you shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. Some places have laws against i
There are laws against drinking alcohol and driving. Not drinking a soda. Again as I stated earlier; let's not conflate texting and driving and sipping on a straw while driving.
TBH, my comment was tongue in cheek to "Just drink from the cup, assuming you're not a baby who can't do so.".
Use a straw. Don't use a straw. I don't care. Just don't get on my case if I choose to. How long will it take that plastic lids are the scape-goat after the great straw wars?
Oh, my God! Someone is being a sarcastic holier-than-thou pompous ass about political feel good empty platitudes on the internet. Real men chug drink their gallons of sugar without the need to suck. They are well versed practitioners of the "deep throat" arts. Holy shit! This is a catastrophe! These fucking sensationalists want to turn every issue into an existential fight. How dare they?
Good thing straws keep the cup away from my face to keep my eyes on the road. Having a to-go cup and having a sip while driving isn't the same as texting and driving. Let's not conflate things.
You have never been on long trips, have you? Tell you what, take a 16 hour drive to where ever you want and don't bring any road snacks or drinks.
Sheesh. Are you really saying you have never had any drink while driving ever in your life?
The inertia of the insanely unfair and uncivilized treatment of blacks in USA is still underestimated.
That doesn't explain the historical trends. Before the civil rights era and during Jim Crow, most if not all measures of success for black people in the US were going up. Graduation rates, jobs, money, strong family, civic participation, etc. They were even trending better than whites in some regards. Something happened after the civil rights era and a victim culture took root in addition to the loss of family structure. A culture developed to resent white people, disregard strong family values, and be a victim that relies on the government handout.
You can't and shouldn't blame slavery for your lot in life. I think (god help me I am referencing this guy), Kanye West said it best to the effect: "If you think you have been a slave for 400 years when slavery ended ~200 years ago, that's a choice to be mentally enslaved. ". At some point, you have to be responsible for your own actions and not blame the past for your current situation. If you want a better future for your children you have to work for it.
Asians had a similar history in the US yet they are doing better than whites in almost all categories because of their culture of work and family values.
Hold the phone. The SCOTUS ruling is part of it but the laws themselves were created by lawmakers of a party. SCOTUS enabled it, lawmakers enacted it. Lawmakers of a party. The original comment was about a political party not an apolitical body. (Although, the sole dissenter in that case was a Republican and the majority opinion written by a Democrat. Oops. I guess I made it political again. Damn Democrats and their racist history. )
This is the conversation: "isn't GOP banning voters common?" "no. historically that was Jim Crow and democrats" "SCOTUS is apolitical!1!1!!" " the laws called jim crow came from lawmakers of a party" "rabid dogma!!! insaity!!! TROLLINGING!!!!!"
Sheesh. WTF is dogmatic about stating a simple historical fact in context as to which party does something that has been historically done. Historically, the Democrats are the party of racists and have used laws to ban voters.
Never said they were noble. Or saints. I said insightful and wise. Maybe you are more foolish than I thought since you seem to want to burn historical insights because the judgement of your moral relativism spares none.
TBH, those risks and rewards do not have to be taken up by the government. From what I understand, we have already laid the framework for corporations to make a profit in space.
No. Voter ID laws != banning voters. The only instance I can think of that matches is felons ability to vote but there are states that franchise felons after X.
However, historically the Jim Crow laws made to prevent blacks from voting were part of the democratic party.
I find it interesting that the insight and wisdom of the framers were able to predict the largest geo-political divide even after almost 250 years. And here you are, wanting to walk back on the deal that the rural states accepted on admission to the union and ignore the insight and wisdom which protects the minority because you can't dictate over rural states from on high.
It is apparent that in times like these the structures we have to protect the minority vote are crucial to the republic and your mob rule are the first steps of resentment, disenfranchisement, and ultimately tyranny.
Everything in the US is a compromise. The fact that you don't want to compromise, as evident by your conflation of equal representation, is a clear indication that you do not care about the minority or representation.
set up gives disproportionate priority to poorly-educated rural voters.
Yea! God forbid the federal government represent its people so that their needs aren't ignored. I mean, why should rural voters have a say at the federal level? The founders were a bunch of idiots for their time who didn't understand the rural-urban divide as a serious geo-political division of culture and government needs! Truly, b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) of the internet in $CurrentYear is smarter and can come up with a mob rule to put those rural retards in their place that would benefit the educated cities.
Shame on them for not accepting the sacred cow of coastal political elites! Shame on them for having different needs of the federal government! Shame on them for voting in their own self-interests! Shame on them for not being convinced by my super smart talking points I heard in womyn studies.
We should have a final solution to those rural retards. amirite?
Here's a thought. Maybe instead of insulting people you could try convincing them with better arguments and data. Oh, I know. It's better to be a smug elitist sitting on high not having to defend the sacred cows of your ideological thought bubble.
Your link says Americans, on average, work more hours per week and are some of the most productive people. Not sure what you were attempting to prove with essentially validating what I said.
I'm happy to be corrected.
It doesn't seem that way since you like to bring up off topic items and have still yet to give any supporting reason why "life expectancy" is a good measure beyond "people want to be health and alive as long as possible" which doesn't address any kind of measuring standard for a healthcare system. There is a range where there is a direct correlation but we are not talking about getting access to a hospital we are talking about the extremes of life and the "best" healthcare systems int he world. (The US may be behind other western or developed nations but that group still has the best in the world with which the US is part of.)
To make my point very simple: Does the quality of healthcare directly correlate to longer life expectancy at the extreme end? I would argue, no, because personal choice (and genetics) become more impactful toward the extremes of long life. Does the quality of healthcare directly correlate to longer life expectancy after cancer diagnosis? Yes, because it requires the best medicine, treatment, practices, and technology to fight and live against cancer. IOW, if I had to choose a place to live based on healthcare I would not look at life expectancy as a good indicator whether or not I will get quality healthcare when I need it.
1/3 the population is obese. Yes. millions of people make the same poor choices. Those other western nations do not have the same rates of obesity nor do they work the same average of hours/as productive. There are many differences in the cultures and populations that could account for 5 years of extra life on average.
I never said "only". I said "a better measure" than life expectancy. You have failed to demonstrate why one is better or worse than the other. Seems like you have a conclusion that you look for evidence and narratives to support.
You typed a lot without saying much at anything. Again, my first comment: " could come down to personal choice and lifestyle. ". We are talking a range of 4-5 years. Many choices in life can make that kind of impact regardless of the healthcare system you have in your country.
Your flippant comment about euthanasia seems like you want to focus on certain statistics that validate your preconceived notions without actually trying to find something that is a quality measure.
If you can keep people alive and torture them longer then obviously you are good at torturing. I really don't care about the euthanasia conversation and that is a difference conversation than the efficacy of a healthcare system.
You seem to want to say that a measure is bad because we don't have assisted suicide and doing what we can to keep people alive is torture. It doesn't make sense to me. You say life expectancy is a good measure for healthcare. I disagree and gave an example that is better in my mind and you go off topic with euthanasia. You seem to disagree with the fundamental principle of healthcare which is to try and keep people alive and healthy.
Not really. Two separate topics that have some overlap but Euthanasia has nothing to do with measures of quality of healthcare. You can have the same discussion of Euthanasia with a crappy healthcare system.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't let your memes be dreams.
you shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. Some places have laws against i
There are laws against drinking alcohol and driving. Not drinking a soda. Again as I stated earlier; let's not conflate texting and driving and sipping on a straw while driving.
Man such a world to live in where "extreme selfishness" is a "selfish asshole" because of a straw. You must be invited to a lot of parties.
TBH, my comment was tongue in cheek to "Just drink from the cup, assuming you're not a baby who can't do so.".
Use a straw. Don't use a straw. I don't care. Just don't get on my case if I choose to. How long will it take that plastic lids are the scape-goat after the great straw wars?
Oh, my God! Someone is being a sarcastic holier-than-thou pompous ass about political feel good empty platitudes on the internet. Real men chug drink their gallons of sugar without the need to suck. They are well versed practitioners of the "deep throat" arts. Holy shit! This is a catastrophe! These fucking sensationalists want to turn every issue into an existential fight. How dare they?
Good thing straws keep the cup away from my face to keep my eyes on the road. Having a to-go cup and having a sip while driving isn't the same as texting and driving. Let's not conflate things.
You have never been on long trips, have you? Tell you what, take a 16 hour drive to where ever you want and don't bring any road snacks or drinks.
Sheesh. Are you really saying you have never had any drink while driving ever in your life?
You're not my mom.
Tell me how that goes while you're driving.
If your solution to climate change is a reduction in quality of life; you're doing it wrong.
The inertia of the insanely unfair and uncivilized treatment of blacks in USA is still underestimated.
That doesn't explain the historical trends. Before the civil rights era and during Jim Crow, most if not all measures of success for black people in the US were going up. Graduation rates, jobs, money, strong family, civic participation, etc. They were even trending better than whites in some regards. Something happened after the civil rights era and a victim culture took root in addition to the loss of family structure. A culture developed to resent white people, disregard strong family values, and be a victim that relies on the government handout.
You can't and shouldn't blame slavery for your lot in life. I think (god help me I am referencing this guy), Kanye West said it best to the effect: "If you think you have been a slave for 400 years when slavery ended ~200 years ago, that's a choice to be mentally enslaved. ". At some point, you have to be responsible for your own actions and not blame the past for your current situation. If you want a better future for your children you have to work for it.
Asians had a similar history in the US yet they are doing better than whites in almost all categories because of their culture of work and family values.
It is folly to call on Crom!
Only stronk call Crom Cruach.
Not stronk enough. >:(
Hold the phone. The SCOTUS ruling is part of it but the laws themselves were created by lawmakers of a party. SCOTUS enabled it, lawmakers enacted it. Lawmakers of a party. The original comment was about a political party not an apolitical body. (Although, the sole dissenter in that case was a Republican and the majority opinion written by a Democrat. Oops. I guess I made it political again. Damn Democrats and their racist history. )
This is the conversation:
"isn't GOP banning voters common?"
"no. historically that was Jim Crow and democrats"
"SCOTUS is apolitical!1!1!!"
" the laws called jim crow came from lawmakers of a party"
"rabid dogma!!! insaity!!! TROLLINGING!!!!!"
Sheesh. WTF is dogmatic about stating a simple historical fact in context as to which party does something that has been historically done. Historically, the Democrats are the party of racists and have used laws to ban voters.
As a moral relativist your opinion of evil and benevolence is rather hallow.
Not trolling. Which party were responsible for Jim Crow laws? Historically, the democrats are the party of racists.
Never said they were noble. Or saints. I said insightful and wise. Maybe you are more foolish than I thought since you seem to want to burn historical insights because the judgement of your moral relativism spares none.
Learn some history. It's rather sad that you are as dishonest as you are ignorant.
TBH, those risks and rewards do not have to be taken up by the government. From what I understand, we have already laid the framework for corporations to make a profit in space.
No. Voter ID laws != banning voters. The only instance I can think of that matches is felons ability to vote but there are states that franchise felons after X.
However, historically the Jim Crow laws made to prevent blacks from voting were part of the democratic party.
Sure, go a head because the republic is dying from your ignorance and self righteousness.
I find it interesting that the insight and wisdom of the framers were able to predict the largest geo-political divide even after almost 250 years. And here you are, wanting to walk back on the deal that the rural states accepted on admission to the union and ignore the insight and wisdom which protects the minority because you can't dictate over rural states from on high.
It is apparent that in times like these the structures we have to protect the minority vote are crucial to the republic and your mob rule are the first steps of resentment, disenfranchisement, and ultimately tyranny.
Everything in the US is a compromise. The fact that you don't want to compromise, as evident by your conflation of equal representation, is a clear indication that you do not care about the minority or representation.
set up gives disproportionate priority to poorly-educated rural voters.
Yea! God forbid the federal government represent its people so that their needs aren't ignored. I mean, why should rural voters have a say at the federal level? The founders were a bunch of idiots for their time who didn't understand the rural-urban divide as a serious geo-political division of culture and government needs! Truly, b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) of the internet in $CurrentYear is smarter and can come up with a mob rule to put those rural retards in their place that would benefit the educated cities.
Shame on them for not accepting the sacred cow of coastal political elites! Shame on them for having different needs of the federal government! Shame on them for voting in their own self-interests! Shame on them for not being convinced by my super smart talking points I heard in womyn studies.
We should have a final solution to those rural retards. amirite?
Here's a thought. Maybe instead of insulting people you could try convincing them with better arguments and data. Oh, I know. It's better to be a smug elitist sitting on high not having to defend the sacred cows of your ideological thought bubble.
Your link says Americans, on average, work more hours per week and are some of the most productive people. Not sure what you were attempting to prove with essentially validating what I said.
I'm happy to be corrected.
It doesn't seem that way since you like to bring up off topic items and have still yet to give any supporting reason why "life expectancy" is a good measure beyond "people want to be health and alive as long as possible" which doesn't address any kind of measuring standard for a healthcare system. There is a range where there is a direct correlation but we are not talking about getting access to a hospital we are talking about the extremes of life and the "best" healthcare systems int he world. (The US may be behind other western or developed nations but that group still has the best in the world with which the US is part of.)
To make my point very simple: Does the quality of healthcare directly correlate to longer life expectancy at the extreme end? I would argue, no, because personal choice (and genetics) become more impactful toward the extremes of long life. Does the quality of healthcare directly correlate to longer life expectancy after cancer diagnosis? Yes, because it requires the best medicine, treatment, practices, and technology to fight and live against cancer. IOW, if I had to choose a place to live based on healthcare I would not look at life expectancy as a good indicator whether or not I will get quality healthcare when I need it.
If you can't argue the point don't argue at all.
1/3 the population is obese. Yes. millions of people make the same poor choices. Those other western nations do not have the same rates of obesity nor do they work the same average of hours/as productive. There are many differences in the cultures and populations that could account for 5 years of extra life on average.
I never said "only". I said "a better measure" than life expectancy. You have failed to demonstrate why one is better or worse than the other. Seems like you have a conclusion that you look for evidence and narratives to support.
You typed a lot without saying much at anything. Again, my first comment: " could come down to personal choice and lifestyle. ". We are talking a range of 4-5 years. Many choices in life can make that kind of impact regardless of the healthcare system you have in your country.
Your flippant comment about euthanasia seems like you want to focus on certain statistics that validate your preconceived notions without actually trying to find something that is a quality measure.
If you can keep people alive and torture them longer then obviously you are good at torturing. I really don't care about the euthanasia conversation and that is a difference conversation than the efficacy of a healthcare system.
You seem to want to say that a measure is bad because we don't have assisted suicide and doing what we can to keep people alive is torture. It doesn't make sense to me. You say life expectancy is a good measure for healthcare. I disagree and gave an example that is better in my mind and you go off topic with euthanasia. You seem to disagree with the fundamental principle of healthcare which is to try and keep people alive and healthy.
Not really. Two separate topics that have some overlap but Euthanasia has nothing to do with measures of quality of healthcare. You can have the same discussion of Euthanasia with a crappy healthcare system.