Could you expand on why this makes such a big difference? I’m not very knowledgeable in this area. Is medical debt treated differently than other debts by lenders?
My first thought was that medical debt, like any other debt, has financial obligations that lenders would have to know about to determine the amount of credit a person is eligible for. Wouldn’t medical debt payments impact the amount of additional debt you can afford?
I get that the law is the law, and the jury has to rule as such (barring nullification), but this is such a stupid law.
None of our other constitutional rights are contingent on not using controlled substances.
I think your last paragraph is pretty much the goal. It makes sense to me. Just don’t post partisan articles from partisan sources.
My comment and this thread has nothing to do with rightly or wrongly voting for anyone. Nor does it have anything to do with how anyone should justify their vote.
I only reinforced the claim that anyone with a “D” next to their name is “fine enough” for progressives to vote for. A claim that you initially disagreed with, but are now proving to be true.
Actions speak louder than words. Who do these progressives keep voting for?
Time will tell if those people will still vote for Biden or if their hatred will be reflected in how they vote.
If I remember correctly the IMDB average is closer to 7.
I strongly disagree. If we don’t nationalize IMDB then how can we possibly have any trust in the integrity and honesty of movie reviews?
Everyone should be entitled to have access to accurate movie ratings.
I’m trying to understand your argument against the article and what point you’re trying to make by using their chart.
I don’t get the point you’re trying to make with your graph. Obviously there wouldn’t be many Zoomers working full time; most are still in school.
Zoomers born after 2006 haven’t graduated high-school, and those born between 2002-2006 are in college. That’s leaves only a 5 year window of people you’d expect to be employed full time.
The line for millenials looks about the same as Zoomers.
I hear ya, there’s definitely nuance. There are certainly crazy people that supported this for crazy reasons, and there are rational people who supported this for rational reasons. I’m not trying to dismiss the whole thing as a crazy conspiracy theory.
Gotcha, that comment makes more sense now.
I suppose I was being a bit cynical. However, I think many people supported the bill to ban “Chem trails,” and were ignorant to actual weather manipulation techniques it was prohibiting.
Bottom line is that this bill is a good thing. It doesn’t really matter what reasons people had for supporting it.
Just because people/corporations can use those legitimate weather manipulation tools, should they be allowed to?
I don’t think they should. That’s why I’m saying this bill seems like an unintentionally good thing.
I’m confused by your comment. I think we agree there should be regulation on the manipulation you described?
The bill forbids “intentional injection, release, or dispersion” of chemicals into the air.
Instead it broadly prohibits “affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight”.
This bill is obviously based in ignorance, but from an envirinmental/pollution standpoint this seems like a good thing. It’s not their intention, but it sounds like it would protect the atmosphere from potential real polluters.
Edit: based in ignorance in the sense that some people supported the bill to ban “chem trails” (an ignorant position). Not in the sense that weather manipulation isn’t real.
I think 2001 is the best example of the unique characteristics of movies/film as an artform. Other movies may have better acting and stories, but in my opinion nothing beats the visual and auditory experience of 2001.
Yeah this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Bears (brown, not so much black) and wolves don’t see people as prey? Wrong. Humans just cross paths with them less frequently.
Humans may not be the prey of choice for bears and wolves. But that’s the case for mountain lions too.
Does it matter if Russia rightly or wrongly thinks countries are being coerced into NATO? If Russia were convinced and genuinely believed countries are willingly joining NATO it wouldn’t change anything.
The issue is that they believe NATO is their antithesis, and that NATO coming closer is an existential threat. The how or why of countries joining NATO is irrelevant to that mindset.
Pair this with some grilled ice and you’ve got a pretty good meal going.
This reminds me of the Georgian Svan towers. These towers were also used as defensive fortification for families.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining. I’ve been fortunate enough to avoid major medical expenses or debt, so I hadn’t thought of the situation you’ve described.