placeholder

"In a news conference, Berger also described the situation faced by a single mother who didn’t make enough money to cover insurance for both her and her children, which he said meant that she would either end up in the emergency room or not get care. Expansion covers people who make too much money for conventional Medicaid but not enough to benefit from heavily subsidized private insurance. “We need coverage in North Carolina for the working poor,” Berger said at the time." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/north-carolina-approves-medicaid-expansion-reversing-long-opposition The 2 red states with the largest population, Texas and Florida have not adopted the Medicaid expansion but do believe in strongly protecting a foetus right up until it's born. After that, it's sink or swim. Unless, of course, it's the case that in those 2 states, there are no working poor.

More of the same. You've got nothing.

Let's all be grateful that the fossil fuel industries have taken it upon themselves without regard to Money, Control and Power to oppose the machinations of the Green Schemers..

Thanks for the info. They may not be making an issue of it because they plan to use those shells themselves. Or they may not be making an issue of it because the Russians haven't been using them. Now that I think about it in light of your comment, it's probably the latter since now that Russia has made an issue out of it, why wouldn't the Ukrainians expose its double standard?

Actually, for what my opinion is worth, I think it's a pretty weak case, too. It's not the kind of case that would ordinarily get prosecuted. The strongest case against Trump, by far, is the one based on unauthorized documents at Mar a Lago including an obstruction of justice charge or charges that look pretty indisputable.

Please prove "that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist." This is just more of your massively false wholesale villifications.. What do Connda's questions have do to with your assertion that "You will not be made to cower & comply to it. They will just make sure that everything they do not want hoi-polloi to have. like big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot will just become incredibly unaffordable. You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve." And of course it's disingenuous not to acknowledge that this question is based on a misinterpretation of the 15 minute city concept. As you may recall the the topic was named by Connda as: "Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?" And just by coincidence his 2nd questions cites the same 15 minutes? Both questions are pretty clueless, actually. Basically the second question could be characterized as "What if something meant what it doesn't mean?" Why even propose a baseless dystopian question? That belongs in the fiction forum if there is one. And how exactly would this policy reward the rich at the expense of the poor? Owning a car and paying for fuel is very expensive The less disposable income one has, the more of a burden they are.. If people with low incomes could walk or bicycle to do their shopping, they'd save a lot of money. And middle class folk could make do with one car instea of two. With less traffic congestion public transport would be far more reliable. How does this not benefit the poor? And until electric cars become predominant. there are major health benefits of autos not spewing pollution in neighborhoods. And by what process of reasoning did you come up with "You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve." And why would a 15 minute city make "big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot...incredibly unaffordable"? What's the economic or financial connection?.

On the other hand you did write this: "So do you think the governments are full of really smart people working hard to improve the lives of their constituents? Most of them only care about being reelected and staying on the gravy-train, and looked at how rich they seem to get as "public servants". " You have made it your M.O. to denigrate various groups by casting unprovable assertions on their motivations and/or character. I think the technical terms for such characterizations is "cheap shots".

On the other hand you did write this: "So do you think the governments are full of really smart people working hard to improve the lives of their constituents? Most of them only care about being reelected and staying on the gravy-train, and looked at how rich they seem to get as "public servants". " You have made it your M.O. to denigrate various groups by casting unprovable assertions on their motivations and/or character. I think the technical terms for such characterizations is "cheap shots".

What makes you believe that they aren't using it already?

I know that one modern complaint is that parents spoil children by setting a very low bar for success. But that's at least emotionally understandable. I don't think Connda needs to be coddled.

It's funny. One of the accusations that climate change denialists level at the climatological community is that they are being alarmist. Yet alarmists mangle the 15 minute city concept to draw the most hysterical dystopian conclusions on the basis that it redirects automobile traffic. No plan prohibits people driving cars for as long and as far as anyone wants to. None. And since when haven't the rich been privileged in cities? They can afford to rent on a monthly basis expensive parking spaces that most cannot afford. And casual parking in cities is very costly. Can the "hoi polloi' afford to park in those? Spare us your crocodile tears. On the other hand, the poorer you are the less likely you are to own a car. With less traffic congestion, public transit will provide much better service between districts. And emergency vehicles will be able to arrive at their destinations more quickly.

You know, sometimes reporters get unfairly blamed for the headlines of their article. But usually, they don't write the headlines. But in this aren't you the party who wrote this: "Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?" Are you claiming this was entirely irrelevant to the second question posed? That the 15 minutes in the second question was unrelated to the first If that's the case, you should fire yourself.

Also, Longwood's and the right wing version of Burisma has long been discredited. Joe Biden was sent to Ukraine at the instigation of the American Ambassador to Ukraine and at Obama's behest and with the full concurrence of the EU. One of his missions there was to strongly stipulate that the corrupt prosecutor, Viktor Shokin be fired. Biden had no role in instigating or ordering this. Shokin later claimed he was fired because he was conducting an investigation of Burisma and Biden was protecting his son. This is false. Shokin's staff confirmed this wasn't true. There was no such ongoing investigation. But the lie survives.

Apparently, you are so starved for entertainment that you need to get it from a politician.

But not so great for people who live in neighborhoods afflicted by it.

I don't see how you can equate a maximum of 15 minutes for any destination, which is the goal of the 15 minute city program, with consistent time of 15 minutes for any destination no matter how near or far. Given that your faulty understanding of the parameters would actually make trips longer then the average, it would actually make it sound worse than what is clearly means.

The only objectively confirmable evidence I have is that converting from centimeters to inches was a problem for you. Maybe next time you'll offer serious responses instead of lame wisecracks.

Actually, the problem would seem to be your incomplete mastery of arithmetic.

Utterly irrelevant comment. It's clear you're attempting to distract from the fact that "factual truth" means whatever you want it to mean. You've got nothing.

No. Just because the definition comes from the U.S. census bureau doesn't mean that areas the fit the definition don't exist elsewhere. This is like saying that if you're in a country that uses the metric systme it's impossible to measure in inches.

It's not true that Boris Johnson always lies. It's just that it's a complete matter of indifference to him if he does. Most people have at least some brakes on that kind of behavior.

So, what exactly do you mean by "factual truth"? In order to calibrate what you mean by "factual truth, here's a question for you: Is it a factual truth that Biden's victory of Trump was legimitate and the claims of major vote fraud that would have affected the outcome are false? I'm only asking this question to see what your standards are and if they are worth anything.

The point of my question was obvious. Traffic congestion is a huge problem in Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas?. Are you claiming that your alleged experience contradicts this?

Thanks for the correction. But the question posed by Connda remains a dishonest one. The 15 minute city concept does not limit people from driving as far and as long as they want to.

You mean, despite the widespread use of automobiles in Franklin's time, he couldn't have envisioned that outcome? I think there's something wrong with my question, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can you help?