I let it at your discretion the sample you would choose to find me wrong. I said at any time, at any field. Your excuse stopped working quite a few decades ago.
If you can provide a time and a field where women have had the same opportunities and cultural acceptance as men then that would be the sample I choose. I daresay you cannot provide this. Our current era would be the most likely candidate, but a significant percentage of the population still treats women as property, and even in somewhat progressive areas there are cultural issues that have not been overcome.
Aside from this, as I previously mentioned, there are many brilliant, creative women throughout history who provide evidence that counters your blindly misogynistic assertion.
There is evidence that women are, as a group cognitively and creatively inferior to men, though.Evidence which you simply decide to dismiss, with a feeble excuse that does not apply anymore, because you do not like it.
You have presented no meaningful evidence of this. Claiming that "Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze" is not evidence.
You are dismissing the millenniums-long disenfranchisement of women as a "feeble excuse" because you do not like it.
Eventually, as we no longer have a need for physically powerful men to protect their female counterparts from like, bears and shit, sexual dimorphism might even be bred out of the species (though it might take thousands of years).
This will only come to pass when men no longer need to protect their women from other men - as a mate and as a protector.
If you were trying to say that women are underrepresented in STEM (and many other) fields you would be correct, but this is not due to some inherent inability or inferiority.
Why not? What proof do you have that this is not the case? Why would two distinct groups that share many biological differences be equally fit for everything, especially considering evidence points to the opposite direction. Why try to find convoluted explanations based on excuses that do not apply anymore if a simpler more logical explanation is available?
I understand that you want to believe in this impossible "equality" you indoctrinated yourself with, but that is simply not true. Equal rights between men and women are no more or less than fair and are a great conquest of our civilization, but that does not extend to pretend we are equally able at everything. That is silly.
I am not pretending that men and women are equally able to do everything. I mentioned childbirth, which men simply cannot do (unless you use an expanded definition of "men" to include transgendered women), and also noted our species' sexual dimorphism. It's obvious that women are on average significantly smaller and weaker than men, so are not as suited to many physical tasks.
However, the assertion that women are in general cognitively and creatively inferior to men (which you seem to be contending) has little evidence. There is of course no "proof" that the intellectual potential of the sexes is equal, but if you claim the reverse, you would be hard put to present relevant evidence.
The fact that women have been severely underrepresented in virtually all fields (creative, intellectual, or otherwise) for thousands of years must be taken in the context of human history. Now that opportunities exist for large numbers of women to actually participate fully in society it is abundantly clear that many women are intellectually superior to many men, and it will take several more generations before we will even realize the potential of the female population in this regard.
But to go slightly off-topic, if someone says that black runners seem to have a significant advantage in high-performance sprinting due to physiology, and whites are generally weak in this area but are better at swimming, would that be considered racist...?
It would be racist (and un-scientific) to say that whites are poor runners or blacks are poor swimmers in general based on the sports record. It wouldn't be racist to simply point out the sports record factually. To make a hypothesis on possible physiological explanations of the difference gets into a gray area that's a hot point of ethical debate in science
Interesting points, though I do not think "unscientific" is something that makes a statement ethical or not. I do not believe drawing conclusions based on the sports record would be unethical (as it's virtually the only available data, and we use it for drawing other conclusions), nor do I believe that discussing ethnic physiological differences would be unethical.
Except I would say that racism/sexism is in hating or discriminating against those who are different. Let's say for the sake of argument that it were statistically proven that black people are better runners on average and physiological reasons for it were scientifically proven. To use that information to discriminate against non-black runners when assembling a team would be racist.
You have all the evidence in the world, you just need to stop blindfolding yourself. Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze. Sure, there are exceptions, as in everything, but as a rule women are consumers, not creators.
If you were trying to say that women are underrepresented in STEM (and many other) fields you would be correct, but this is not due to some inherent inability or inferiority.
Women historically have been culturally handicapped by the need to birth and rear children, which consumes extraordinary amounts of time and energy. They have also been physically dominated by men due to sexual dimorphism. It is only in the last century that women have even been generally enfranchised in society. Since childbirth and rearing is much easier now, we are seeing the gaps between women and men close drastically in many fields. Eventually, as we no longer have a need for physically powerful men to protect their female counterparts from like, bears and shit, sexual dimorphism might even be bred out of the species (though it might take thousands of years).
Also, your comment of "as a rule women are consumers, not creators" is clearly ridiculous. There are many, many women in art, music, and literature who create extraordinary masterpieces. These fields have been historically more open to women than STEM and others, so the gap between male and female participation is narrower. There are also numerous brilliant, creative women in STEM fields...far too many to write them off as "exceptions".
"Oh nobody's categorically better, but I think whites generally have better cognitive skills and blacks are generally weak in this area but better at manual labor. NOT RACIST! ^_^ "
I don't disagree that the OP was being ludicrously sexist ("boys are still smarter" what?), or that your rephrase is certainly racist.
But to go slightly off-topic, if someone says that black runners seem to have a significant advantage in high-performance sprinting due to physiology, and whites are generally weak in this area but are better at swimming, would that be considered racist...?
There are differences in all people, which are highlighted across ethnic and gender lines due to both biological and cultural factors. Discussing these differences should be okay, as racism and sexism is not in noticing the differences, it is in hating those who are different. We should be able to embrace each other in our differences without bigotry.
and Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow, etc, etc.
Now show me a list of generals court-martialed over the last few decades.
The idea that generals are more accountable than CEOs is absurd.
Well, there are a lot more CEO's than generals, so that would affect the statistics. CEO's also on average make significantly (orders of magnitude) more money than generals, so it should be worth a bit more risk!
Options are:
1) METEOR!!! - hit the earth, causing huge cataclysmic weather effects.
2) ICE AGE!!! - cooled everything down to horribly low temperatures in a flash (few hundred or thousands ofyears).
3) GENETIC MUTATION IN BACTERIA!!! - rare killer viruses killed everything accidentally.
4) GENETIC MUTATION IN VEGETATION!!! - plants discovered a new way to be less nutritious and fend off the herding-hordes
Any hypothesis will have to come up with reasons why small dinosaurs, small mammals, and lizards, lots and lots of lizards survived, and not the bigger dinosaurs, that's why I think ice age or mutation in vegetation are the likeliest options.
You seem to be confusing The Great Dying (the extinction event at the P-Tr boundary which killed 83% of all genera on the planet) and the K-T extinction event, which killed the dinosaurs and various other creatures and plants.
The consensus on the latter is that the extinction was caused primarily by the impact that created the Chicxulub crater, possibly with additional impacts and increased volcanic activity playing a further role.
Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole...
Go to youtube and watch this video, and then see if you still think it's hyperbole. A career defense attorney/law professor and a career police interrogator explicitly agree: you are committing crimes just going about your day to day life, and if you say anything to the police other than, "I have nothing to say," you may be condemning yourself to prison without even realizing you did something illegal.
The parent made a specific claim that people in general cannot go even a single day, with $500 on the line, without committing a felony. I stand by my statement that this is ridiculous hyperbole, and I feel that it harms a discussion of the actual issue of the obfuscation of law.
I personally don't see many felonies, but misdemeanors are commonplace. The most common I see are traffic violations (mostly speeding, failure to signal, and "rolling stops"), but other violations are often so trivial that people don't even realize they're breaking the law. Simple things like having a crack in a window or a garbage can turned over can be against local laws.
Often minor infractions such as these are not considered criminal.
Well you don't have to take my word for it. How about a public defender in California who now teaches at Harvard Law and a career detective with 20 years under his belt? This was the video that inspired the game I play, precisely because so many people think like you do.
This is a 48-minute video of a lesson regarding the 5th amendment and "not talking to the police". It seems interesting though I do not feel inclined to watch the whole thing.
People like you are in fact so resistant to the idea that they can easily be a criminal too, just like the ones they shun and look at disgust at on TV, that I put my money where my mouth was.
A "crime" can be somewhat minor, though even with our obfuscated legal system it would be rare to commit a crime by accident. A "felony" is usually defined in the US as a serious crime that carries a prison sentence of over 1 year. I have definitely never committed a felony at any time in my life. (FYI - traffic law violations are not generally considered crimes, though reckless and dangerous violations often are, depending on state/country.)
$500 seems the magic number for people to give their belief about this aspect of the legal system a spin on the wheel as it were. And it's a real contest, make no mistake man. I take all the footage and logs of what they've done and ask a real and licensed public defender in my state to look over my work and tell me whether it would be actionable or not. A lot of times, I get the interpretation wrong, but never once have I failed to walk out of their offices with a yes vote.
In the United States, I have played a game with friends I like to call "Who Wants To Be A Felon" -- and then record their daily activities (for one day) and tell them, based on which laws, how many felonies they committed. The rules are: You can't just sit in your house and wait it out, you have to do something you'd ordinarily do on an average day (go to work, use a computer, eat breakfast, etc.) At the end of the day, I collect the cameras and if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, you get $500 bucks. Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far.
Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.
So... why haven't the WBC folks been arrested for indecency?
Not sure if you're a troll or not, but I'll give you a real response.
The WBC has many many lawyers including members of the Phelps family. They, the WBC, make a living by suing.
The picketing is simply to drum up additional lawsuits.
None of them actually believe any of what they say. It's not an issue of right/wrong. It's simply an issue of greed.
The WBC troll the court system to make a living of off the rest.
Step 1: God hates fags @ funerals.
Step 2: Get arrested or assaulted.
Step 3: Sue either way.
The tax payers have to fit the bill to fight the suits against the state/county/city (or against the WBC.) The cost of fighting a large legal team (which is what the WBC really is) is too costly to be worthwhile. Then settlement money eventually gets payed out and/or money to cover the lawyer costs... and who did we learn the lawyers were? Yes... the people who run the show @ WBC.
Essentially the WBC is a scam to skim off the taxpayers by lawyers who are more unscrupulous than any others out there.
Why should anyone have sympathy for these types of people who are more focused on greed than anything else on planet Earth?
This certainly explains my confusion as to the WBC's actual motives. I have assumed they were trolling for some time, though it seemed difficult to explain why they would put so much effort into it. Even the most dedicated trolls have a line, WBC seems to have virtually none.
It doesn't matter with cops (with tasers). Me being 5.11 and upset will simply get me pinned to the floor hit with a nightstick, ZAPPED and handcuffed just for being emotional about an issue in front of them. I.E I'm upset therefore it's justification to assault me. Being tall and athletic means gives grounds for 5 bouncers in a nightclub to attack me even if I'm not irate but cheerful and drunk (they legally classify it as disorderly and label me a potential threat).
I'm 6'8 and weigh in at about 300lbs, of which probably about 40lbs of it is fat. I've never been asked to leave a bar, let alone been approached by a bouncer or five. In the times that I've been confronted with cops, I've never had one draw his handcuffs, nightstick or taser, let alone try to use one of them on me. If you have, perhaps the problem here isn't your size, it's your attitude.
I'm significantly smaller than our gargantuan friend here, but significantly larger than the GP, and, to add to the anecdotal evidence, have also never had a problem with bouncers or cops.
Also:
There is a serious problem with how enforcement works these days
Pretty sure it's not just "these days". I'd wager that we have significantly less police violence (in western societies at least) than we did back in the "good old days"...
Well, though it's not the best situation, it's not as big of a deal as it sounds, due to our gargantuan economy and stability. Our debt-to-GDP ratio compares quite favorably with most of the large economies of the EU, and with the EU itself.
Russia and China have much better debt-to-GDP, but they have significantly different economic models.
Is not just "regionally" accredited - it falls under the SUNY accreditation
Regional Accreditation is generally the most-respected accreditation for schools in the US. SUNY is not an accreditation, it is the state higher-learning system for New York.
Slashdot Mirror
I let it at your discretion the sample you would choose to find me wrong. I said at any time, at any field. Your excuse stopped working quite a few decades ago.
If you can provide a time and a field where women have had the same opportunities and cultural acceptance as men then that would be the sample I choose. I daresay you cannot provide this. Our current era would be the most likely candidate, but a significant percentage of the population still treats women as property, and even in somewhat progressive areas there are cultural issues that have not been overcome.
Aside from this, as I previously mentioned, there are many brilliant, creative women throughout history who provide evidence that counters your blindly misogynistic assertion.
There is evidence that women are, as a group cognitively and creatively inferior to men, though.Evidence which you simply decide to dismiss, with a feeble excuse that does not apply anymore, because you do not like it.
You have presented no meaningful evidence of this. Claiming that "Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze" is not evidence.
You are dismissing the millenniums-long disenfranchisement of women as a "feeble excuse" because you do not like it.
Eventually, as we no longer have a need for physically powerful men to protect their female counterparts from like, bears and shit, sexual dimorphism might even be bred out of the species (though it might take thousands of years).
This will only come to pass when men no longer need to protect their women from other men - as a mate and as a protector.
Good point.
Another explanation might be they were great parents at the end of their rope with a daughter who has no boundaries.
If their daughter has no boundaries, they are not great parents. It is the parents job to teach their child such things.
If the kids don't like those rules they should get jobs and earn some of their own freedom.
Well, evidently if parents don't like being drugged by their children they shouldn't procreate. Or copulate. Ever.
Both of our statements are equally reasonable.
Why did this get modded troll...???
The situation is very peculiar. The girl drugging her parents is a huge WTF, and her parents pressing charges over it is another huge WTF.
Does not compute. Need more details.
If you were trying to say that women are underrepresented in STEM (and many other) fields you would be correct, but this is not due to some inherent inability or inferiority.
Why not? What proof do you have that this is not the case? Why would two distinct groups that share many biological differences be equally fit for everything, especially considering evidence points to the opposite direction. Why try to find convoluted explanations based on excuses that do not apply anymore if a simpler more logical explanation is available? I understand that you want to believe in this impossible "equality" you indoctrinated yourself with, but that is simply not true. Equal rights between men and women are no more or less than fair and are a great conquest of our civilization, but that does not extend to pretend we are equally able at everything. That is silly.
I am not pretending that men and women are equally able to do everything. I mentioned childbirth, which men simply cannot do (unless you use an expanded definition of "men" to include transgendered women), and also noted our species' sexual dimorphism. It's obvious that women are on average significantly smaller and weaker than men, so are not as suited to many physical tasks.
However, the assertion that women are in general cognitively and creatively inferior to men (which you seem to be contending) has little evidence. There is of course no "proof" that the intellectual potential of the sexes is equal, but if you claim the reverse, you would be hard put to present relevant evidence.
The fact that women have been severely underrepresented in virtually all fields (creative, intellectual, or otherwise) for thousands of years must be taken in the context of human history. Now that opportunities exist for large numbers of women to actually participate fully in society it is abundantly clear that many women are intellectually superior to many men, and it will take several more generations before we will even realize the potential of the female population in this regard.
But to go slightly off-topic, if someone says that black runners seem to have a significant advantage in high-performance sprinting due to physiology, and whites are generally weak in this area but are better at swimming, would that be considered racist...?
It would be racist (and un-scientific) to say that whites are poor runners or blacks are poor swimmers in general based on the sports record. It wouldn't be racist to simply point out the sports record factually. To make a hypothesis on possible physiological explanations of the difference gets into a gray area that's a hot point of ethical debate in science
Interesting points, though I do not think "unscientific" is something that makes a statement ethical or not. I do not believe drawing conclusions based on the sports record would be unethical (as it's virtually the only available data, and we use it for drawing other conclusions), nor do I believe that discussing ethnic physiological differences would be unethical.
Except I would say that racism/sexism is in hating or discriminating against those who are different. Let's say for the sake of argument that it were statistically proven that black people are better runners on average and physiological reasons for it were scientifically proven. To use that information to discriminate against non-black runners when assembling a team would be racist.
100% agree.
females are a lot more likely to get a warning instead of a ticket from a cop than a guy.
This is arguably more the fault of the (about 80% male) cops, who are sexually attracted to women and let this fact affect their decisions.
You have all the evidence in the world, you just need to stop blindfolding yourself. Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze. Sure, there are exceptions, as in everything, but as a rule women are consumers, not creators.
If you were trying to say that women are underrepresented in STEM (and many other) fields you would be correct, but this is not due to some inherent inability or inferiority.
Women historically have been culturally handicapped by the need to birth and rear children, which consumes extraordinary amounts of time and energy. They have also been physically dominated by men due to sexual dimorphism. It is only in the last century that women have even been generally enfranchised in society. Since childbirth and rearing is much easier now, we are seeing the gaps between women and men close drastically in many fields. Eventually, as we no longer have a need for physically powerful men to protect their female counterparts from like, bears and shit, sexual dimorphism might even be bred out of the species (though it might take thousands of years).
Also, your comment of "as a rule women are consumers, not creators" is clearly ridiculous. There are many, many women in art, music, and literature who create extraordinary masterpieces. These fields have been historically more open to women than STEM and others, so the gap between male and female participation is narrower. There are also numerous brilliant, creative women in STEM fields...far too many to write them off as "exceptions".
Again, use the race analogy to help yourself.
"Oh nobody's categorically better, but I think whites generally have better cognitive skills and blacks are generally weak in this area but better at manual labor. NOT RACIST! ^_^ "
I don't disagree that the OP was being ludicrously sexist ("boys are still smarter" what?), or that your rephrase is certainly racist.
But to go slightly off-topic, if someone says that black runners seem to have a significant advantage in high-performance sprinting due to physiology, and whites are generally weak in this area but are better at swimming, would that be considered racist...?
There are differences in all people, which are highlighted across ethnic and gender lines due to both biological and cultural factors. Discussing these differences should be okay, as racism and sexism is not in noticing the differences, it is in hating those who are different. We should be able to embrace each other in our differences without bigotry.
But those games simply take too long to make and by the time any of them were ready the audience had largely moved on.
Also none of them ended up being as good as WoW....
Rare, but it does happen, remember Bernie Madoff?
and Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow, etc, etc. Now show me a list of generals court-martialed over the last few decades. The idea that generals are more accountable than CEOs is absurd.
Well, there are a lot more CEO's than generals, so that would affect the statistics. CEO's also on average make significantly (orders of magnitude) more money than generals, so it should be worth a bit more risk!
Too bad there's not a "depressing" mod option.
But then again, we have no idea..
Options are: 1) METEOR!!! - hit the earth, causing huge cataclysmic weather effects. 2) ICE AGE!!! - cooled everything down to horribly low temperatures in a flash (few hundred or thousands ofyears). 3) GENETIC MUTATION IN BACTERIA!!! - rare killer viruses killed everything accidentally. 4) GENETIC MUTATION IN VEGETATION!!! - plants discovered a new way to be less nutritious and fend off the herding-hordes
Any hypothesis will have to come up with reasons why small dinosaurs, small mammals, and lizards, lots and lots of lizards survived, and not the bigger dinosaurs, that's why I think ice age or mutation in vegetation are the likeliest options.
You seem to be confusing The Great Dying (the extinction event at the P-Tr boundary which killed 83% of all genera on the planet) and the K-T extinction event, which killed the dinosaurs and various other creatures and plants.
The consensus on the latter is that the extinction was caused primarily by the impact that created the Chicxulub crater, possibly with additional impacts and increased volcanic activity playing a further role.
It seems that you are correct, as evidently GP is claiming the statement in question is actually true...
Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole...
Go to youtube and watch this video, and then see if you still think it's hyperbole. A career defense attorney/law professor and a career police interrogator explicitly agree: you are committing crimes just going about your day to day life, and if you say anything to the police other than, "I have nothing to say," you may be condemning yourself to prison without even realizing you did something illegal.
The parent made a specific claim that people in general cannot go even a single day, with $500 on the line, without committing a felony. I stand by my statement that this is ridiculous hyperbole, and I feel that it harms a discussion of the actual issue of the obfuscation of law.
I personally don't see many felonies, but misdemeanors are commonplace. The most common I see are traffic violations (mostly speeding, failure to signal, and "rolling stops"), but other violations are often so trivial that people don't even realize they're breaking the law. Simple things like having a crack in a window or a garbage can turned over can be against local laws.
Often minor infractions such as these are not considered criminal.
Well you don't have to take my word for it. How about a public defender in California who now teaches at Harvard Law and a career detective with 20 years under his belt? This was the video that inspired the game I play, precisely because so many people think like you do.
This is a 48-minute video of a lesson regarding the 5th amendment and "not talking to the police". It seems interesting though I do not feel inclined to watch the whole thing.
People like you are in fact so resistant to the idea that they can easily be a criminal too, just like the ones they shun and look at disgust at on TV, that I put my money where my mouth was.
A "crime" can be somewhat minor, though even with our obfuscated legal system it would be rare to commit a crime by accident. A "felony" is usually defined in the US as a serious crime that carries a prison sentence of over 1 year. I have definitely never committed a felony at any time in my life. (FYI - traffic law violations are not generally considered crimes, though reckless and dangerous violations often are, depending on state/country.)
$500 seems the magic number for people to give their belief about this aspect of the legal system a spin on the wheel as it were. And it's a real contest, make no mistake man. I take all the footage and logs of what they've done and ask a real and licensed public defender in my state to look over my work and tell me whether it would be actionable or not. A lot of times, I get the interpretation wrong, but never once have I failed to walk out of their offices with a yes vote.
Sheldon Cooper, is that you?
In the United States, I have played a game with friends I like to call "Who Wants To Be A Felon" -- and then record their daily activities (for one day) and tell them, based on which laws, how many felonies they committed. The rules are: You can't just sit in your house and wait it out, you have to do something you'd ordinarily do on an average day (go to work, use a computer, eat breakfast, etc.) At the end of the day, I collect the cameras and if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, you get $500 bucks. Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far.
Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.
So... why haven't the WBC folks been arrested for indecency?
Not sure if you're a troll or not, but I'll give you a real response.
The WBC has many many lawyers including members of the Phelps family. They, the WBC, make a living by suing. The picketing is simply to drum up additional lawsuits.
None of them actually believe any of what they say. It's not an issue of right/wrong. It's simply an issue of greed.
The WBC troll the court system to make a living of off the rest.
Step 1: God hates fags @ funerals. Step 2: Get arrested or assaulted. Step 3: Sue either way.
The tax payers have to fit the bill to fight the suits against the state/county/city (or against the WBC.) The cost of fighting a large legal team (which is what the WBC really is) is too costly to be worthwhile. Then settlement money eventually gets payed out and/or money to cover the lawyer costs... and who did we learn the lawyers were? Yes... the people who run the show @ WBC.
Essentially the WBC is a scam to skim off the taxpayers by lawyers who are more unscrupulous than any others out there.
Why should anyone have sympathy for these types of people who are more focused on greed than anything else on planet Earth?
This certainly explains my confusion as to the WBC's actual motives. I have assumed they were trolling for some time, though it seemed difficult to explain why they would put so much effort into it. Even the most dedicated trolls have a line, WBC seems to have virtually none.
It doesn't matter with cops (with tasers). Me being 5.11 and upset will simply get me pinned to the floor hit with a nightstick, ZAPPED and handcuffed just for being emotional about an issue in front of them. I.E I'm upset therefore it's justification to assault me. Being tall and athletic means gives grounds for 5 bouncers in a nightclub to attack me even if I'm not irate but cheerful and drunk (they legally classify it as disorderly and label me a potential threat).
I'm 6'8 and weigh in at about 300lbs, of which probably about 40lbs of it is fat. I've never been asked to leave a bar, let alone been approached by a bouncer or five. In the times that I've been confronted with cops, I've never had one draw his handcuffs, nightstick or taser, let alone try to use one of them on me. If you have, perhaps the problem here isn't your size, it's your attitude.
I'm significantly smaller than our gargantuan friend here, but significantly larger than the GP, and, to add to the anecdotal evidence, have also never had a problem with bouncers or cops. Also:
There is a serious problem with how enforcement works these days
Pretty sure it's not just "these days". I'd wager that we have significantly less police violence (in western societies at least) than we did back in the "good old days"...
Well, though it's not the best situation, it's not as big of a deal as it sounds, due to our gargantuan economy and stability. Our debt-to-GDP ratio compares quite favorably with most of the large economies of the EU, and with the EU itself.
Russia and China have much better debt-to-GDP, but they have significantly different economic models.
They are the largest foreign investor in US bonds, but still only hold around 8 percent of the US debt....
Is not just "regionally" accredited - it falls under the SUNY accreditation
Regional Accreditation is generally the most-respected accreditation for schools in the US. SUNY is not an accreditation, it is the state higher-learning system for New York.