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).
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.
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.
Shit stirring on the internet? Preposterous!
Personally I don’t think it’s too far either–I’d agree with you. I just meant I understand how someone might think “embarrassing” the kid infront of a stranger may be too far
Please don’t tease. His parents never teased him growing up, so he finds it very disrespectful.
People are taking this way too literally. It’s just a goofy meme that’s expressing a general sentiment.
I could see how sending a kid to the store might be a bit too far, but aside from that it’s just harmless teasing. Nothing more than a mild practical joke.
Kids can handle jokes. It’s important to learn to laugh at yourself and not take everything seriously. Otherwise you just end up being boring and stuck up.
9 of the teams reaching a different conclusion is a pretty large group. Nearly a third of the teams, using what I assume are legitimate methods, disagree with the findings of the other 20 teams.
Sure, not all teams disagree, but a lot do. So the issue is whether or not the current research paradigm correctly answers “subjective” questions such as these.
I’m in complete agreement with you.
I just wanted to bring up a big cultural difference I’ve seen in my area that people seem to be unaware of.
I’m not justifying it. I don’t think it’s justifiable. I just wanted to bring up how common this behavior is in some rural areas.
Just to reiterate, I’m not saying it’s right. There are absolutely better ways of addressing these issues.
But I don’t know what to tell you–I don’t live far from SD and I have personally spoken to multiple people (face to face) that have done exactly what Kristi Noem described.
Not saying her actions are right, but I live in a rural area and people personally shooting their own dogs and other animals that are deemed a danger is pretty common. People often do it when the animals need to be euthanized for health reasons too.
I personally know lots of people who do this. I have plenty of family members who have done it.
Again, I don’t think her actions were appropriate. I just want to point out how commonplace shooting ones own animals is (in some places) since a lot of people here seem totally unaware.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s where the money should come from too. I just meant where else is the money going to come from in the current US healthcare system.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a country where that’s the case right now. I think it is still a very good thing to donate blood, despite having for-profit/privatized healthcare.
Fair enough. If that’s the philosophy you want to live by, then who am I to say otherwise.
Personally, I’d rather help people the best I can in the world I live in.
But where does the money come from? It sucks that in the US it has to come from the patient, but that’s the world we live in right now. I think it’s worth doing all the good you can with the tools available at the moment. Even if it’s not perfect.
I’m just assuming you’re in the US. Sorry if that’s not the case and your country has a different situation.
That’s a terrible reason. You would rather a patient in need not have blood available than be charged for it?
There is definitely price gouging in blood. But it also requires testing, transportation, and storage before it can be used. The money for all that has to come from somewhere (unfortunately in the US it’s usually the patient).
A Very Brady Sequel.