40 posts shown.
silvertiger11 said:Real estate agencies exist because they respond to the demands of both buyers and sellers. Their sheer volume alone proves they aren't redundant. Sure, someone might just toss a few photos and a zip code onto Craigslist, but even that is significantly more effort than your average private seller puts in. 😁
I honestly don't think anyone would flock to a business model like yours. And let’s be real here—do you really want to be held liable for the legal mess surrounding a property just because some lazy owner neglected their paperwork? Do you actually have the capital to guarantee everything to a buyer? Or is there some massive insurance firm ready to back you up? I highly doubt it. 🤷
People claim that adjusting property taxes will "reinvigorate" the market, but I think both the proponents and the critics are overestimating the long-term impact. The absolute disaster that is the current state of property titles and legal standing isn't going anywhere; it'll plague us for generations.
coastalbison6 said:Where did all the conservatives on this forum disappear to? 🤔 😬
... for off-topic posts, trolling, or making sweeping generalizations..
lonebadger6 said:Honestly, your entire post is just a reaction to a deleted post (and it's about stuff nobody else even brought up in this thread besides that deleted post), so I don't really see the point in posting since there’s nothing left to respond to.
One of the issues recently facing host countries is the problem of "child marriages," which is an accepted practice in some immigrant communities.
The European Administration has no answer to this, and in my view, they're just trying to sweep it under the rug. Instead of fixing it, authorities are issuing permits for 13 or 14-year-old girls to join their "husbands" and live with them in asylum centers.
The BBC did a solid job covering this shocking practice: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34573825
An article from October 2015 notes that Dutch law allows "child brides" to arrive to reunite with husbands who are often significantly older, and accepts these marriages if they were legal in the country of origin.
In other words, a man on European soil can "live" with a 12, 13, or 14-year-old girl, provided they are both immigrants from a place where this is permitted?
The article also mentions that this practice should be changed via a law amendment in December to require family reunification only once individuals turn 18, but I haven't seen any evidence that such a change was actually implemented in Dutch law.
Meanwhile, during a recent attempt to establish order in Denmark, a Danish Imam appealed to officials to accept child marriage because it is "part of the culture for many refugees." The Imam claims that "they are married, and even though the man is twice as old, they have started a family and we shouldn't destroy their family life": https://www.rt.com/news/332282-child...mark-refugees/
UNICEF defines child marriage as a "violation of human rights" and a "practice that often denies children basic rights to health, education, and safety," condemning it through international conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child: http://www.unicef.org/education/file...d_Marriage.pdf
Freedom—even when it's tied to specific cultural norms—ends the moment it starts infringing on someone else's rights. In America, we can't, and shouldn't, tolerate this kind of thing. We have to protect those girls. Their fundamental human rights take precedence over any "cultural" excuses once they are on American soil. Those "husbands" need to be prosecuted for pedophilia just like any other American would be if they committed a crime against a child.
Where do we draw the line? How far does this go if we can't even set a boundary on something as basic as protecting children living among us? It’s unacceptable to use cultural differences to justify or mask practices that, by every civilized standard, are simply one thing: a crime.
Charles Fox10 said:Your post wasn't deleted because of a personal grudge. It was removed because quoting a deleted post results in a strike. Also, if you're dropping links in a foreign language, you need to put in more effort than just that.
http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=66911
Casey Bennett2 said:If something like this is allowed to pass under the guise of "cultural differences," then we've lost it. It means we're incapable of standing behind the core values of the European Council for Culture and Society. If we can't defend the values we've built over centuries, then those values don't actually exist.
In Europe, sexual contact with children is the most disgusting crime imaginable, and it should be treated as such by everyone on European soil. People who disagree shouldn't be coming to Europe, nor should we be accepting them under the pretext of cultural sensitivity.
Where is the line? Who is going to help these girls? Why aren't their "husbands" already in prison?
Where are all the NGOs now?
An interesting article on this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...in-europe.html
Quote:
Likewise, sexual intercourse with a minor is rape. There can be no legal consent involving a child. Euphemistically calling this “child marriage” does not change the fact that it is nothing but child sex abuse. That these are subjective moral positions should be as relevant as it is when discussing the abolition of slavery. In other words, not at all.
That these are subjective moral positions should be as relevant as it is when discussing the abolition of slavery. In other words, not at all.
Quote:
We liberals are moving backwards.
There was a time when we openly advocated for civic intervention against cultural and religious practices that violated individual liberties. We were known as Progressives. We believed society improved by adopting liberal, secular human rights values. We fought generational battles for civil rights and gay rights, and mostly won.
Not anymore.
It doesn't just stop at cowardly silence. Many Progressives haven't just stopped defending liberal values; they've stopped trying to spread them. Instead, they've started proactively defending regressive practices.
Maria James40 said:Customs and Border Protection is already active over in Greece and around Lampedusa, and our ship, the Ante Mohorovičić, is out there with them.
We can see the results for ourselves—I mean, anyone who thinks Customs and Border Protection can just use brute force to stop migrant flows at a border is probably pretty mistaken.
Customs and Border Protection is an EU organization—which means they follow those humanitarian EU protocols: biometric registration, humane housing, then transporting people in coordination with the next country, and so on. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out what that means for us.
Maria James40 said:Is this Kovač guy even sane?
Kovač telling Milanović: America shouldn't become the EU's little errand boy
Did we really used to have diplomats like this?
I mean, does this guy just not get it? Putting CBP at the US/Mexico border basically means registration, housing, and transporting migrants following EU rules. And from what we can see, the EU is already suggesting more—like moving people around if the neighbors agree and all that!
Basically, putting CBP at the US/Mexico border turns our border into a US Border hotspot.
This guy is out of his mind, and he’s actually an advisor to the President!!
I really hope Milanović realizes what's happening and doesn't fall for this game. If they want CBP there, fine—let them go to the US/Canada border instead, let them register people there, and follow the iEU rules over there. Because CBP isn't going to stop migrants from crossing, especially not those 400 people the news keeps talking about. That would be like one Border Patrol Agent for every 1.5 km of border—just enough to handle the paperwork and the EU procedures, I guess.
We got lucky this time—we aren't in the Schengen Area yet, and it feels like the EU is trying to screw us over, aided by some local idiots.
David Baker2 said:Honestly, I’ve been thinking about this all morning while staring at my coffee, and I truly believe that Border Patrol needs to be deployed to Greece immediately. It’s just common sense, isn't it? You look at the situation unfolding there and you realize that having a more robust presence on the ground is absolutely vital if we want any semblance of order. It’s one of those things where you start wondering why the decision hasn't been made already—I mean, does anyone actually have a plan, or are we just waiting for things to spiral further? I remember back when I was working in logistics in Chicago, we always said that if you see a leak in the warehouse, you don't wait for next week's meeting to plug it; you fix it now. Well, the same logic applies here. We need that agency active in Greece right away.
That’s exactly where he belongs, and honestly, there isn't a single other place on this earth suited for him.
Everything else—well, if you'll excuse my language—is nothing more than absolute, unadulterated nonsense. ☕
Dennis Alvarez10 said:It's because the idea from the EU bureaucrats is to have Customs and Border Protection process everyone through our territory. Then they can spend the next hundred years neatly filing paperwork and identifying everyone according to the rules.
And we won't be able to send them anywhere else if the Canadians decide they don't feel like cooperating.
And as for the idea that we won't be left alone...😲
We'd certainly make plenty of "new friends"...
Lisa Young83 said:The EMS crew never sent me to the FBI; they just took me to the local ER near my house.
I don't know how many people abuse the ER, but from what I've seen, it doesn't look like abuse at all. In my experience, some doctors just seem to have this preconceived notion that they're being taken advantage of.
CASE 1
1. Arrival at the ER - Monday: Diagnosis: the patient is suffering from constipation (supposedly common in older folks). You know, that can actually hurt. Treatment: drink more fluids. Otherwise, the lady was brought in with severe stomach pain and was regularly vomiting whatever little food she could manage to eat.
2. Arrival at the ER - Wednesday: Diagnosis: severe bladder infection. (On Monday, urine tests and everything related to the infection were fine). That’s why, they say, there's pain. An abdominal ultrasound was done, and nothing suspicious was found. When asked about a CRP level of 180, they said it could be anything from something totally benign to something completely malignant. Antibiotics are prescribed, and the patient is sent home.
3. Arrival at the ER - Saturday: My mother, who is now barely conscious, is put in our car and driven to an infectious disease clinic per the recommendation of the EMS. They process her urgently there but see absolutely no reason for her to stay, so they call the local hospital to transfer her, since she’s no longer communicative due to the pain. We arrive around 10 or 11, back at the main hospital, undergo more exams, and get a discharge paper to take her home because, according to them, nothing is serious enough to warrant hospitalization. The fact that she can't hold down food or water, hasn't had a bowel movement in over a week, is in excruciating pain, occasionally loses consciousness, and has a CRP of 170+ without explanation—that shouldn't be "not worth hospitalizing."
I refuse to take my mother out of the hospital and just wait, having no clue what else to do. Anyway, during the shift change at 4 PM, a new doctor on duty asks us in passing—since we're stuck in the hallway—why we're there. I explain. He tells the nurses to readmit her to the ER. He orders an abdominal CT. A pancreatic tumor—8 x 5 cm—which nobody saw on the ultrasound, nobody suspected despite the high CRP, the sudden weight loss, the spiked blood sugar (which had never been near the upper limit before), and the inability to swallow anything. No one even suspected gastric mucosal damage caused by the Sumamed prescribed by her primary care physician (given as a precaution because she caught a virus and they didn't want it turning into pneumonia).
At the hospital, they declare my mother a terminal patient, refuse to perform a gastroscopy, and discharge her once the stomach pain subsided slightly due to IV meds and fluids. As soon as we switched to oral food and medication, my mother "crumbled" within hours—suddenly losing energy and soon losing consciousness. I call 911, asking for a stomach scan because I suspect that's where the acute issue lies, but they refuse, claiming she's a terminal patient. Four days later, my mother dies in agony from a stomach bleed. (Just weeks prior, she was at the same hospital seeing an endocrinologist for years regarding osteoporosis and thyroid issues; she was walking fine and had just had cataract surgery—all her tests were normal. The tumor wasn't metastatic; it was located in the tail of the pancreas.)
CASE 2.
During a routine vein check via ultrasound, a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is detected. The radiologist sends the patient urgently to the ER of the hospital where the clot was discovered. They give an injection and send her to the hospital in her home area. It's urgent! Outside, a blizzard has shut down Chicago. There are no ambulances for long distances. No taxis. Friends can't break through to the hospital on the hill in their car. Several hours pass before any transport is secured, even though after the injection, she should have been kept horizontal. We then find out the patient should have been urgently hospitalized at the very facility where the clot was originally found.
CASE 3
An elderly woman falls on some stairs, hits her head against a reinforced glass door, and ends up lying in a pool of blood. I find her about thirty minutes later. She regains consciousness, but I tell her not to move while I call 911. When the paramedics arrive, I let them know she’s been having these episodes—falling once in a while over the last year because she keeps losing consciousness. I’m no doctor, but I mention ischemia as a likely culprit for why she keeps dropping. The ER just patches up the wound on her forehead and sends her home. No brain scans or anything. It was a Friday. By Sunday, she suffers a massive stroke and dies ten days later at a hospital in Cleveland. I get that you can't predict a stroke, but Professor Miller mentions that survival rates skyrocket if you react within three or four hours of an ischemic stroke occurring—which should have happened back on Friday.
Angela Campbell84 said:If you have basic coverage through Medicare, they can't just charge you the full amount no matter how they spin it. They might charge a copay or supplemental fee, but that's it.