so foreign and scary to you?
Face it, there's no good argument to support the current health care system. And I'm not even talking about free college education at this point because I think that one is so self-evident.
The total revenue of the health insurance industry in the US in 2018 is a little under $1 trillion. You think we might be able to think of a better way to use that money than denying necessary procedures to people who need them so that CEOs can cash out? You think? Just maybe?
I mean, there's almost $1 trillion that people in the US have right now to spend on health care, without changing how much anyone spends. That's been year-over-year, since 2014 health insurance industry revenue has been over $800 billion every year.
You think we're getting our money's worth for that? Ask my wife who can't get approved for an MRI that her doctor says is medically necessary to treat her rare disease.
Don't worry though, she'll get the MRI when she goes to Brazil because the doctors there act like they give a shit about whether or not a patient is actually healthy. Just kind of sad that she needs to go to another country in order to get medical care.
The system does not work. We need to fix it. Giving people the privilege of paying insurance companies across state lines to deny their procedures is going to do fuck-all about health care. Medical insurance needs to go, they're killing us.
You have one BIG problem here....who the fuck is going to PAY for all this free medical and free education??
Fuck, you really got me there. We're the most wealthy nation on the planet with an enormous tax bill for the government and a whole fuck ton of people who pay far less than their share because they and people like them have paid a lot of money for laws to ensure that they don't have to pay any more. We're also full of intelligent people. But, shit, I bet there's not a single person living here who can figure something like that out. For all of the so-called "American exceptionalism" that people talk about, fuck for some reason we can't figure out how to fund a program that is necessary for the well-being of the country.
At some point, you are going to quickly run out of other peoples' money.....
At some point people need to decide that they want to invest in their country. Again, the ONLY way to stay competitive is with a healthy and educated workforce. I don't know how old you are, but once the current "old guard" dies and the major voting block is people who have been screwed by the current system, you might live to see a major shift left in this country that would have disastrous consequences for what we know as America. The best way to stop a lot of socialism in the future is to add a little socialism now to right the ship and get the system working again. Lobbyists and corporate influence have been steadily chipping away at health and education in favor of redirecting that money to their own pockets, and if we don't take steps to fix that problem now then once the younger generations become the major voting block we'll have major problems.
I mean, think about it, if we as a country make a major investment in healthcare and education, what is the result going to be after 10 or 20 or 30 years? You think we're all going to be poor? You think our economy is going to be shit and all of the jobs are moving to other countries? Just think about it for a second. Think about why the post-WW2 generation did so well (spoiler: it has nothing to do with lobbyists, special interest groups, corporate political donations, or tax breaks for the wealthy).
And, seriously, we already have public education. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of extending it by a few years? Because, what, all of those new college graduates aren't going to be paying taxes to continue funding the program? None of them are going to start businesses? It's pretty self-evident, and if you really think we can't find a way to fund it then you have a pretty low view of Americans.
Here's a start: remove all laws and all subsidies concerning medical insurance. Instead of people paying for medical insurance, they pay into the public health care system. People right now pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year for medical insurance that ends up not helping them, why not use that same money to fund a public system instead of enriching a bunch of assholes who don't care about public health?
As I have said multiple times now, each of those 6 definitions have a portion that justifies that parent's usage.
You also just said that territorial dominance is still part of the definition. It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. You can call me whatever names you want to, but at least my argument is consistent. We all know what it means when someone decides to attack their opponent instead of his argument.
The fact that direct domination of territories is also part of these definitions is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about.
It's not tho. It's literally a requirement. Go back to your very first reply to me when you didn't understand the meaning of "and."
Anyways, I'm done now.
I know. The fact that you're insulting me already made that clear.
The parent used the term correctly, that has been my core point.
But they didn't, and that's my point. Good to see we're both on the same argument.
Yes, territorial dominance is still part of the definition
Thank you, and does the US have dominion over South Korea? Over The Philippines? No. Therefore, they are not, and have never been, part of any American Empire.
Thank you for acknowledging that territorial dominance is part of the requirement for an empire, and that other uses of the term empire or imperialism are propaganda for criticizing a nation's foreign policy.
Well, err..that's not really the federal government's job....
Right now, you're right. But it should be, in the most wealthy nation on the planet. That's exactly the problem. It should be their job, but it's not. Assuming we as a country want to remain competitive in the world economy over the next 50 or 100 years, anyway. If we want to remain the world's most wealthy nation then we really do need a healthy and educated workforce, it turns out that we can't get much done if our workforce is uneducated and unhealthy.
Certainly not giving out FREE college education.
For public universities? Of course, why not? If someone wants to get an education, why should that depend on how much money their parents made, or whether their parents are even in their lives? If someone wants to study to get a job that society thinks is important and benefits us, why are we going to tell them they can't get the education they need because they're an orphan, or their parents are poor, or only their mother is alive and can't work, or whatever the reason? Let them go to their public college and get the education they need, and then let them enter the workforce and pay taxes like everyone else to fund other people doing the same thing. If someone wants to go to a private school, great, that's what rich parents have always been for.
Heck part of the reason it is so expensive for college now, is that the Feds have been throwing loan money out there, and for sure colleges are going to try to collect as much of it as possible. If we'd not had all these government backed loans and flood of money out there, colleges wouldn't be nearly as expensive as they are now.
Yeah, we definitely need to get rid of high-interest government student loans and replace it with something which actually works for the people trying to use it.
I certainly don't want to see my medical decisions and all handled by the same folks that give me an all day trip to the DMV for getting a new license or whatever.
What do you mean? Why is the government going to be making healthcare decisions for you all of a sudden? That's what happens now with government insurance programs, and I don't think that works. We don't need the government making healthcare decisions, the role of the government should be negotiating prices and paying bills.
Obama care caused my medical expenses to skyrocket....wish they'd kill that beast of permanently.
A shitty solution to an awful problem. When one of the major problems is a predatory insurance industry, mixing government regulations in with that awful industry is an awful solution presented by people with financial ties to the insurance industry. The entire medical insurance industry needs to be killed as we know it now. If people want to get private insurance in order to go to private hospitals, great, they can deal with those people. Everyone else should be able to go to a public hospital and get care without some idiot in some office telling them that what they need isn't covered, that the tests ordered by their doctor are not medically necessary, that it's going to cost only $150,000 to get treatment for that snake bite. Any solution that relies on the existing medical insurance industry is a non-starter. That industry had its age, it's over, there's a more humane way to treat people. This isn't it. We can do better. It's pathetic that the most wealthy country with many, many intelligent people has the absolutely most awful healthcare situation in the world. Even incompetent hospitals are more humane that people actively trying to maximize profit on sick people who can't get the treatment they need.
If they want to help try a couple of other things...allow insurance for medical to be sold competitively across state lines.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep telling yourself that only 2 choices exist, citizen. Make no effort to change anything. Thank you for your cooperation.
Which do you think will gain more popular support funding 10 guys looking for exoplanets, or keeping 10,000 construction workers from losing theirs to illegals ?
Can you expand on that? Because it looks a lot like a false equivalence. How is funding for "10 guys looking for exoplanets" mutually exclusive with "10,000 construction workers from losing their [planet? job? something]"? You're suggesting that if we spend our money on one of those, then we can't have the other one? Do the 10 guys have to be looking for exoplanets, or could they be doing anything that advances science? Do the 10,000 people need to be working in construction or could they be doing any manual-labor job? Or any job at all, maybe?
Moreover, why exactly are the guys losing their jobs to "illegals?" It's already illegal to hire people not allowed to be in the country, so why are their employers firing the US citizens and hiring undocumented workers to take their place? Shouldn't one of those ten thousand people report their employer?
Also, why are these even being compared? Those ten guys use government funding, sure, assuming that they're working for NASA, but why exactly are those ten thousand manual laborers being paid with public dollars? Don't they work for private companies? Are we subsidizing another industry now?
I'm not whining about anything, people are trying to assert that there are no reasons to switch from Apple and that's simply not true.
This leads to issues like Windows updates that destroy certain pieces of hardware
I must be one of the lucky ones then, I've been building my own computers for the last 25 years and the number of hardware devices which have been destroyed by Windows updates is exactly 0. For me though, the reason why I build my own is not because it's necessarily cost-effective, I'm not trying to minimize the price at the expense of everything else. I build my own so I can put together something that works for me. My current gaming computer has been running with zero hardware failures since 2011 when I built it for Skyrim. The only thing I've done since is to recently upgrade the video card. So, even though I don't set out to minimize cost, having a computer still running flawlessly 7 years later without a single SSD or memory or any other failure does turn out to be a good deal. As far as glitchy software, that's limited to games, and I'm not going to be switching to a Mac for gaming any time soon. No reason to cut off my nose to spite my face. I also have a computer hooked up to the TV that I built just for that, which has been going for about the same time. With that one, my priority was noise so I chose a case and fan and component layout that would minimize noise (many large, slow fans). I had to vacuum the dust out of that once, but that's been doing pretty well too.
There was a guy who got a Zune tattoo. Who cares? Whatever.
OK. So, Android users aren't the only people who care who uses Apple. OK? That was the point.
I’m saying that if you are a long time Apple customer then you rely on Apple to take care of you and for your stuff to continue to work for a long time which it does.
OK, great. Does that mean there is no reason to switch away from Apple? No, it doesn't. There are reasons, and there are costs associated with switching because of how deeply people get into the ecosystem, and how Apple tries to lock people in. You should know, they've had you for 25 years. Think about what happens if the next computer you want to buy is 50% more but the performance doesn't scale with the price. Are you going to switch to a different brand? Of course not, you'll buy the new one because you're too invested, the cost of switching is more expensive to you than the obvious premium you're paying. It should be said that this has been the case for the majority of the time you've been a customer of theirs, too. The experience you get with Apple is not unique to Apple. It's not like they're the only company who offers customer support.
I'm not sure what the point of your post was.
Because no-one is making a phone for $390 and selling it at $390.
I like it so much will probably not even upgrade next year either, making for a good three year run on a phone.
You should look at OnePlus. I bought the first one in 2014 for $350, paid in full, I own the device. When the OnePlus 5 came out in 2017 my original was doing fine but I bought two, for $450 each or something, because my wife needed a new phone. Again, we own the phones, we aren't renting them from a carrier and paying the price back in monthly charges. My OnePlus One still works fine, although the Five does have dual sim cards, international radios, etc that warranted an upgrade. I didn't need to upgrade because of any issues with bad hardware or software, though, I could have gotten another year or two at least out of the One.
If you want to sit in your bubble and act like an iPhone is the single biggest source of enjoyment in today's world then that's fine, but don't act like you're using the iPhone for any reason other than your rabid devotion to Apple. There are plenty of companies out there doing good things with their products who aren't sitting on enormous piles of tax-avoiding cash, but if you want to shovel your money at Apple then go right ahead. Again, just don't act like Apple is doing something that no other company is doing other than hoarding huge piles of cash that they aren't paying taxes on.
The only people who care that someone has an Apple product seems to be those who use Android.
People who drive around with Apple stickers on the back of their car would seem to offer a counterpoint to that argument. I've seen cars with 3 or 4 Apple stickers on the back in a neat row, apparently they want to make their car as attractive a target as possible for a smash-n-grab.
I use it because I've used one for years and don't see any reason to change.
There are better products for the same price or less, which is a reason to change. There ARE reasons to change, but once you get deeply enough into the Apple ecosystem then it becomes a burden to move to a different platform. Which goes back to the headline about how Apple gets away with making their products more expensive.
Time to start shutting businesses down and looking at jail time for those who prioritize a "smoother ride" over a human life.
Oh. Who is going to do that, legislators? Like Congress? Because I've got some bad news for you about Congress and who pays them.
So the code fell into the 'Death Race 2000' case? Having the right of way doesn't mean you can just go.
It's a self-driving car, they didn't say anything about self-stopping. It was driving, right up until the person hit the brakes.
We always forget some mundane detail.
A human driver likely would've hit her too.
Only if they're legally blind, in which case they probably shouldn't be driving at night anyway.
If we are going to lock people up for incompetence, we will need a lot more prisons.
Maybe we can make a deal with Australia.
My guess is that their board didn't learn a basic tenet of software development
What makes you think board members or execs necessarily know anything about software development? Their job is running a business, correct? Wouldn't development be under the purview of the CTO and everyone below them?
There are no 'self driving' cars today.
Then what is this story about? What exactly is Uber saying they need to have some responsibility for? One of their what killed a pedestrian?
Specifically what definition are you using for the term "self-driving car" and why are you using a definition that is different than the story?
From what I heard, according to the communications, the frigate was at fault. It didn't want to turn because it was "only" 900m from shore.
I mean, turning isn't really a requirement, unless you don't want to lose one of your five largest ships which costs as much as your entire defense budget for a year.
Missiles should be able to navigate with a paper map.
I live in Arizona, so I've never seen a use for it. We're relatively far south though.
What they are saying is instead of going with the natural time (noon is midday, and midnight is... well, midnight), they want to keep the shifted time where we get up an hour earlier, so that we have more daylight later in the day after work.
So they're saying they want to stop DST and just move to a different time zone.
You forgot to reply to explain why we can have government health insurance but not have it apply to everyone, or why we can have public education but it needs to stop after a certain point.
I'm sure you have good arguments for the current health care system but just got busy.
If you could start your condescending reply with "Well, erm...", that might help you get started with your argument.
Just in case you still think you have some sort of argument that the current system or some version of it is the way to go.
Take a look at this. Our price per capita is almost 2.5x the average for OECD countries. So, ask yourself, is the quality of care that we receive also 2.5x better? Because it should be. Is the quality of care here double that in Japan? Because it should be, or else we're getting ripped off. If you're wondering whether or not we're getting ripped off, go look at the salaries of health insurance CEOs.
Take a look at the Koch brothers study as well. Don't focus too much on that scary $32 trillion number though, instead understand that we would pay $33 trillion over the same period under the current system. It is NOT more expensive, and anyone trying to sell that line has no faith in the capabilities of Americans.
And, since I've already made the point, let me allow Bernie to re-state it for me:
If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same.
So tell me again that it's not really the federal government's job to provide quality health care for its citizens. Whose job do you think that is, private industry? The "free market?" Because we have plenty of data showing how well that's been working out. Why is the term "pre-existing condition" so high up in the health insurance debate? Is it maybe, just maybe, because the common experience of everyone who has to deal with the health insurance industry is that they are known specifically for denying coverage on procedures that people require to be healthy?
It is absurd to act like it is NOT a government's job to ensure that the people that it serves are healthy. If we depend on the government for our nation's security, why is depending on them for our health so foreign and scary to you?
Face it, there's no good argument to support the current health care system. And I'm not even talking about free college education at this point because I think that one is so self-evident.
Props for the abort system which apparently did its job flawlessly
That can't be stressed enough, it's impressive that the rocket core took a hit from a booster with no loss of life.
it's a bit worrying that one bent pin on a sensor can do in the entire system.
Or a piece of falling foam can doom an orbiter. Yeah, it's worrying.
The total revenue of the health insurance industry in the US in 2018 is a little under $1 trillion. You think we might be able to think of a better way to use that money than denying necessary procedures to people who need them so that CEOs can cash out? You think? Just maybe?
I mean, there's almost $1 trillion that people in the US have right now to spend on health care, without changing how much anyone spends. That's been year-over-year, since 2014 health insurance industry revenue has been over $800 billion every year.
You think we're getting our money's worth for that? Ask my wife who can't get approved for an MRI that her doctor says is medically necessary to treat her rare disease.
Don't worry though, she'll get the MRI when she goes to Brazil because the doctors there act like they give a shit about whether or not a patient is actually healthy. Just kind of sad that she needs to go to another country in order to get medical care.
The system does not work. We need to fix it. Giving people the privilege of paying insurance companies across state lines to deny their procedures is going to do fuck-all about health care. Medical insurance needs to go, they're killing us.
You have one BIG problem here....who the fuck is going to PAY for all this free medical and free education??
Fuck, you really got me there. We're the most wealthy nation on the planet with an enormous tax bill for the government and a whole fuck ton of people who pay far less than their share because they and people like them have paid a lot of money for laws to ensure that they don't have to pay any more. We're also full of intelligent people. But, shit, I bet there's not a single person living here who can figure something like that out. For all of the so-called "American exceptionalism" that people talk about, fuck for some reason we can't figure out how to fund a program that is necessary for the well-being of the country.
At some point, you are going to quickly run out of other peoples' money.....
At some point people need to decide that they want to invest in their country. Again, the ONLY way to stay competitive is with a healthy and educated workforce. I don't know how old you are, but once the current "old guard" dies and the major voting block is people who have been screwed by the current system, you might live to see a major shift left in this country that would have disastrous consequences for what we know as America. The best way to stop a lot of socialism in the future is to add a little socialism now to right the ship and get the system working again. Lobbyists and corporate influence have been steadily chipping away at health and education in favor of redirecting that money to their own pockets, and if we don't take steps to fix that problem now then once the younger generations become the major voting block we'll have major problems.
I mean, think about it, if we as a country make a major investment in healthcare and education, what is the result going to be after 10 or 20 or 30 years? You think we're all going to be poor? You think our economy is going to be shit and all of the jobs are moving to other countries? Just think about it for a second. Think about why the post-WW2 generation did so well (spoiler: it has nothing to do with lobbyists, special interest groups, corporate political donations, or tax breaks for the wealthy).
And, seriously, we already have public education. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of extending it by a few years? Because, what, all of those new college graduates aren't going to be paying taxes to continue funding the program? None of them are going to start businesses? It's pretty self-evident, and if you really think we can't find a way to fund it then you have a pretty low view of Americans.
Here's a start: remove all laws and all subsidies concerning medical insurance. Instead of people paying for medical insurance, they pay into the public health care system. People right now pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year for medical insurance that ends up not helping them, why not use that same money to fund a public system instead of enriching a bunch of assholes who don't care about public health?
Oh fuck, did I just solve it?
As I have said multiple times now, each of those 6 definitions have a portion that justifies that parent's usage.
You also just said that territorial dominance is still part of the definition. It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. You can call me whatever names you want to, but at least my argument is consistent. We all know what it means when someone decides to attack their opponent instead of his argument.
The fact that direct domination of territories is also part of these definitions is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about.
It's not tho. It's literally a requirement. Go back to your very first reply to me when you didn't understand the meaning of "and."
Anyways, I'm done now.
I know. The fact that you're insulting me already made that clear.
The parent used the term correctly, that has been my core point.
But they didn't, and that's my point. Good to see we're both on the same argument.
Yes, territorial dominance is still part of the definition
Thank you, and does the US have dominion over South Korea? Over The Philippines? No. Therefore, they are not, and have never been, part of any American Empire.
Thank you for acknowledging that territorial dominance is part of the requirement for an empire, and that other uses of the term empire or imperialism are propaganda for criticizing a nation's foreign policy.
It's been fun, take care.
Well, err..that's not really the federal government's job....
Right now, you're right. But it should be, in the most wealthy nation on the planet. That's exactly the problem. It should be their job, but it's not. Assuming we as a country want to remain competitive in the world economy over the next 50 or 100 years, anyway. If we want to remain the world's most wealthy nation then we really do need a healthy and educated workforce, it turns out that we can't get much done if our workforce is uneducated and unhealthy.
Certainly not giving out FREE college education.
For public universities? Of course, why not? If someone wants to get an education, why should that depend on how much money their parents made, or whether their parents are even in their lives? If someone wants to study to get a job that society thinks is important and benefits us, why are we going to tell them they can't get the education they need because they're an orphan, or their parents are poor, or only their mother is alive and can't work, or whatever the reason? Let them go to their public college and get the education they need, and then let them enter the workforce and pay taxes like everyone else to fund other people doing the same thing. If someone wants to go to a private school, great, that's what rich parents have always been for.
Heck part of the reason it is so expensive for college now, is that the Feds have been throwing loan money out there, and for sure colleges are going to try to collect as much of it as possible. If we'd not had all these government backed loans and flood of money out there, colleges wouldn't be nearly as expensive as they are now.
Yeah, we definitely need to get rid of high-interest government student loans and replace it with something which actually works for the people trying to use it.
I certainly don't want to see my medical decisions and all handled by the same folks that give me an all day trip to the DMV for getting a new license or whatever.
What do you mean? Why is the government going to be making healthcare decisions for you all of a sudden? That's what happens now with government insurance programs, and I don't think that works. We don't need the government making healthcare decisions, the role of the government should be negotiating prices and paying bills.
Obama care caused my medical expenses to skyrocket....wish they'd kill that beast of permanently .
A shitty solution to an awful problem. When one of the major problems is a predatory insurance industry, mixing government regulations in with that awful industry is an awful solution presented by people with financial ties to the insurance industry. The entire medical insurance industry needs to be killed as we know it now. If people want to get private insurance in order to go to private hospitals, great, they can deal with those people. Everyone else should be able to go to a public hospital and get care without some idiot in some office telling them that what they need isn't covered, that the tests ordered by their doctor are not medically necessary, that it's going to cost only $150,000 to get treatment for that snake bite. Any solution that relies on the existing medical insurance industry is a non-starter. That industry had its age, it's over, there's a more humane way to treat people. This isn't it. We can do better. It's pathetic that the most wealthy country with many, many intelligent people has the absolutely most awful healthcare situation in the world. Even incompetent hospitals are more humane that people actively trying to maximize profit on sick people who can't get the treatment they need.
If they want to help try a couple of other things...allow insurance for medical to be sold competitively across state lines.
Nope. Kill it. The medical insurance industry has
"You might live out the rest of your life poor" applies to pretty much everyone at any time.