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.
A Very Brady Sequel.
That’s pretty much my thinking too. I mean, what’s the less biased alternative to get to the truth here? The law firm has an incentive to satisfy the people paying them, but they also have their own reputation to maintain.
So I guess I’d be inclined to skeptically believe their findings. Although, it would be better if the firm released their own summary (or endorsed this one).
That’s the case now, but not historically. The big 3 were making garbage cars until foreign companies expanded their US presence with domestic manufacturing. Widespread foreign makes built in the US is relatively recent.
What are you talking about? American made cars (majority of historical volume) were notoriously bad until recently. Hondas and Toyotas were the exception. Now the expectation is that every make/model makes it to 200k miles.
And rust was an issue because they used inferior paint on older vintages. I don’t see how blaming it on material deficiencies supports your point.
Due to cost or reliability improvements? Or both? Because cars are definitely operational a lot longer than they were 25-50 years ago.
It’s not scary at all from behind a keyboard.
Do you have any more information about illegal slavery until the 1980s? I’m not doubting it, I’ve just never heard that and would like to learn more.
Not sure if this is exactly what you’re looking for, but the opening scene to The Conversation uses a high-zoom shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwdpNw1FW8
Eye in the Sky also prominently features long-distance/high magnification shots from the perspective of a drone/UAV.
I agree with everything you’ve said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.
The fact that you’re trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you’re not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you’re trying to play gotcha.
Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.
My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.
Regardless, here’s how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants
If Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization then what would you call them?
I think you’re confusing me with other commentors. I haven’t suggested this research in particular is being actively used to support policy decisions. Nor have I suggested this research is advocating for policy.
In my initial comment I simply said policy in general (at least with gun control) shouldn’t be based on people’s feelings/anecdotes.
I think this study asked a very interesting question, and I find the results to be very interesting. I don’t really have any issues with this research by itself.
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.