True, but they can’t win this, so either have to damage themselves over and over again, or grow up and be leaders of their constituents, which means explaining a little bit to them reality instead of blindly being pushed around by ignorant sheep
A few years ago i was traveling with other European people in South America, and found one couple from my city near Machu Picchu, we started speaking and the lady said they spend something like 3k for 15 days in Peru, all included, i made about 30 days with a female friend and it cost us about 1k and we did made across Peru
Headline makes it sound like it’s done, this is just a temp budget:
Republicans now have 45 days to pass longer-term budget measures to operate the government for the 2024 year. Those budgets have already hit their own set of roadblocks in the House, and are destined to run up against a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House that will likely demand changes.
He may be referring to the upcoming Virginia elections on November 7th. The polls favor the GOP, and a shutdown would have angered Democrats to slaughter the GOP. This CR avoids a doomsday scenario for the Governor’s party.
The headline made it sound like the Republicans avoided it; that’s all. You know most Republicans don’t read anything more than a headline. :) I’m mostly frustrated with that is all. The context almost always leans differently.
Republicans avoid shutdown by cutting deal with Democrats over their own party’s hardliners
Any Republican who reads that, what do you think they read? I know what I think, and, unfortunately, as an observer of those people’s reactions, I’m positive that’s how they’ll read it.
Not my take away from the headline at all. Makes the GOP sound like they don’t have their shit together so McCarthy had to go hat in hand to the Dems seeking actual adults capable of governing.
To be fair, while most of the GOP might have their shit together, they have a crazy faction blocking them
In a way, it might just be possible that this marks a realization that they will have better results working in a bipartisan manner than trying to appease the nutjobs.
How in the world can you say most of the GOP has their shit together when all they’ve done is support Trump? Block anything Democrat backed? I don’t understand where you’re coming from at all.
Have their shit together meaning they can actually function as a coherent group to achieve actually getting something done, whether I agree with them or not. When you toss the “Freedom Caucus” into the fray and if you refuse to work at all with democrats, then the party “does not have their shit together” insofar as they can’t pass anything. To try to pick their own speaker they utterly struggled.
Here they wanted the government to keep functioning by and large, but a small contingent just wants to burn everything down. The fact that the larger population of GOP were willing to work with Democrats rather than try to appease the nutjob wing is evidence that they “have their shit together” enough to actually get something passed they wanted to get passed.
Yeah I mean of course they’re gonna deny it, but who is running the great firewall and makes certain phrases illegal and has a passionate hatred of Winnie the Pooh? I’m gonna say the one doing all that is the one doing all the lying and image smoothing.
Just another reminder how stupid American laws on weapons are. In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place. It would have ended in a fight or in the shooter suing the prankster and getting a lot of money while the prankster would be told by court to stop this stupid pranks.
I don’t. The string at the end of my comments is a digital signature which serves as a means to verify that I was the one that posted it, and that it wasn’t modified by an admin, or any other external entity.
For more in depth information, I’ll refer you to this Wikipedia article on digital signatures. But, the long and short of it is that I distribute a public key which would be used alongside that signature to verify if that signature was generated by my private key for the content that is contained in the given post.
In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.
You take your robbery and beating, stabbing or slashing, accept the Belfast smile when they decide to give you one, and hope they stop while you’re still able to survive.
I have no macho fantasies. More randos could beat me to death with their hands than the ones who cannot. You may have a bit of martial arts training and fantasies of obliterating some muggers with your hands but I have no such illusions. I’ve been the victim of crimes like this and consider myself lucky as I was utterly helpless at the time and survived. So fuck off with that “just run away or fight” nonsense you believe from watching too many movies where good guys always take damage differently from bad guys.
Read what? You said I’m buried in macho fantasies.
My owning guns has no bearing on domestic violence happening in a different household.
You know yourself and know you are the kind of person who might use a gun on your own family. I know myself and have no such violent tendencies. The broader statistics may be relevant to the question of whether you disarm everyone wholesale, but are irrelevant to one individual’s personal decision whether or not they will defend their own lives given existing legal constraints.
Only question is: what is your plan for when 3 dudes surround you and the first one who is much larger than you makes every signal that he’s about to dominate you?
You clearly grew up more privileged than me, and lived a more sheltered experience, if you truly don’t know that criminals work in groups.
Bored teens with no futures do exceptionally dumb shit, like attack people for fun. They pick the weakest person they see, and in NYC every year there are at least one or two stories where the attacks turn into homicides.
Mate my brother was a drug dealer, half my friends growing up were in gangs, and at no point did I wish I had a gun or any other weapon except in sad moments as a power fantasy.
In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.
I don’t know if you mean that one would lack the means, or that they are simply prohibited by law to defend themself, but, in either case, it is false in that there do exist countries in which one can defend themself, or defend themself and carry the means to defend themeself. For example, let’s look at Canada (do not interpret this as legal advice):
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
So we can see that one is allowed to defend themself. Things do get a little more trick when we are talking about the means to defend oneself. Canada’s criminal code defines a “weapon”, as follows:
weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
However, there are some loopholes in this. As long as one states that they are not carrying an item with the purpose of causing harm to another, and that such reasoning could be reasonably justified, given the context, one could, for example, carry a knife. Carrying a firearm, however, is significantly more complicated, and difficult.
My brother had a gun pulled on him while delivering a pizza. I don’t blame delivery people for arming themselves with the unfamiliar situations they have to put themselves in regularly. So long as the strangers they interact with may be armed it’s just an arms race.
Also, in this specific situation where someone comes up behind you and gets in your face something like a knife would be just as deadly.
No, the opposite really. If you are delivering things alone to strangers, it makes sense to arm yourself. You are putting yourself in vulnerable position frequently and can’t expect others to be unarmed. Otherwise you’d be the loser in the prisoner’s dilemma a society of guns creates. Things might be different if guns weren’t widespread, but that genie’s out of the bottle.
I don’t own a gun, but I might if I didn’t feel safe in my day-to-day life.
Hm, I’m not sure how practical this is. If one must defend themself, would it not be best to always be sure that one has the absolute best means of successfully doing so? I would argue that carrying a firearm increases these odds far more than carrying pepper spray.
I take issue with some of the wording that you use.
it’s best to just kill the shit out of anyone
An argument could be made for reasonable, and proportional response given the context involved; however, do note that when one is trained for the use of a firearm in self-defence, they aren’t trained to make a killing shot, they are, instead, trained to shoot for center mass to ensure the highest chance of striking their target.
anyone you think might be a threat
There should be no “might” involved. You act when you are certain that there is an immediate threat.
I don’t understand your point. Are stating that if the victim didn’t have a gun – meaning that the shooting didn’t happen – then the perpetrator wouldn’t be continuing this behaviour?
Yeah. I mean, this happened in a mall? With hundreds of people around? It seems like the best outcome would be: person having their personal space invaded tells the “perp” to stop it. Files lawsuit, judge orders to cease their invasive harassment against other people.
The whole being shot just shows how quick to violence and homicide Americans are. It’s like, the solution to everything these days. Dealing with people the past few years in public is pretty dicey, just asking someone not to cut in front of you at the checkout line could potentially lead to a mass shooting these days.
It seems like the best outcome would be: person having their personal space invaded tells the “perp” to stop it.
The best outcome, sure, but not a guaranteed outcome.
judge orders to cease their invasive harassment against other people.
That’s not really how the law works. If It is already illegal to harass people, then the court order would essentially be along the lines of “I order you to stop doing illegal things!”.
The whole being shot just shows how quick to violence and homicide Americans are. It’s like, the solution to everything these days. Dealing with people the past few years in public is pretty dicey, just asking someone not to cut in front of you at the checkout line could potentially lead to a mass shooting these days.
It isn’t entirely fair to group unprovoked violence with self-defence. There is an argument that could be made for proportional response in defence, but this is a separate issue.
In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn’t have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn’t be able to use a gun in self-defence.
It would have ended in a fight or in the shooter suing the prankster and getting a lot of money while the prankster would be told by court to stop this stupid pranks.
You state “ended in a fight” as if that implies that the total damage imparted on both parties would be less overall. You completely miss the fact that physical violence can quite easily end fatally.
At any rate, wouldn’t a victim defending themself successfully, efficiently, and likely without bodily harm to themself be preferential to the possibility of a violent and bloody physical beating with odds likely not in the victim’s favor?
In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn’t have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn’t be able to use a gun in self-defence.
It’s really sad, but Argentina has no masters plan as a nation. It’s constantly trying last ditch efforts to right itself in any way, but mostly failing. There’s no social cohesion, no shared interests, it’s a goddam jungle. It’s a miracle that it stays together and not breaking into pieces. It’s a pity. So much potential (geographical and human) wasted.
How the fuck are all those drugs getting in short supply? It’s not just ADHD drugs but also drugs for Diabetics, Cancer and other diseases. What is going on?
Dr Andrew Hill, a senior visiting research fellow in the department of pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Liverpool, said the problem lay in how medicines were sourced.
I am not from the UK but we in Germany have pretty much the same problems. Are those suppliers from India//China keeping „the West“ in short supply on purpose?
Yep. We had a severe shortage in the states earlier this year. It’s because the DEA, who (shocker) are law enforcement people, not clinicians or chemists or psychiatrists or pharmacologists, make the rules and regulations about what drugs are restricted in what fashion. What they do with methylphenidate is give manufacturers a quota that they’re allowed to produce each year, and when there’s not enough, sucks to suck.
So glad my taxpayer dollars are going to fight the war on drugs that we conclusively lost decades ago when instead they should be helping address literally anything else… /s
For real - that’s an agency that needs to be disbanded. At least, whoever decided that they should be put in charge of MAKING regulations was a complete fucking idiot.
Let the FDA who has, you know, actual scientists working for them, make the regulations. Hell, the FDA should be given unilateral authority to revise our drug schedules (as in “marijuana is no longer schedule 1”) as they see fit.
The DEA shouldn’t exist, and they definitely shouldn’t be making any decisions that have clinical impact on anyone whatsoever.
I feel that. It’s a crapshoot if I can get my kid’s meds each month at the pharmacy. Haven’t been able to get the generic for months, and we’re paying $50/month (with insurance) for the name brand. He truly needs his meds every day, but I’m just giving it to him on school days because of this crappy limbo of “will they or won’t they” every month. AND it’s not like we can get a 90 day supply. Oh nooooooo… it’s a controlled substance so a new script every 30 days.
gets off soapbox
I know I’m preaching to the choir by sharing this, but it’s becoming a worldwide issue that’s so frustrating for so many.
Entire manufacturing processes and pipelines work on a just in time system. When perfectly efficient, money is saved in storage of inputs and outputs. This add to the margin of product considerably. This lead to the approach being adopted in many industries.
However, one little bump in the road and the effect travels across all the process like a tidal wave. Effecting every business involved that uses a just in time system.
This is the downside of this type of approach. A complete lack of robustness in the manufacture and supply of goods.
Not only does it lack robustness. These systems are so tight that the faults that occur. Will can continually keep reoccurring unless extra capacity is built.
Why don’t they resolve these issues with extra capacity. Extra capacity costs a lot. It is also extra, unnecessary capacity once the immediate problem is resolved. This hurts the margin on the products being produced. So businesses are unwilling to increase capacity to resolve the issue, unless that capacity can will create more demand. Demand that would fully utilise the extra capacity.
So the capacity is only installed if it will eventually be saturated. With saturated demand, the system is at that critical point of maximum profit margin and minimum robustness. All it takes is another little bump in the road and the whole problem loops back around again.
Possible solutions:
Regulation. Governments could mandate that the capacity to produce medication must exceed demand so this doesn’t happen. In countries with nationalised health systems this can be achieved through normal medicine procurement. The health service only uses a supplier if it can meet demands.
Stock pilling. This costs the government money and puts the supply risk on the government. It also causes the businesses producing medication risks. Because the government can uses it’s stockpile to extort them through market control. This also causes diplomatic issues as many medications are globally produced.
Increased competition. All medications that are recommended for prescription should have an alternative, preferably multiple. This discourages such tight supply chains. As any downtime would lead to a loss in market share.
I mean, it’s the cornerstone of the private healthcare system here. So much so that ER docs are actually suing private equity firms for practicing medicine without a license.
Absolutely fucking brilliant. Not only is the waiting list for diagnosis four bloody years long, you won’t get any treatment at the other end of it. Just shoot me, dangling the carrot of help with no ability to provide it is worse than not offering it at all
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.