They are not. They are apparently much less likely to be obese.
JasSmith
joined 2 years ago
in germany, for example, the population that immigrated since 2012 makes up approx. 3% of the total population. that means that the population is roughly 3% larger than it would be without that immigration.
That doesn't sound correct. Source? As of 2022, 19% of Germany was foreign born. Unless there was some kind of mass immigration prior to 2012 - which I don't see in the stats - you appear to be mistaken.
Makes me wonder where all that money is going?
Scroll down to spending categories. Most money is spent on things like social security, medicare, veteran care, unemployment insurance, and health. Defense is 13% (and absolutely needs to be audited ASAP). Interest payments on debt is now 13% and growing fast. This is why it's important to at least reduce the deficit as fast as possible. Imagine how much good the government could do with another $400B each year without those interest payments. (well, maybe not this government, but the next one).
The title is incorrect. The child is a U.S. citizen and was not deported. His brother, also a U.S. citizen, remains in the U.S. The parents were illegally in the country and they were deported. They chose to take their young son back with them.
I'm not really sure I understand what you're arguing here. That reusable rockets are easy to build as long as the government gives one some land to use? If that were true we would have had reusable rockets many decades ago.
I can confirm it's resolving rt.com. I've tested on two ISPs here in Denmark and both block the domain. I'm wondering if there are regional differences in the legislation or edicts.
I work in IT so I can confidently inform you that the vast majority of people do not change their DNS providers. Very few people would know how. Recall that my comment above is not about how easy circumventing censorship is, it was about the censorship existing at all, and how the EU would censor results in a search engine they create.
It's a perfectly valid ideological divide here, so I can't tell you you're "wrong." I would argue that in order to believe that democracy is valid, one must subscribe to the belief in individual agency. That is, the ability for people to make rational decisions about not only themselves, but their society. If one believes that, they should believe that the same people must have access to as much knowledge as they wish - especially if it's from the guys who oppose the current people in power. Democracy fails to function if the people in power can suppress criticism.
That's a fair and nuanced take. You're right that there should be some exceptions for illegal content, but my line is clearly much further into the freedom spectrum than the EU has drawn that line. To roll up to my original claim: they would immediately ban many sites on any search engine they created, and they would do so for many reasons I am uncomfortable with.
The user asked why I believed the EU would ban sites. I gave them the answer. Why would you expect me to reply with something unrelated to their question? You just don't like that a) I'm correct - the EU would immediately ban sites on their search engine, and b) you're comfortable with the government telling you which books you're allowed to read. I'm not.
I have whiplash. You've gone from an implied "that's not happening" to "okay so it's happening, and here's why it's a good thing!" Why feign ignorance if you knew that I was correct?
I don't believe any government has the right to restrict which books and news sites I should be allowed to access. I think I am the best person to decide which knowledge I should have access to.
This is the issue I have with privatisation. I actually think the private sector can and does do many things very well. However, when it comes time to tender bids, the contracts are so often lacking in monitoring and damages. Without a heavy penalty for this stuff, and knowing that quality controls are loose, bids are lowballed and quality is poor. This makes it appear that privatisation is cost effective, but users suffer. Any privatisation needs to occur via a third party tender and monitoring arm of government, else I think it safer for the state to directly administer childcare (and healthcare).