Almost the exact situation...except for the appendage, the type of accident, the severity of the damage, age, etc. And based on that, you want to draw broad conclusions on the quality of healthcare between U.S. and Canada. There are plenty of issue with healthcare in the U.S. Using this specific example to make this…

I don’t need to wash my hands. My penis is actually cleaner than a dog’s mouth! Not like you savages with your disease-infested dongs cramped between two hulking sweaty thighs, buried beneath layers of cotton, and forced to endure hours upon hours of resting next to a poop hole while grinding out the work day on a…

Holy crap! Why are you still on the lift? Abandon ship! Abandon ship!

Regardless of semantics, taking an absolutist position “all debt is bad” is not helpful. Virtually no one has access to “free money”. For almost everyone, getting a loan/funding comes with a debt obligation. Without one, you don’t have the other. No debt= no money to accomplish all of the good things you can do with…

“Good” and “bad” are certainly subject terms, but I don’t think it’s helpful to describe debt as varying degrees of destructiveness. Debt can allow you to do many positive things that would be impossible for most people without such financing. Going to college, owning a home, starting a business, growing a business,…

In this day and age, when Usain Bolt goes 9.58 for the 100 meters and elite marathoners appear poised to slip under the two-hour barrier, Bannister’s achievement seems quaint, a relic from when the Olympics were an all-amateur affair and PEDs were not yet part of the vernacular.

There is no “loser pays” system here in the U.S. There are options (seek court-awarded fees and costs, suit for malicious prosecution/use of process) if the lawsuit was found to be frivolous or bad faith behavior litigating, but, otherwise he has no recourse. Fees are typically very difficult to recover.

What about sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher? I doubt the reaction would have been any different if they were walking on the street anyway.

Wait, did Obama have a crib sheet with the discussion note of “I hear you”? I don’t think people have a problem with the messages, but, rather, that the current President needs to have notes to guide him in showing very basic expressions of empathy.

Why is it wildly unsafe? Materials are strong enough and the base appears wide enough.

How heinous does a viewpoint have to be before any sign of support for that viewpoint, nuanced or not, is fairly lumped in with the propagators of the viewpoint? For me, I don’t really need to hear this dude’s nuanced position on Pizzagate. I think it’s completely fair to put this guy in a “little box” over his views…

Interview was really hard-hitting.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

The bottle has a specific value set by the market. I was referencing the perception of actions in relation to the general value of the thing, i.e., the market value. When someone acts in a way that is at odds with the value of something (off-roading in Ferrari, washing floors with a cashmere sweater, mowing the lawn…

It’s just a very expensive bottle of scotch. The 2 oz of scotch you used is worth about the same as a whole bottle of cheap scotch. Just seems a little aggressively wasteful to me. Like when people light cigars with $100 bills. But fuck it, your stuff...enjoy it however you want.

Her picture caption, which doesn’t display well on my browser (light grey on white), changes nothing that I wrote. Free to you does not equal no value.

Ahh. I didn’t see the picture caption. Being free to you doesn’t make it a whole lot less silly though. Keep it for guests if you don’t like it straight.  

I would never be offended, but using Macallan 15 yo fine oak (as shown in the header picture) in a mixed drink is a bit silly and a waste of money. I’m not sure most people would be able to discern the difference between a high ball made from JW black ($40) and Macallan 15 yo ($100+) given the dilution from the ice…

This is a good article and I think Americans would benefit greatly by adopting some of these philosophies.

How horrible of a person does a politician need to be before any support for him is indefensible? Because there has to be a line, right? Suppose strong evidence emerges that a politician is a mass murderer; would voting or support for that politician be bad? Where is your line?