hfuyf65

Can defend why Obamacare marked government interference and , for example, not medicare?

I have zero idea how common that situation is though, but I know someone who structures their life around snap benefits ( or whatever they are called now ) and its kinda ridiculous, because her monthly benedit is on par with our family's grocery budget. I struggled not to report it as fraud ( the person in question is not poor; they are using - abusing?- the system ).

Couple#1

They are married for a good while with three kids. He is a cop in Chicago; she has semi-random kid watching gigs. While it did not happen, they did openly discuss strategic divorce to ease their financial situation.

Couple#2

She works corpo job. He works a cash only contracting job. They are married in every sense, but legally. Two kids. She would not marry for fear of losing existing benefits.

###

There are some benefits to being married, but the 'benefits of kids while not married' outweigh those. And you can't argue against those cuz then you are taking food away from the hungry.

I am too lazy to dig it up now, but youtube has multiple interviews that go over that stage of his life.

I just happen to think he forced a lot of people to think. This one of those things some of his contemporaries tried and failed to do ( not for the lack of trying, it is hard to care after certain point ).

It may help to think of it as a range.

1. initially safe,sanitized corporate friendly jokes 2. some commercial success 3. ? 4. jokes increasingly become a social commentary and are less and less 'friendly'

Either is possible, but I think you are wrong about Carlin being wrong. Language defines the quality of our conversations. If we can't be honest with it, some nuance will be lost.

Still, we now have Chapelle, who is building similiar legacy and potentially Bill Burr one day.

Absolute agreement on the philosopher/jester vibes.

It is possible adblockers officially became mainstream. Part of me ia happy about it. Part of me is concerned companies will respond in the worst possible way.

Picked an interview ar random. He is not charismatic, but he can talk like so many banking VPs talk ( almost no substance ). This may have helped him make people part with money.

Just to give you an idea, you could have easily undermined the argument that reaction to Snowden's revelation was a societal shrug.

At the end of the day, you can always choose not to play.

edit: I dont want to name the policy as it may identify the company. It was a particularly idiotic one though.

No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. There is a deep distrust in me for anyone who: 1) engages in that 2) argues that it is kosher.

< People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet.

Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through.

< Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health

I want to be with you, but I worry that you wouldn't really solve apps issue. Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? Online id check?

It is pretty clear that we are diametrically opposed on the subject. I am continuing this conversation, because I think it is an important one to have.

I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.

Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?