Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable.
All accidents are preventable. But if I drive to the store, buy pretzels and beer, then forget to take the beer out. My sister drives the car tomorrow, and an old person falls asleep and runs the red, killing both. The beers will likely rupture in such a violent crash, so the "cause" on paper will be recorded as "alcohol involved" even with both drivers testing at 0.0% BAC. Open container and smells of alcohol are sufficient.
If Vito the Mobster kills Paulie the Snitch by drugging his scotch then shooting him, and decapitates him and puts him in the trunk. While driving to the new stadium to put him in the foundation, he stops at a red light. Gramps is on the same road. He falls asleep and hits Vito in the back. The police show up. The causes listed for the crash will be "Alcohol involved, speed related, and following too closely" The statistics are lies.
Seems the current President is very much against antisemitism,
No. He is very anti-semitic. He insults "sleepy eyes" (a nazi slur against Jews), and Soros and any Jew that he doesn't like.
He is Zionist. That's unrelated. In the US, the sides are often reversed, with the anti-semitic people claiming that anyone who is anti-zionist is anti-semitic, regardless of whether they are.
Do you believe that there was ever a point in time where 100% of the planet was vaccinated? If you aren't sure, the answer is "no".
Smallpox is proof of herd immunity. Enough people were vaccinated that there were no vulnerable people to be infected, so the disease died off. That's the goal for all disease, but some people work extraordinarily to see that disease persist.
The only way to not believe in reality is to simply be delusional. That invalidates your opinion as well as most of your (incorrect) facts.
If a mob boss drugs Sal and decapitates him, then, with the body in the trunk, he drives to the construction site to bury the body in concrete next to Hoffa, if he (sober) is rear-ended by an octogenarian (also sober) who fell asleep and didn't stop for the light, the crash will be:
"Alcohol involved" as at least one person at the scene was impaired. "Speed related" because if the old person were driving slower he might not have crashed. "Following too closely" as if the old person left more space, he might have been able to react.
They will then use "alcohol, speed, and tailgating" to target safe drivers in other situations. The statistics are lies. MADD "won" in the '90s, then turned into a teetotaler group intent on prohibition.
Yeah, those damned Refugees. Oh wait, the Costa Rica outbreak was from French vacationers. So the travel of measles isn't the direction your racism points.
Most innocent people accused (arrested and incarcerated) of crime confess to a crime they didn't do. In part, because often it will result in a release from the inhumane conditions of jail/prison. Proving your innocence can take years. Falsely confessing takes 5 minutes.
PINs were popular long before chips. Your timeline is off, presumably to push your American First agenda.
The pins outside the US are also insulated. When I was in 8th grade, and bored. The teacher left the room, to go get papers or something. I pulled a penny out of my pocket and dropped it onto a plug I had pulled out just enough for a penny to drop in.
I didn't realize that the computer class next door was doing a test. I took out power for about half the school. The penny fused to one side, and arced to the other, welding it into place.
The UK and AU plugs don't allow for that. I don't have all the plug standards in front of me, but the US system is not as good as most.
Fiber is cheap. And it's everywhere. But it isn't as profitable. Most places are regulated. Spending $50 a month on copper to a house providing 10 Mbps lets them charge a cost to the customer that's regulated. If you get fiber in for $50 per month, you aren't allowed to charge more, even though the $50 copper is 10 Mbps and the $50 fiber is 1Gbps. So you lose money on the back end, paying for upstream bandwidth.
Countries like Australia that have done a NBN (National Broadband Network) have found the cost is roughly the same, but the traffic is higher. THat's one of the reasons the NBN has done so poorly. The regulators aren't technically savvy.
The rest of the world still does cheques. But they are all what in the US would be a "cashier's check". The US is the only country where you can sign a check, use it to buy something, then contest the check after it has cleared. The rest of the world, "clearance" is final. If you haven't reported your checkbook lost or stolen by that point, usually a few days, then it's too late. Because of that, the rest of the world won't honor US checks. I know. I've tried. Multiple countries out of the US.
I think the US government likes it that way. It forces more cash use, which is easier to track, with cash sniffing dogs and the like.
The pro-democracy advocates simply want voter ID where everyone is given a voter-ID card at 18 for free, and is registered for life, and can update the card when they move, be eligible to vote if they have no address, and get a free replacement, if the card is lost or stolen.
The Poll Tax voter ID cards, where you have to have 2 forms of ID, a birth certificate, a home address and often other rules are not there to secure democracy, but to end it.
Would you be for or against a system where everyone was automatically registered to vote at age 18, and was provided an ID card on their 18th B-day that allowed them to vote on or after that day, and they were registered for life, with all requirements for the card being paid for by the government, not the voter?
That's the Voter ID democracies that believe in voters have.
They can also stabilize a terminal patient, and kick them out to die in the street. In fact, from the way statistics are kept, they are essentially paid to do so, so if you aren't paying, you get kicked out, if there's nothing they can do to save you.
So, not terminal, no need to treat. Terminal, no need to treat. They are not duty bound to treat people. That's a misconception they push, so that they aren't subject to actual laws to force fair behavior.
They have an obligation to treat you if you show up at emergency
Nope. This is a popular misconception.
They do voluntarily, to avoid the consequences if everyone knew that your assumption was a lie. But they have no obligation to do so. The (many) places that have been sued for discharging sick people who died shortly after have set, in law, that there is no duty of care, and no requirement to provide any medical care.
I had a car crash. The hospital literally picked my pocket, went through my wallet, and found my insurance card. Then they placed me in the "insured" service path. They billed my insurance company. I didn't have PIP on my car insurance, only liability, so I paid the bill sent to my insurance company, and got the "insured" discount. Never once did they ask if I was insured, because they "aren't allowed to", but they literally picked my pocket and filled out the forms themselves, because I was unable at the time.
Had I not had insurance, I'd have gotten worse care, and been billed more for it. That's the US system.
It's perfectly legal for them to turn you away. If a homeless guy needed the same surgery Sir Mick got, he'd be given pain meds, and kicked out. They absolutely do kick out sick people, who die within 24 hours. It happens all the time, and the lawsuits on it have settled that there is no duty of care in the US. The only country where the hippocratic oath is voided by law.
The right of first sale is a right. And it should be defended.
Would the "right to bear arms" be a right if anyone who saw you armed was allowed to shoot you? Would it matter if the NRA encouraged all shop owners to shoot gun buyers?
That you think the free market should drive people to shops that don't kill them doesn't mean it's OK in the first place.
Anything that infringes on my right of first sale should have a valid reason behind it. Hopefully, one I agree with.
If the cop wasn't a homicidal maniac, he'd have waited. Cop training should be: "If you think you see a gun, and you'd be the target, take cover." Cops charge in to threats, expecting to see threats, then shoot anyone they see. That's been repeated thousands of times. The training is simply wrong.
Go to President Xi.
Surrender. Surrender to China for the Korean War. Agree to openly apologize for interfering in Asian affairs. Agree to demilitarize all of the Korean peninsula, leaving no American military behind. Agree to fund resettlement of North Koreans who enter China after DPRK ends.
Agree to a full pardon of Kim Jong-un. Kim is granted a non transferable governorship for life of Pyongyang. With a limited autonomy from Korea, but no border checkpoints or other constraints, and full accountability to Korean law for the region.
In exchange for the surrender, PRC will line up a few million troops on DPRK's northern border and deliver the terms to Kim Jong-un.
DPRK will have no choice but to accept. They have no defenses to the north. If they move their troops north, they'll be open to attack from the south.
DPRK is abolished. The border between north and south, abolished. Free movement. The residents of the north free to go south. Those in the south, free to go north.
The plan would work, but no American would ever be willing to ask China for help. So we'll get nuclear war first. Stupid Americans.
A filibuster doesn't kill it. A filibuster allows a close vote to be delayed, targeting times when the "other side" won't be present to vote. They have also been "eliminated" by provisions that eliminate the ability to call a vote on the end of a filibuster. In the old days, the Last Man Standing won. These days, a filibuster will end with a delay to allow voting members to return and vote. So the power has ended. But apparently it's used extensively to blame the minority for letting something bad pass.
The only power the Democrats have in the Senate is the power to delay. The Republicans have a majority. They can block 100% of what the democrats want, and will get through 99.9% of what they want. The power is with the Republicans.
The republicans have so much power, they voted to increase the vote to pass a budget to 60% (something they could do with their measly 50%), just to try to pass something evil and blame the Democrats when the Democrats didn't vote for the evil.
The only time they don't have power is when they are going out of their way to lose, so they can blame the Democrats.
Nope. The Republican Speaker of the House can kill any bill by refusing to put it to the vote. He did with the "don't fire Comey" bill. He could have done it with this. The leader of the Senate is also a Republican. The President is a Republican. Any one of those three people could have killed the bill. All three are Republican. The blame goes to the Republicans.
Passed the senate 92-2. The vote was "Vote no if you are you a child rapist'
The vote would have gone no other way. So it lands on the President to veto crap like that if it passes. Even with a "veto proof majority". Especially with a veto-proof majority.
The problem is politics, where everything is framed by the bullies. If you don't vote for it, you'll be vilified.
Slashdot Mirror
Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable.
All accidents are preventable. But if I drive to the store, buy pretzels and beer, then forget to take the beer out. My sister drives the car tomorrow, and an old person falls asleep and runs the red, killing both. The beers will likely rupture in such a violent crash, so the "cause" on paper will be recorded as "alcohol involved" even with both drivers testing at 0.0% BAC. Open container and smells of alcohol are sufficient.
If Vito the Mobster kills Paulie the Snitch by drugging his scotch then shooting him, and decapitates him and puts him in the trunk. While driving to the new stadium to put him in the foundation, he stops at a red light. Gramps is on the same road. He falls asleep and hits Vito in the back. The police show up. The causes listed for the crash will be "Alcohol involved, speed related, and following too closely" The statistics are lies.
We have them. They are called "robots".
Seems the current President is very much against antisemitism,
No. He is very anti-semitic. He insults "sleepy eyes" (a nazi slur against Jews), and Soros and any Jew that he doesn't like.
He is Zionist. That's unrelated. In the US, the sides are often reversed, with the anti-semitic people claiming that anyone who is anti-zionist is anti-semitic, regardless of whether they are.
I think herd immunity is bullshit.
Do you believe in Smallpox?
Do you believe that there was ever a point in time where 100% of the planet was vaccinated? If you aren't sure, the answer is "no".
Smallpox is proof of herd immunity. Enough people were vaccinated that there were no vulnerable people to be infected, so the disease died off. That's the goal for all disease, but some people work extraordinarily to see that disease persist.
The only way to not believe in reality is to simply be delusional. That invalidates your opinion as well as most of your (incorrect) facts.
If a mob boss drugs Sal and decapitates him, then, with the body in the trunk, he drives to the construction site to bury the body in concrete next to Hoffa, if he (sober) is rear-ended by an octogenarian (also sober) who fell asleep and didn't stop for the light, the crash will be:
"Alcohol involved" as at least one person at the scene was impaired.
"Speed related" because if the old person were driving slower he might not have crashed.
"Following too closely" as if the old person left more space, he might have been able to react.
They will then use "alcohol, speed, and tailgating" to target safe drivers in other situations. The statistics are lies. MADD "won" in the '90s, then turned into a teetotaler group intent on prohibition.
Yeah, those damned Refugees. Oh wait, the Costa Rica outbreak was from French vacationers. So the travel of measles isn't the direction your racism points.
Most innocent people accused (arrested and incarcerated) of crime confess to a crime they didn't do. In part, because often it will result in a release from the inhumane conditions of jail/prison. Proving your innocence can take years. Falsely confessing takes 5 minutes.
PINs were popular long before chips. Your timeline is off, presumably to push your American First agenda.
The pins outside the US are also insulated. When I was in 8th grade, and bored. The teacher left the room, to go get papers or something. I pulled a penny out of my pocket and dropped it onto a plug I had pulled out just enough for a penny to drop in.
I didn't realize that the computer class next door was doing a test. I took out power for about half the school. The penny fused to one side, and arced to the other, welding it into place.
The UK and AU plugs don't allow for that. I don't have all the plug standards in front of me, but the US system is not as good as most.
Fiber is cheap. And it's everywhere. But it isn't as profitable. Most places are regulated. Spending $50 a month on copper to a house providing 10 Mbps lets them charge a cost to the customer that's regulated. If you get fiber in for $50 per month, you aren't allowed to charge more, even though the $50 copper is 10 Mbps and the $50 fiber is 1Gbps. So you lose money on the back end, paying for upstream bandwidth.
Countries like Australia that have done a NBN (National Broadband Network) have found the cost is roughly the same, but the traffic is higher. THat's one of the reasons the NBN has done so poorly. The regulators aren't technically savvy.
The rest of the world still does cheques. But they are all what in the US would be a "cashier's check". The US is the only country where you can sign a check, use it to buy something, then contest the check after it has cleared. The rest of the world, "clearance" is final. If you haven't reported your checkbook lost or stolen by that point, usually a few days, then it's too late. Because of that, the rest of the world won't honor US checks. I know. I've tried. Multiple countries out of the US.
I think the US government likes it that way. It forces more cash use, which is easier to track, with cash sniffing dogs and the like.
People in the US have gone to prison over tweets. That you refuse to notice them is your problem, not the UK's.
Nobody disagrees with voter ID laws.
The pro-democracy advocates simply want voter ID where everyone is given a voter-ID card at 18 for free, and is registered for life, and can update the card when they move, be eligible to vote if they have no address, and get a free replacement, if the card is lost or stolen.
The Poll Tax voter ID cards, where you have to have 2 forms of ID, a birth certificate, a home address and often other rules are not there to secure democracy, but to end it.
Would you be for or against a system where everyone was automatically registered to vote at age 18, and was provided an ID card on their 18th B-day that allowed them to vote on or after that day, and they were registered for life, with all requirements for the card being paid for by the government, not the voter?
That's the Voter ID democracies that believe in voters have.
They can also stabilize a terminal patient, and kick them out to die in the street. In fact, from the way statistics are kept, they are essentially paid to do so, so if you aren't paying, you get kicked out, if there's nothing they can do to save you.
So, not terminal, no need to treat. Terminal, no need to treat. They are not duty bound to treat people. That's a misconception they push, so that they aren't subject to actual laws to force fair behavior.
They have an obligation to treat you if you show up at emergency
Nope. This is a popular misconception.
They do voluntarily, to avoid the consequences if everyone knew that your assumption was a lie. But they have no obligation to do so. The (many) places that have been sued for discharging sick people who died shortly after have set, in law, that there is no duty of care, and no requirement to provide any medical care.
I had a car crash. The hospital literally picked my pocket, went through my wallet, and found my insurance card. Then they placed me in the "insured" service path. They billed my insurance company. I didn't have PIP on my car insurance, only liability, so I paid the bill sent to my insurance company, and got the "insured" discount. Never once did they ask if I was insured, because they "aren't allowed to", but they literally picked my pocket and filled out the forms themselves, because I was unable at the time.
Had I not had insurance, I'd have gotten worse care, and been billed more for it. That's the US system.
It's perfectly legal for them to turn you away. If a homeless guy needed the same surgery Sir Mick got, he'd be given pain meds, and kicked out. They absolutely do kick out sick people, who die within 24 hours. It happens all the time, and the lawsuits on it have settled that there is no duty of care in the US. The only country where the hippocratic oath is voided by law.
Yes voter id laws would help a lot.
Voter ID is used to abolish democracy, not improve it.
If you believed in democracy, you'd be advocating the right of prisoners to vote, while in prison. Yes, that happens in places that value democracy.
You'd be advocating automatic voter registration for life.
But no. You are advocating a system designed to reduce voter turnout, and re-institute the Poll Tax, that has been ruled illegal multiple times.
That's not "democracy". That's the opposite of "democracy".
The right of first sale is a right. And it should be defended.
Would the "right to bear arms" be a right if anyone who saw you armed was allowed to shoot you? Would it matter if the NRA encouraged all shop owners to shoot gun buyers?
That you think the free market should drive people to shops that don't kill them doesn't mean it's OK in the first place.
Anything that infringes on my right of first sale should have a valid reason behind it. Hopefully, one I agree with.
The War on Drugs was started by Republicans as a reaction to the Civil Rights Movement.
To suppress non-whites.
The War on Poverty started when the War on Drugs was an obvious failure.
To suppress non-whites.
Almost eveything the Boomers have done is racist, design to destroy the country, so long as it does more damage to non-whites than whites.
If the cop wasn't a homicidal maniac, he'd have waited. Cop training should be: "If you think you see a gun, and you'd be the target, take cover." Cops charge in to threats, expecting to see threats, then shoot anyone they see. That's been repeated thousands of times. The training is simply wrong.
Go to President Xi.
Surrender. Surrender to China for the Korean War. Agree to openly apologize for interfering in Asian affairs. Agree to demilitarize all of the Korean peninsula, leaving no American military behind. Agree to fund resettlement of North Koreans who enter China after DPRK ends.
Agree to a full pardon of Kim Jong-un. Kim is granted a non transferable governorship for life of Pyongyang. With a limited autonomy from Korea, but no border checkpoints or other constraints, and full accountability to Korean law for the region.
In exchange for the surrender, PRC will line up a few million troops on DPRK's northern border and deliver the terms to Kim Jong-un.
DPRK will have no choice but to accept. They have no defenses to the north. If they move their troops north, they'll be open to attack from the south.
DPRK is abolished. The border between north and south, abolished. Free movement. The residents of the north free to go south. Those in the south, free to go north.
The plan would work, but no American would ever be willing to ask China for help. So we'll get nuclear war first. Stupid Americans.
A filibuster doesn't kill it. A filibuster allows a close vote to be delayed, targeting times when the "other side" won't be present to vote. They have also been "eliminated" by provisions that eliminate the ability to call a vote on the end of a filibuster. In the old days, the Last Man Standing won. These days, a filibuster will end with a delay to allow voting members to return and vote. So the power has ended. But apparently it's used extensively to blame the minority for letting something bad pass.
The only power the Democrats have in the Senate is the power to delay. The Republicans have a majority. They can block 100% of what the democrats want, and will get through 99.9% of what they want. The power is with the Republicans.
The republicans have so much power, they voted to increase the vote to pass a budget to 60% (something they could do with their measly 50%), just to try to pass something evil and blame the Democrats when the Democrats didn't vote for the evil.
The only time they don't have power is when they are going out of their way to lose, so they can blame the Democrats.
Nope. The Republican Speaker of the House can kill any bill by refusing to put it to the vote. He did with the "don't fire Comey" bill. He could have done it with this. The leader of the Senate is also a Republican. The President is a Republican. Any one of those three people could have killed the bill. All three are Republican. The blame goes to the Republicans.
Passed the senate 92-2. The vote was "Vote no if you are you a child rapist'
The vote would have gone no other way. So it lands on the President to veto crap like that if it passes. Even with a "veto proof majority". Especially with a veto-proof majority.
The problem is politics, where everything is framed by the bullies. If you don't vote for it, you'll be vilified.