You really think bad people pay taxes? They’re the ones collecting them!

So what you’re saying is you’d rather have your money taken from you by force, as long as it’s lawful and you get to pretend you have a say in how it’s used…

If they donate money out of their own profits, they CAN write that off. Which of course is also money you gave them, except it’s money you gave them in order to buy their products, not for the purpose of having them donate it.

Apply the same rule to people and everyone loses their minds…

Sou desune?

Perhaps it’s time to liberate Greenland after all?

On a forum that values user’s contributions based on number of votes and allows moderators to unilaterally censor opinions they disagree with?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Your occasional reminder that bird law is not governed by reason

I mean, technically, even the use of tomatoes or potatoes is Native American influence. Except those have become so ubiquitous in European cuisine that no one would even consider for a moment that they were completely unknown there just 500 years ago. Imagine Italian food without tomatoes, or German food without potatoes…

Corn as well, though that didn’t catch on quite as much on the continent, where it’s still mostly a boring vegetable, while Americans use it to bake as well (not to mention putting it into literally everything ever since they figured out HFCS).

Most of what constitutes “traditional” American cuisine is broadly based on European traditions, with British, French, Italian, and German influences being the most dominant. Though many of the recipes have changed and evolved over time, you can still see the influences pretty clearly.

Take the classic Thanksgiving dinner, for instance: although many of the ingredients (such as sweet potatoes and turkey) were unknown in Europe, the way they are prepared is still very similar to how Europeans prepare traditional holiday roasts.

Also, a “proper” meal generally consists of a chunk of meat, veggies, and carbs, usually all prepared separately, or sometimes as a casserole or a stew. Stir-frying is not that common, for instance, but frying, roasting and baking is. If you look into the history of any particular American dish, its roots can often be traced back to the exact wave of immigration that went on to popularize it.

Depending on the region, however, you may also find Native American influences, such as Creole, Cajun, Tex-Mex, etc.

He’s literally on video banging underage hookers in China but okay

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense. You get more of what you measure, so if you measure diversity, you get more diversity. Any increase in quality will at best be accidental. In fact, it might very well get worse due cultural differences creating additional friction.

What do you think people should do about things like, hiring unqualified white people over qualified black people, for example?

Simply hire the best qualified candidate, regardless of skin color. No DEI needed.

You’re free to believe that, but that’s not what actually happens IRL. How it really works is that someone will look at the race and gender makeup of the team and if there aren’t enough women or POC, they’ll focus hiring a black lesbian, or a transgender Asian, or whatever else they can find, even if their qualifications don’t quite hit the mark.

The point of DEI is to increase “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, it’s literally right there in the name. Do you see competence, excellence, or qualification in there anywhere? Me neither. And that’s because that isn’t what DEI is about.

So you’re saying hiring based on race instead of qualification isn’t a problem?

Risky click of the day

Sounds like Flappy Wings except with explosive diarrhea

Sure, and apples can be oranges if they just grow thick, fleshy skin.

Unfortunately those middlemen are bribing the politicians against change.

Well, again, how is a single payer system going to solve that? As long as there’s a government, it can be bribed, and if it’s not the insurance middleman doing it, it will be somebody else. If anything, giving people a single point of access to bribery will make it easier to do so, not harder. The more you centralize power, the easier it is to corrupt.

Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean a single payer system would solve all of the problems. First of all, that’s still a form of insurance, because it cannot be sustained if it simply pays out each and every claim — after all, the money has to come from somewhere. There HAVE to be people who pay in more than they get out, otherwise the system will simply go bankrupt.

Also, even in a single payer system, healthcare is still a limited resource (because there are only so many providers, i.e. doctors and hospitals, etc.), so rationing has to take place or people will simply abuse the system. In most cases, this means long waitlists to see specialists and/or qualify for expensive treatments. Just ask Brits or Canadians how long they have to wait for such things, and consider whether you’d be willing to risk not getting a lifesaving procedure done in time. It’s not unheard of for Canadians to simply go to the US if the wait is too long, because there they can pay out of pocket and get it done quickly instead of risking their condition getting worse (or Americans going to Mexico to get it done cheaper).

Sadly, this is a much more complicated issue than you seem to think, and I’m afraid such kneejerk approaches aren’t going to help solve it.

Thanks, appreciate the link. However, it does not corroborate the theory that health insurance companies alone are responsible for that difference. From the article:

There are many possible factors for why healthcare prices in the United States are higher than other countries, ranging from the consolidation of hospitals — leading to a lack of competition — to the inefficiencies and administrative waste that derive from the complexity of the U.S. healthcare system. In fact, the United States spends over $1,000 per person on administrative costs — approximately five times more than the average of other wealthy countries.

So while the administrative overhead definitely IS very high compared to other countries, it doesn’t even account for more than 10% of the total healthcare expenditure — meaning eliminating insurance companies wouldn’t just magically make healthcare 50% cheaper for everyone.