unicorn

Note: Just a Joke! 😄

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests "...On March 23, 2022, Russia’s parliament adopted amendments effectively expanding the ban on criticizing the armed forces to banning criticism of all Russian government actions abroad... Russia has enacted two laws, adopted and brought into force on March 4, that criminalize independent war reporting and protesting the war, with penalties of up to 15 years in prison..." We're all wondering what will happen to Putin's opponent in the election. Will it be poisoning? Prison with hard labor? Simply taken off the ballot? Defenestration? Shot to death in front of the Kremlin? Plane blowing up?

A free society should allow the viewing of all opinions, if they're genuine opinions, no matter how distasteful. However, false statements of fact, such as vaccines containing microchips, or ivermectin or bleach to treat Covid, and so on, should not be allowed. It's OK to express one's opinion, but not to spread lies.

Your first sentence is a nonsensical oxymoron. Either they can't work because they're lazy OR because they're unemployable. It doesn't look as if you bothered to read the explanation I wrote. As I've told you twice before, Unemployment benefits generally last 1 year, not 6 months (maybe this string should be titled "Dementia Old Daddy"?). And, as was just explained to you, if a judge determines someone is unemployable, he will receive a fairly generous income. If the unemployed person simply choses not to work (laziness), he generally will not be paid. If there are children, he may receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (temporarily, as the name implies), but the recipients must look for work. I would certainly not want to encourage continued payments for lazy people who simply choose not to work. One year is certainly ample time to find a job.

Oh, I forgot to add that Medicaid is administered by states, but mainly funded through federal tax dollars. Medicare is all federal.

The free medical care system in the US, called Medicaid (or, in California, Medi-Cal) is available to those who are genuinely poor, and legally in this country (other than tourists, of course). Eligibility depends on how poor you are, not on whether or not you have a job. I retired early, so have no job, but I do not qualify due to my wealth and pension income. One does have to apply for Medicaid, but there are plenty of resources for those indigent people who are too dysfunctional to apply. For example, there are social workers who scour homeless encampments to make sure all of those people are enrolled (and many outpatient clinics serving the poor also have such social workers). Worst case scenario--someone goes into a hospital who never bothered to apply for his free Medicaid--the hospital's social worker will assist the patient in completing the forms (done online), and if eligible the hospital stay will be retroactively covered. Medicaid pays close to nothing to most physicians and hospitals, but pays rather generously to public hospitals and outpatient clinics who serve the poor. However, if the patient cannot be safely transported to a public hospital, the private hospital must provide any needed care and absorb the cost (cannot bill the patient). For example, women in labor or someone with appendicitis cannot be transferred. Any hospital violating this law gets severely fined (this might happen, for example, if the ER sends a woman home, telling her she's in false labor, but it turns out she's really in labor). The only illegal aliens who are entitled to Medicaid are pregnant women (since, presumably, when she gives birth her child will be an American citizen, and it's not wise policy to allow pregnancy complications just to "punish" the pregnant woman). Medicaid is available to asylees or refugees (or those whose cases have been presented and have not yet been adjudicated), but these people also get work permits, so they usually get insurance through work. Also, there are quite a few "free clinics," supported by both government grants and charitable donations, which provide outpatient care to illegal aliens (or tourists who didn't buy health insurance), hopefully to treat diabetes, hypertension, and so on, with the goal of reducing the need to hospitalize such people (private hospitals often donate to these free clinics, and pharmaceutical companies might donate meds). I did work at one of these clinics one evening a week, without compensation. The U.S. has full employment, so anyone who's able to work can find a job. In the case in which people are truly unable to work, they can go to a disability lawyer and present their cases to a judge who can declare them disabled. When such a judge declares someone disabled, the disabled's paid a generous monthly stipend from the Social Security Administration (the disability lawyer gets paid from a portion of these proceeds), and he's also entitled to Medicare, which, unlike Medicaid, pays a reasonable amount to any physician and hospital. Unlike Medicaid, the vast majority of physicians and hospitals accept Medicare. While, in theory, judges should only declare someone disabled if they're truly unable to do any work, in practice disability lawyers often work with lenient or easily duped judges, and many of those receiving social security disability aren't really that disabled, and might even work under the table in addition to receiving the social security disability benefits. (If discovered, those caught will have to pay back the money, and might go to prison) Those who get fired from work and are temporarily out of work get paid through Unemployment Insurance benefits, not social security. This will generally pay out up to about a year. This covers jobs which are legal--or at least with reported income. An escort who does not report his income (as required by law) will not be covered (though, if he's able to hide his income, he will qualify for Medicaid). Most successful escorts report at least some of their income, and buy their own insurance (perhaps subsidized), and are therefore eligible for benefits such as Medicare should they become disabled or reach retirement age. In the US, full retirement age is 67. One can collect social security retirement income starting at age 60, if one wishes, but this will doom one to a very low monthly income for life, as one cannot go back on the decision to collect early. Also, if one waits until at least FRA to collect, one's spouse can collect upon one's death. For example, if I start getting SS before I turn 67, my husband won't collect, but if I wait he will (and he's a lot younger than I am). My best friend had a domestic partner who was a truck driver and big boozer who decided to start collecting SS at the age of 60. At such an early age, the benefit was tiny (about $1200 a month), but enough to pay for the groceries. That domestic partner ended up dying before his 67th birthday (of alcohol-related issues), so collecting early was a good decision for him. Medicare also covers anyone 65 or over, working or not. Of note, the Social Security Act was passed under FD Roosevelt under the New Deal. Republicans opposed it.

That link is under a paywall. 😟

Any of you bothered by some movies being snubbed by the Motion Picture Academy this year? What's up with no nominations for Saltburn? How about Rosamund Pike for Best Actress in a Supporting Role, or Cinematography or Production Design? Or even best Actor in a Leading Role for Barry Keoghan?

Almost all of your talking points would support Democrats, not Republicans. All legislation to improve working conditions have come from democrats, who are the ones, for example, to promote family leave. Minimum wages are lowest in states run by Republicans, and higher in the states by Democrats: The only talking point you've mentioned in which Republicans might do better would be in illegal immigration, though illegal border crossings definitely went up under Trump as well, and he failed to build most of the wall which he said he was going to build. Trump supporters still believe Trump's delusion that Mexico would pay for the wall. The situation is not quite as dire as some might lead one to believe, if one looks at the overall picture (not just illegal border crossings): Many illegals simply overstay their visa. Most of them do work and support the US economy. Biden could do a better job of discouraging illegal crossings, although under no circumstances could I support Trump's policy of separating young children from their parents. Who would do that? That being said, I do believe that if the Republicans in the House have a good plan to address illegal border crossings (I haven't heard of any yet), then Biden would be wise to listen, and at least compromise. Free health care exists only in a few oil-rich countries. The question is how to pay for it (insurance premiums or taxes, in which case which taxes?).

I'm not sure why you feel the need to chime in on subjects in which you're completely ignorant. Almost all of your statements are the opposite of the truth. First of all, Americans are essentially all covered by unemployment insurance. It usually pays for about a year, sometimes longer. Secondly, while it used to be the case that losing a job could cause you to lose your health insurance and lead a person to poverty, this changed during the time both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, who passed the Affordable Care Act, which was signed by Obama (and opposed by Republicans). Due to the ACA, those with low income get cost-free health insurance. Those with somewhat low to moderate incomes get their health insurance coverage subsidized by the government. Health insurance companies can no longer deny coverage or raise rates due to pre-existing conditions, as was the case when Republicans were in control. It's now illegal in the US not to have health insurance. At income tax time, any person who's refused to buy health insurance will simply be fined an equal amount to what he would have paid for basic health care coverage (what's called here bronze coverage). A form from the insurance company must be filed with one's income tax. Absolutely opposite to what you suggest, Trump and the Republican platform have actually called for the repeal of the ACA. Also, Trump promised to stop the war in Afghanistan but failed to do so. It was Biden who got the US out (admittedly, rather awkwardly). Again, the opposite of what you suggest. Your statement regarding "crime rate thru the roof" (sic) is also the opposite of the truth. Crime rates overall have been falling, certainly not rising, much less "thru the roof" as you claimed: As Abraham Lincoln is quoted:

I'm glad to hear that. I wonder who responds positively then. The vagina discussion related to another poster's response, which you can find in this string: "Why is your mom's vagina so large? My friends and I have been in there at the same time." This prompts cursing and apoplectic insults that I parry like a standup comedian with a heckler.

I personally don't mind mailings (just bad for trees). Phone calls I find very disruptive. Most mailings I just toss.

Well, at least you're grounded enough to include the word "seemingly"... 😉

Wow. I don't give them my phone number, but I do all of my donations by credit card (phone number not needed for credit card transactions). Paying whatever I can by credit card is important for me to maintain elite status with hotel chains and my airline. The only things I pay for by check are my bills from my landscaper and pool guy. Occasional Zelle for people such as the housecleaner and dog-sitter.

Yikes. More very bad news for Alaska Airlines and Southwest Airlines, most of whose fleet consists of various 737's. The US's other main airlines, American, Delta, and United, have a far more diversified fleet.

Oops. What I meant to say was that I will occasionally donate to an organization which is not assessed 4*, but is assessed as 3*, if they are doing something I strongly support, and no one else is doing...

I would avoid donating to a cause based on a phone solicitation for a number of reasons, some related to personal benefit, the other to being a "good citizen." (1) Even if someone calls you claiming to be from a charity you've known, researched (i.e. you've determined they're rated 4 stars on Charity Navigator or whatever other criterion you use), and aligns with your principles, you still can't be sure they are who they say they are. Giving someone you didn't seek out your credit card information might lead to serious hanky-panky. (2) If you donate based on telephone solicitations, your telephone number will be sold to others as "someone who sometimes will send money based on a telephone solicitation." Therefore, even if you don't give your credit card information to the caller and just tell him "That sounds great. I'll go online and send your organization some money!", you will end up being bombarded by this and other organizations due to the possibility of being successful. In fact, variable ratio (VR) reinforcement is the most powerful form of reinforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_reinforcement_schedules The addictive nature of variable reinforcement is why gambling addiction can be so powerful Finally, (3) By a similar logic, donating based on telephone solicitation encourages the behavior to continue to annoy other people, most of whom don't like cold calls at random times. So even if you personally don't mind random solicitation calls, a positive response encourages behavior which annoys the majority of people who do mind such calls. When I'm ready to donate money, my approach is to look up my usual charities on charitynavigator.org to make sure they're still rated 4*, then go to the organization's website to donate. One of my favorite charities, International Rescue Committee went down to 3* in 2021/2022, primarily due to inefficiency in use of donations. I did call them to ask them if they were aware of the drop and why it occurred. Their response was that they decided not to let go of staff during the pandemic, so I was OK with that. I've noticed that, in fact, they've gone back up to 4*. I will occasionally donate to an organization which is not assessed or ranked 3* if they are doing something I strongly support, and no one else is doing, such as the Rainbow Railroad, which helps get members of the LGBT community out of hostile countries such as Uganda and Iran. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/135660870 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474896980

Nothing wrong with allowing stupid people on board. Everyone should be entitled to his own opinion, when the matter is truly one of opinion. However, I would put my foot down if someone promotes completely factually inaccurate statements (such as "the election was stolen," which has been 100% disproven). Allowing factually inaccurate information to spread constitutes a threat to a free society. A statement such as "Trump's a great guy," while ridiculous, is a matter of opinion. A statement such as "Trump won the election in 2020" is both factually wrong and dangerous.

The suggestion that the US's visa policy is even partially based on bigotry is factually incorrect and stupid, as I suspect you're well aware (either that or you're quite ignorant). The US's visa policy is designed to minimize the chance of letting people in who will overstay their visas. Chile and Argentina have very similar demographics, but the US requires visas from Argentinians and not Chileans, as Chile's economic situation is quite a bit more stable and Chileans don't tend to overstay their visas to the US. Same language, skin color, religion, and so on: just different statistics. Same for Brunei and neighboring Malaysia and Indonesia. Same race, religion, and language. Only the immigration statistics are different (Singapore citizens also don't need a visa). South Korea and Japan don't need visas, Chinese do. Croatians don't need visas, but Romanians do. It all comes down to past history and statistics, not to "bigotry." Don't make a fool of yourself by pretending otherwise.

I'd be surprised if you weren't aware that Trump has had tons of gaffes. I just mentioned to most recent. I suspect you know better.

Eeek. It seems that this is the problem. If I want to donate to a cause or candidate, I do so on my own, online, or perhaps because of a mail solicitation. Donating in response to a phone call, in addition to be dangerous, encourages more misbehavior. I just provide warnings; I don't get around to insulting the callers' mothers' vagina...

And dementia Trump confused Nikki Haley with the Speaker of the House. I do agree that both are too old to start a term in 2025.