"Choices have consequences, and forgiveness is not dependent upon everyone pretending the past never happened."
No but there needs to remain a reasonable ability to make it difficult for new people to find out. Most of this isn't about people, it is about companies harvesting data and selling it for fun and profit. Companies are not people and there is no particular reason they should be allowed to retain data about people without their consent.
So what, if you are taking a picture of someone or something on a busy street you can't publish it because you don't have consent from the random people who might have been in the shot?
Remind me again how a for profit company's actions aren't commercial use again? If you steal my toasters and use them in a give away at your bake sale that IS commercial use. Whether Google gives them away for free or even takes a loss doesn't change that those efforts are for the purpose of drawing eyes to their platform to increase their profit and that makes everything they do commercial use.
Maybe, but your biometric data like your DNA is your property, you copyrighted it on creation. You are your own work of art, freshly made each day. Google may own the copyright on the picture but that doesn't mean it isn't a derivative work.
There are other factors as well. I may punch my pin into the atm in public where there is no expectation of privacy but if you film it and sell the results on the web you are still breaking the law.
Tangible damages are easy to prove, google is profiting from this activity. Just like the other data Google is gathering and selling, if you take my intellectual or tangible property and sell it or otherwise use it in a commercial enterprise there are actual damages of at least what you got for it. Even though I wasn't selling or utilizing it you've set a minimum dollar amount because someone paid you.
Sure they were, first their privacy was violated. Second your biometric data like your DNA is your own property, especially in the United States where you copyrighted it upon creation via growth and grooming and copyrights multiply with contributors not divide. Google used that property without your consent and also devalued any gains to be made by privacy and may have caused secondary damages for many people (divorces, social complications, etc).
Anytime someone abuses your freedoms and makes revenue there are actual damages of at least that revenue which Google made rather than you.
No but your medical device, drug, and doctor CAN see patients in another country. If it costs $5000 to produce an x-ray machine and so your socialized medicine program pays $15,000 for them but in the US the hospital charges insurance $500/pop for x-rays and so the market will bear $75,000... guess where the manufacturer chooses to sell their machines?
As long as there is a private player a fair price will continue to be "as much as we can extort from our customers." You eliminate that and suddenly there is nobody left willing to pay $75,000 when a fair profit can be made at $15,000 (all those numbers are hypothetical, the concept remains the same).
Of course your socialized system is struggling when you are paying to educate doctors and they can extort a million/year or better by defecting to the US. Of course, supporting those outlandish salaries for equipment, drugs, and doctors is more than even the US can actually afford which is why the whole system is collapsing.
And make no mistake, your government negotiates rates with manufacturers from time to time and those companies most definitely bring the figures of what they are charging elsewhere to the table when negotiating a "fair market rate."
"There is some level of healthcare that is a near certainty, but what you really need insurance for is those huge bills from exceptional medical issues. Your proposed "solution" does not explain how someone who experiences an unexpected medical issue would pay the bill."
No but competing non-profits who can borrow from the Fed at the Fed rate could.
There is an underexamined part of this as well. Currently you pay insurance premiums pre-tax. If you eliminate the insurance premiums you magically generate a whole lot more tax revenue, across the country it is enough to pay both the costs of healthcare and insurance company profits besides. I know this, because it already does.
No, but there is a way to pay it directly from the 2% new inflation we are targeting instead of from taxes or directly out-of-pocket. Technically every dollar is devalued this way and that pays but we are paying that anyway and it is actually a requirement for a healthy economy. Since we are creating this inflation anyway the people who "pay" are just banks in the financial industry who simply aren't given as much free profit.
"And yet there is not a single payer system in the world that isn't struggling."
Of course there isn't. The US privatized systems competes with them on the open market and interferes with their ability to control pricing and develop talent.
Anything would be less expensive than what we have now. The dirty secret is that the left sets up the free market approach to fail with regulation (lobbied for and bought by the big players in healthcare who publically complain about it) and boths sides set up the socialized medicine approach by half-assing it. It doesn't work if you let the drug companies, insurance companies, medical device companies, and doctors continue to play their reindeer games. If you are going public you gut the profits from these sectors properly and force a race to the bottom on pricing.
Either path can work if actually set up and protected properly.
"I was with you right up until that. [Need for h]ealthcare is not a universal certainty."
Yes it is or near enough. Just because everyone doesn't have the same health issues and needs doesn't change the fact that everyone has them sooner or later. Insurance is the myth of pooling risk. You'd use a non-profit for that. Insurance is gambling and worse you are betting against yourself.
"As a consumer of medical services, you also get an EOB (Explanation of Benefit) or sometimes called a Superbill. Which itemizes your charges where if you find a problem you can debate for it to be taken off."
Which of course is not the only one you'll get. Helpfully, the hospital will charge you for giving you an x-ray... then the radiologist charges you for the same x-ray, sometimes you even get additional bills, all for the same service. That would be fine if added together these bills totaled some rational or even slightly overpriced x-ray fee but EACH of them is insane and higher than what the hospital charged back when you got a bill from them and they did like everyone else and paid those other employees out of it.
I don't disagree. I'm just clarifying that letting the creator (or his employer) profit as long as there is still profit to be had and they are exploiting it is NOT the objective of copyright.
"past a certain point _fewer_ works are produced as culture gets monopolized. That's why copyright has a limit."
That and ideas aren't genuinely unique. Someone else would have come up with your idea or near enough to it sooner or later. You don't actually own your ideas. You are part of a collective, many of them, but especially you are part of the collective of mankind and ultimately that collective has a right to the fruits of your labors and ideas. You could contend they don't but then it becomes pretty difficult to explain why we don't eat you.
"And finally there was recently a large scale study using anti-virals that target simplex one which showed they drastically reduced the probability of developing it."
The same way we prove anything else, by testing it. As indicated here in a large scale, long term study in Taiwan, on humans.
"HSV-1 infections may be treated with a number of antiviral compounds such as valacyclovir. A study was done in Taiwan to assess whether administration of such antiviral compounds can effect the development of senile dementia (SD) of which AD is the main cause. This study was conducted by mining the National Health Insurance Research Database, in which nearly all of the country’s population is enrolled. The incidence of senile dementia was studied from 2000-2010 in 8,362 subjects aged 50 years or over who were diagnosed with HSV-1 or HSV-2 infections, and in 25,086 age- and gender-matched individuals with no HSV infection. The risk of developing SD in the HSV infected group was 2.56-fold greater than in uninfected controls. This effect was mainly observed in HSV-1 infected individuals.
Some of the HSV-infected patients (N = 7, 215) were treated with one of a number of antivirals, including acyclovir and valacyclovir. These individuals had nearly a 10 fold decrease in the incidence of SD compared with those who were untreated (N = 1,147). Over the next 10 years, 419 (5.80%) developed dementia in the antiviral treated group, while 325 (28.33%) of the untreated group developed dementia."
"It is demonstrably not so. An anecdote to be sure, but I had a friend find a wallet with $3K in cash in it.. He tracked down the owner and returned it. The news is full of cases like this. A simple google search turned up hundreds of stories such as:"
That doesn't mean he isn't "an evil person or a weak willed person with some evil in his heart." That just means he didn't steal a wallet.
"Your argument is false."
Nothing in your examples proved that people are not all weak willed with some evil in their heart. All your examples involve money, greed is certainly one of the most common failings but it is hardly the only one.
The Christ myth itself is ultimately about this. Christ supposedly lived a life without sin until the final moment on the cross when he doubted god and asked "Father, why dost thou forsake me now?"
Most people I've encountered who have this obsession with "taking money" and use extreme words like "evil" have a very misguided philosophy. Somehow it would be evil for your homeless woman to keep abandoned money in the street but it is perfectly fine to exploit the weakness of others to take a profit at their expense. Taking from a position of strength, whether it be leverage of any sort or intellect or lack of desperation, is stealing just the same as a threatening someone with your fist or a gun and taking their wallet.
"Red meat time and time again comes out as increasing risks for a wide array of ailments, in normal weight people as well."
Correlation does not equal causation. The most recent study combining the available data from studies across the globe across two hundred years actually found high vegetable fat content rather than animal fats as the biggest contributor to heart problems.
Red meat is higher in cholesterol, heavy exercise (heavy weight, not high intensity) triggers hormonal reactions that cause your body to actually utilize cholesterol in natural hormone production. That natural hormone production also increases lean mass. Not only does your cardiovascular fitness increase but you expend more calories in every activity you perform, for that matter you burn more calories even when resting.
Additionally, heavy lifting puts short bursts of high pressure on your blood vessels, this strengthens and widens them both keeping their walls flexible, elastic, and smooth which prevents the plaque build-up that leads to vascular problems like heart attacks and expands your blood and therefore total blood oxygen content which helps prevent things like congestive heart failure. It isn't magic, the body is just responding to the stresses you put on it and you are physically pushing (gently because hydraulics distribute the pressure across the entire vascular system) on the blood vessels in bursts and at the same time putting a requirement for heavy amounts of oxygen across major muscle groups.
I do draw a big distinction through between multiple group full body exercise with free weights and body building however. Heavy full body exercises with free weights are difficult to perform correctly and require learning proper technique. An improper movement loaded with a heavy weight can obviously injure you quickly. Body building and isolation techniques result in large muscle mass that is cosmetic and not in proportion to the way the body has evolved, accessory muscles are weakened, and frankly the culture that surrounds it pushes unsafe diet and chemicals. Lifting for strength without those things will result in a lean and fit body but not a hulk.
All things in moderation however, there was a famous power lifter who ate nothing but McDonalds and did have a heart attack. Heavy lifting counteracts some of the risks of high overall cholesterol, that doesn't mean your cholesterol shouldn't have an appropriate ratio of ldl and hdl. Also, I'm not saying it isn't easier to avoid red meat, that is probably the answer to most since it is unlikely everyone is going to begin a heavy freeweight 5x5 three times a week. But if they did, combined with moderate red meat intake and calorie intake, they'd all have superior heart health, live longer, be less obese, and have healthy natural sex drives.
Riiight because of all the healthy vegans you see walking around. There is no place on earth a healthy human being can live off of the local plant life. It is a thing only made possible by specially preparing food in just the right ways and with ingredients transported around.
Do eat more blueberries, as for red meat specifically, there is nothing wrong with that as long as you combine it with actual heavy exercise. Not cardio, heavy exercise, think 20 reps max insteasing weight instead of repetitions and learn proper technique, it isn't a race. Coincidently, this is also the only thing shown to rejuvenate cartilage in the joints. Obviously, heavy labor works too.
Keto people don't have it right either, you need a metabolic reset, so go high carb low fat on the weekends and do the opposite during the week (or similar intervals with the protein/fat heavy cycle covering your most active periods.
Actually the plaques have been pretty solidly linked to Herpes simplex one. In other words, the cold sore version. Normally the blood brain barrier keeps it out of the brain but as we age it begins to creep in or at least that is the hypothesis.
The virus has been shown to create the plaques, a correlation indicating someone with the Alzheimers gene and simplex one is 14 times more likely to get alzheimers. And finally there was recently a large scale study using anti-virals that target simplex one which showed they drastically reduced the probability of developing it.
If this treatment works we'll be able to reverse some of the effects AND prevent it. This jumps the cold sore virus to public enemy #1 since most of us infected by infancy.
"I have never heard this claim before. It's awfully convenient, given that most political comedy is left-leaning."
And to left leaning or right leaning is synonymous with biased. Both toward left or right but also toward partisan politics. As it happens almost all right leaning news includes a comedic and snarky element as well. That is actually what made the old Colbert Report parody possible and subtle. You are likely too offended by what they are saying to catch when they are joking and treat it all as literal.
"Just another reason to dismiss anything that makes Trump look bad? It's not about disfavoring one party or person or side. Disliking Trump does not make me partisan"
No, but given that this isn't a conversation about Trump, you were replying to me and after a couple turns I've still never even so much as used to the word Trump before this I think your comments are doing an excellent job demonstrating my point.
Most of the time there is some element of truth buried in the talking points of both parties but it is rarely the whole truth. Hence me pointing out a middle ground that is likely closer to the real truth. Weak border controls and what is obviously an intentionally lax control of identification documents does create a situation where hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of illegal aliens are in a position to vote or even for legal citizens to vote more than once. In a world where we have partisan action groups putting dead citizens signatures on petitions and dead people voting it would be disingenuous to assume a big loophole like this isn't being abused. It is also very difficult to find evidence to prove it.
Based on that, I can draw no conclusion with regard to how it impacted vote tallies in the Trump election or any other election. I can however conclude that we need to fix it without having any particular fucks one way or another with regard to the Trump election.
I don't recall having said either way. Also, you do know you are referencing a site with partisan bias. A subtle clue is something inflammatory like "pants on fire" in a headline. Snark is not a typical characteristic of legitimate unbiased news sources.
Not that there is much point, you are clearly a partisan and partisans don't use the reasoning centers of their brains to evaluate political issues.
For someone who is not a partisan and reading this. The only issue I'd speak to is illegal immigrants voting. Whether there is "evidence" of it or not, I lived in New Mexico for several years. The MVD is outsourced, they are like 7-11's. Illegal immigrants flood in via El Paso, TX (having also spend time at and crossing this border for Dental work, I can assure you that at least as of a few years ago it is thoroughly infiltrated with Latin King gang members who wear obvious, visible, and well known King ink). Every so often they'll "bust" a MVD giving out ID to illegals but it is highly doubtful it puts any kind of dent in the activity. Every one of them has the documentation needed to vote.
I have no numbers or evidence of any of them voting but I'd hazard the safe middle is probably about half, so that anyone asserting it is insignificant is preposterous and anyone asserting they are all out voting is also preposterous.
Other states have reciprocal agreements of course and New Mexico is hardly the only state with an outsourced MVD.
Slashdot Mirror
"Choices have consequences, and forgiveness is not dependent upon everyone pretending the past never happened."
No but there needs to remain a reasonable ability to make it difficult for new people to find out. Most of this isn't about people, it is about companies harvesting data and selling it for fun and profit. Companies are not people and there is no particular reason they should be allowed to retain data about people without their consent.
So what, if you are taking a picture of someone or something on a busy street you can't publish it because you don't have consent from the random people who might have been in the shot?
"and there is no commercial use of the images"
Remind me again how a for profit company's actions aren't commercial use again? If you steal my toasters and use them in a give away at your bake sale that IS commercial use. Whether Google gives them away for free or even takes a loss doesn't change that those efforts are for the purpose of drawing eyes to their platform to increase their profit and that makes everything they do commercial use.
Maybe, but your biometric data like your DNA is your property, you copyrighted it on creation. You are your own work of art, freshly made each day. Google may own the copyright on the picture but that doesn't mean it isn't a derivative work.
There are other factors as well. I may punch my pin into the atm in public where there is no expectation of privacy but if you film it and sell the results on the web you are still breaking the law.
Tangible damages are easy to prove, google is profiting from this activity. Just like the other data Google is gathering and selling, if you take my intellectual or tangible property and sell it or otherwise use it in a commercial enterprise there are actual damages of at least what you got for it. Even though I wasn't selling or utilizing it you've set a minimum dollar amount because someone paid you.
Sure they were, first their privacy was violated. Second your biometric data like your DNA is your own property, especially in the United States where you copyrighted it upon creation via growth and grooming and copyrights multiply with contributors not divide. Google used that property without your consent and also devalued any gains to be made by privacy and may have caused secondary damages for many people (divorces, social complications, etc).
Anytime someone abuses your freedoms and makes revenue there are actual damages of at least that revenue which Google made rather than you.
No but your medical device, drug, and doctor CAN see patients in another country. If it costs $5000 to produce an x-ray machine and so your socialized medicine program pays $15,000 for them but in the US the hospital charges insurance $500/pop for x-rays and so the market will bear $75,000... guess where the manufacturer chooses to sell their machines?
As long as there is a private player a fair price will continue to be "as much as we can extort from our customers." You eliminate that and suddenly there is nobody left willing to pay $75,000 when a fair profit can be made at $15,000 (all those numbers are hypothetical, the concept remains the same).
Of course your socialized system is struggling when you are paying to educate doctors and they can extort a million/year or better by defecting to the US. Of course, supporting those outlandish salaries for equipment, drugs, and doctors is more than even the US can actually afford which is why the whole system is collapsing.
And make no mistake, your government negotiates rates with manufacturers from time to time and those companies most definitely bring the figures of what they are charging elsewhere to the table when negotiating a "fair market rate."
"There is some level of healthcare that is a near certainty, but what you really need insurance for is those huge bills from exceptional medical issues. Your proposed "solution" does not explain how someone who experiences an unexpected medical issue would pay the bill."
No but competing non-profits who can borrow from the Fed at the Fed rate could.
There is an underexamined part of this as well. Currently you pay insurance premiums pre-tax. If you eliminate the insurance premiums you magically generate a whole lot more tax revenue, across the country it is enough to pay both the costs of healthcare and insurance company profits besides. I know this, because it already does.
No, but there is a way to pay it directly from the 2% new inflation we are targeting instead of from taxes or directly out-of-pocket. Technically every dollar is devalued this way and that pays but we are paying that anyway and it is actually a requirement for a healthy economy. Since we are creating this inflation anyway the people who "pay" are just banks in the financial industry who simply aren't given as much free profit.
"And yet there is not a single payer system in the world that isn't struggling."
Of course there isn't. The US privatized systems competes with them on the open market and interferes with their ability to control pricing and develop talent.
Anything would be less expensive than what we have now. The dirty secret is that the left sets up the free market approach to fail with regulation (lobbied for and bought by the big players in healthcare who publically complain about it) and boths sides set up the socialized medicine approach by half-assing it. It doesn't work if you let the drug companies, insurance companies, medical device companies, and doctors continue to play their reindeer games. If you are going public you gut the profits from these sectors properly and force a race to the bottom on pricing.
Either path can work if actually set up and protected properly.
"I was with you right up until that. [Need for h]ealthcare is not a universal certainty."
Yes it is or near enough. Just because everyone doesn't have the same health issues and needs doesn't change the fact that everyone has them sooner or later. Insurance is the myth of pooling risk. You'd use a non-profit for that. Insurance is gambling and worse you are betting against yourself.
"As a consumer of medical services, you also get an EOB (Explanation of Benefit) or sometimes called a Superbill. Which itemizes your charges where if you find a problem you can debate for it to be taken off."
Which of course is not the only one you'll get. Helpfully, the hospital will charge you for giving you an x-ray... then the radiologist charges you for the same x-ray, sometimes you even get additional bills, all for the same service. That would be fine if added together these bills totaled some rational or even slightly overpriced x-ray fee but EACH of them is insane and higher than what the hospital charged back when you got a bill from them and they did like everyone else and paid those other employees out of it.
"Using a criterion you set?"
Well yes, ultimately we each set the criterion by which we define a problem. Did you think I'd let you set it for me?
In any case, we can hardly evaluate if their criteria are valid if they don't define them and therefore must assume they are not.
What are they even defining as abuse?
And what constitutes "abused"
I don't disagree. I'm just clarifying that letting the creator (or his employer) profit as long as there is still profit to be had and they are exploiting it is NOT the objective of copyright.
"past a certain point _fewer_ works are produced as culture gets monopolized. That's why copyright has a limit."
That and ideas aren't genuinely unique. Someone else would have come up with your idea or near enough to it sooner or later. You don't actually own your ideas. You are part of a collective, many of them, but especially you are part of the collective of mankind and ultimately that collective has a right to the fruits of your labors and ideas. You could contend they don't but then it becomes pretty difficult to explain why we don't eat you.
"And finally there was recently a large scale study using anti-virals that target simplex one which showed they drastically reduced the probability of developing it."
The same way we prove anything else, by testing it. As indicated here in a large scale, long term study in Taiwan, on humans.
"HSV-1 infections may be treated with a number of antiviral compounds such as valacyclovir. A study was done in Taiwan to assess whether administration of such antiviral compounds can effect the development of senile dementia (SD) of which AD is the main cause. This study was conducted by mining the National Health Insurance Research Database, in which nearly all of the country’s population is enrolled. The incidence of senile dementia was studied from 2000-2010 in 8,362 subjects aged 50 years or over who were diagnosed with HSV-1 or HSV-2 infections, and in 25,086 age- and gender-matched individuals with no HSV infection. The risk of developing SD in the HSV infected group was 2.56-fold greater than in uninfected controls. This effect was mainly observed in HSV-1 infected individuals.
Some of the HSV-infected patients (N = 7, 215) were treated with one of a number of antivirals, including acyclovir and valacyclovir. These individuals had nearly a 10 fold decrease in the incidence of SD compared with those who were untreated (N = 1,147). Over the next 10 years, 419 (5.80%) developed dementia in the antiviral treated group, while 325 (28.33%) of the untreated group developed dementia."
The actual study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29488144
"It is demonstrably not so. An anecdote to be sure, but I had a friend find a wallet with $3K in cash in it.. He tracked down the owner and returned it. The news is full of cases like this. A simple google search turned up hundreds of stories such as:"
That doesn't mean he isn't "an evil person or a weak willed person with some evil in his heart." That just means he didn't steal a wallet.
"Your argument is false."
Nothing in your examples proved that people are not all weak willed with some evil in their heart. All your examples involve money, greed is certainly one of the most common failings but it is hardly the only one.
The Christ myth itself is ultimately about this. Christ supposedly lived a life without sin until the final moment on the cross when he doubted god and asked "Father, why dost thou forsake me now?"
Most people I've encountered who have this obsession with "taking money" and use extreme words like "evil" have a very misguided philosophy. Somehow it would be evil for your homeless woman to keep abandoned money in the street but it is perfectly fine to exploit the weakness of others to take a profit at their expense. Taking from a position of strength, whether it be leverage of any sort or intellect or lack of desperation, is stealing just the same as a threatening someone with your fist or a gun and taking their wallet.
"Red meat time and time again comes out as increasing risks for a wide array of ailments, in normal weight people as well."
Correlation does not equal causation. The most recent study combining the available data from studies across the globe across two hundred years actually found high vegetable fat content rather than animal fats as the biggest contributor to heart problems.
Red meat is higher in cholesterol, heavy exercise (heavy weight, not high intensity) triggers hormonal reactions that cause your body to actually utilize cholesterol in natural hormone production. That natural hormone production also increases lean mass. Not only does your cardiovascular fitness increase but you expend more calories in every activity you perform, for that matter you burn more calories even when resting.
Additionally, heavy lifting puts short bursts of high pressure on your blood vessels, this strengthens and widens them both keeping their walls flexible, elastic, and smooth which prevents the plaque build-up that leads to vascular problems like heart attacks and expands your blood and therefore total blood oxygen content which helps prevent things like congestive heart failure. It isn't magic, the body is just responding to the stresses you put on it and you are physically pushing (gently because hydraulics distribute the pressure across the entire vascular system) on the blood vessels in bursts and at the same time putting a requirement for heavy amounts of oxygen across major muscle groups.
I do draw a big distinction through between multiple group full body exercise with free weights and body building however. Heavy full body exercises with free weights are difficult to perform correctly and require learning proper technique. An improper movement loaded with a heavy weight can obviously injure you quickly. Body building and isolation techniques result in large muscle mass that is cosmetic and not in proportion to the way the body has evolved, accessory muscles are weakened, and frankly the culture that surrounds it pushes unsafe diet and chemicals. Lifting for strength without those things will result in a lean and fit body but not a hulk.
All things in moderation however, there was a famous power lifter who ate nothing but McDonalds and did have a heart attack. Heavy lifting counteracts some of the risks of high overall cholesterol, that doesn't mean your cholesterol shouldn't have an appropriate ratio of ldl and hdl. Also, I'm not saying it isn't easier to avoid red meat, that is probably the answer to most since it is unlikely everyone is going to begin a heavy freeweight 5x5 three times a week. But if they did, combined with moderate red meat intake and calorie intake, they'd all have superior heart health, live longer, be less obese, and have healthy natural sex drives.
Riiight because of all the healthy vegans you see walking around. There is no place on earth a healthy human being can live off of the local plant life. It is a thing only made possible by specially preparing food in just the right ways and with ingredients transported around.
Do eat more blueberries, as for red meat specifically, there is nothing wrong with that as long as you combine it with actual heavy exercise. Not cardio, heavy exercise, think 20 reps max insteasing weight instead of repetitions and learn proper technique, it isn't a race. Coincidently, this is also the only thing shown to rejuvenate cartilage in the joints. Obviously, heavy labor works too.
Keto people don't have it right either, you need a metabolic reset, so go high carb low fat on the weekends and do the opposite during the week (or similar intervals with the protein/fat heavy cycle covering your most active periods.
Actually the plaques have been pretty solidly linked to Herpes simplex one. In other words, the cold sore version. Normally the blood brain barrier keeps it out of the brain but as we age it begins to creep in or at least that is the hypothesis.
The virus has been shown to create the plaques, a correlation indicating someone with the Alzheimers gene and simplex one is 14 times more likely to get alzheimers. And finally there was recently a large scale study using anti-virals that target simplex one which showed they drastically reduced the probability of developing it.
If this treatment works we'll be able to reverse some of the effects AND prevent it. This jumps the cold sore virus to public enemy #1 since most of us infected by infancy.
"When it is stolen it will be by an evil person or a weak willed person with some evil in their heart."
That is everyone.
"I have never heard this claim before. It's awfully convenient, given that most political comedy is left-leaning."
And to left leaning or right leaning is synonymous with biased. Both toward left or right but also toward partisan politics. As it happens almost all right leaning news includes a comedic and snarky element as well. That is actually what made the old Colbert Report parody possible and subtle. You are likely too offended by what they are saying to catch when they are joking and treat it all as literal.
"Just another reason to dismiss anything that makes Trump look bad? It's not about disfavoring one party or person or side. Disliking Trump does not make me partisan"
No, but given that this isn't a conversation about Trump, you were replying to me and after a couple turns I've still never even so much as used to the word Trump before this I think your comments are doing an excellent job demonstrating my point.
Most of the time there is some element of truth buried in the talking points of both parties but it is rarely the whole truth. Hence me pointing out a middle ground that is likely closer to the real truth. Weak border controls and what is obviously an intentionally lax control of identification documents does create a situation where hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of illegal aliens are in a position to vote or even for legal citizens to vote more than once. In a world where we have partisan action groups putting dead citizens signatures on petitions and dead people voting it would be disingenuous to assume a big loophole like this isn't being abused. It is also very difficult to find evidence to prove it.
Based on that, I can draw no conclusion with regard to how it impacted vote tallies in the Trump election or any other election. I can however conclude that we need to fix it without having any particular fucks one way or another with regard to the Trump election.
"You think that isn't important?"
I don't recall having said either way. Also, you do know you are referencing a site with partisan bias. A subtle clue is something inflammatory like "pants on fire" in a headline. Snark is not a typical characteristic of legitimate unbiased news sources.
Not that there is much point, you are clearly a partisan and partisans don't use the reasoning centers of their brains to evaluate political issues.
For someone who is not a partisan and reading this. The only issue I'd speak to is illegal immigrants voting. Whether there is "evidence" of it or not, I lived in New Mexico for several years. The MVD is outsourced, they are like 7-11's. Illegal immigrants flood in via El Paso, TX (having also spend time at and crossing this border for Dental work, I can assure you that at least as of a few years ago it is thoroughly infiltrated with Latin King gang members who wear obvious, visible, and well known King ink). Every so often they'll "bust" a MVD giving out ID to illegals but it is highly doubtful it puts any kind of dent in the activity. Every one of them has the documentation needed to vote.
I have no numbers or evidence of any of them voting but I'd hazard the safe middle is probably about half, so that anyone asserting it is insignificant is preposterous and anyone asserting they are all out voting is also preposterous.
Other states have reciprocal agreements of course and New Mexico is hardly the only state with an outsourced MVD.