You can still find a few Rax in the southern part of Ohio

Which, as the article states, they are starting to end that practice.

“Modest?” $14 a month? $5 would be modest. I literally pay less for whole as streaming services.

I hate southerners and am from a proud Union state. What the hell are you talking about?

We called it senioritis. That sudden change of excitement to dread as seniors realize they are going to be separated from the peer group they’re mostly been with for years at their local school and now have to go out and make something of themselves on a new, unfamiliar environment.

I have read it, and find it bullshit. Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes. Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.

Paying lip service is meaningless. I look at who self-professed libertarians actually vote for. That is the basis of my statement.

If that’s the goal, fine. But we know the real reason is profit. If people are getting less, they should pay less.

You misheard. It’s a problem with plange. Computer plange. Specifically snibbits.

You want to maximize liberty, but have a funny way of showing it. Libertarians vote for the most authoritarian they can, as long as they will cut taxes. Even if that means banning abortion, keeping marijuana prohibition, forcing religion on children in schools, supporting civil forfeiture, preventing people from choosing sustainable energy, and so much more.

As has famously been said, taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. The non-aggression principle I believe is absolute bullshit. Libertarian would happily screw over anyone, claiming they are simply exercising their personal liberty. They couldn’t care any less about the well being of anyone else but themselves. Absolute barbarians if you ask me. Personally, I’m happy to get good services for my taxes, and not see my money go to a greedy asshole CEO. Sure, politicians are also greedy assholes, but at least the people can vote them out.

It would cost less because a single entity, costing much less overhead. Also, a single entity would have far more buying power. Almost every doctor would have to accept them, eliminating out-of-network costs. And we wouldn’t have hundreds of overpaid executives that pat themselves on the back with multimillion dollar bonuses for denying sick people coverage. And we can see it in action. Most industrialized countries already have some form of universal healthcare, and they all cost less per capita. People that actually have universal healthcare generally love it. And don’t talk to me about waiting lists. I’ve been on plenty of waiting lists right here, and lots of people can’t even get on them because they can’t afford the care they need.

Competition simply does not work in the healthcare market. When people are sick, they are limited typically to one option. And it has inelastic demand, so changing prices don’t change demand, and thus hospitals and doctors can charge whatever. The system, built on the economic principles libertarians espouse, is god-awful.

Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.

Universal healthcare means taxes, and that is the one thing Libertarians hate above all. Never mind that it would be cheaper than private insurance. They relish in the fact they can skip buying insurance, and if they get hurt, ERs are required to treat them anyway.

so we can move beyond it.

This does not even move the needle in accomplishing that in any way. It is divisive BS.

Who says I can only be angry at one group? I am angry with the men in that group, but also the people that would place me in that group merely because I also possess a penis.

The historical record is also replete with horrible shit men have done to other men. Doesn’t mean I will cower in fear if I meet a random man, nor would I rather encounter a dangerous wild animal.

I’ve been through this. People rarely encounter bears. They encounter men all the time. Of course there is more violence from men, but I would argue more surprise encounters with bears end badly than encounters with men. And rape is hardly the only violence that can befall a woman.

But why bother? All of us men are disgusting rapists, apparently. Guess I should be like Shrek and retire to my swamp if everyone will just be afraid of me. Too bad I don’t actually have one.

If you are not targeting all men, stop talking about men as one generalized body.

Sorry, when you say “I’d rather encounter a bear than a man” it sure as hell sound like you are saying all men are dangerous. If that isn’t what you are saying, you are saying it poorly.

I don’t think it’s lived experience for many. Much of it is fear impressed by others. And I’ve certainly felt fear at being alone with the wrong woman, or a child. One false accusation and my life is over. I actively avoid being alone with women and children. But that doesn’t mean I’m picking bears over people.

It’s what it says to me and many of us. Perhaps it’s the messaging.

What do you mean what behaviors? I don’t harass women. I barely talk to people I don’t know. But yet people are still scared of me.

And I would 100% pick a catholic priest. What a dumb choice. And, yeah, you are accusing everyone.

I’m not self identifying as anything. You are saying woman should be more scared of me or any other man. And bears may not rape, but they do other damage.

The word used is safety, not rape. No subject changed.