bhmnscmm @ bhmnscmm @lemmy.world

Posts

111

Comments

510

Joined

2 yr. ago

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.

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.

I think if they introduce a rotating calendar Imola would be an ideal track to have in the rotation. The racing usually isn't great, but it's not the worst, and it would still keep an iconic circuit in F1. Seems like a good compromise.

Plus Senna being absolutely dominant year after year at Monaco.

I like to picture Jesus in a Tuxedo T-shirt, 'cause it says, 'I wanna be formal, but I'm here to party, too.'

You know, Jesus did grow up. You don't always have to call him baby. It's a bit odd and off putting to pray to a baby.

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.

The headline specifically states those two amendments are omitted because it is the most likely to cause outrage, not because it is the most accurate description of the situation. It's not incorrect. It's misleading.

My county courthouse has a mural of the original constitution and the bill of rights: are they making a political statement by omitting all the other amendments?

This headline is technically correct, but it's clearly meant to cause outrage. The headline "Trump's Bible only includes the bill of rights" isn't going to get as much attention.

Manufacturing outrage obfuscates Trump's actions that people should actually be outraged about.

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.