What the fuck is with this need to bash countries? Especially when it's so far off the mark.
Why is stating fact considered, "bashing"? The FACT is, the stated fact is exactly how car companies advertise to consumers because of exactly that fact. Hell, in the US, car purchases are actually considered an impulse purchase (80%+ of all vehicle sales). Its an impulse purchase because its about both the car and the salesmen stroking the consumer's ego rather than the merits of the vehicle. The really sad thing is, few consumers actually realize they purchased a vehicle because they are a complete idiot rather than the merits of the vehicle. Because you consider the stated fact to be bashing, it strongly suggests you easily fall into the ignorant 80% category.
Perhaps the realization you purchase vehicles out of looks and ignorance rather than merit, function, and suitability, is a crushing blow to your ego and that's why you believe he's bashing? Its a rhetorical question - frankly I don't care one way or the other about why you purchase vehicles. I just wanted to make it clear, the GP's factual statement is not bashing and that's the facts. Regardless, you're never going to get away from small penis envy where people over compensate, whereas that's true around the world, but singling out G7 countries is hardly bashing.
Did you even read what I wrote? Do you lack reading comprehension skills and just love to rant?
I stated that Asian countries consider image more than the US. So for the commenter to pick out the US and its people is a form of bashing when most humans behave that way and Asian cultures more so than their American counterparts.
Second, form and style is one of the criteria of "merit". For you, it may be lower on your value and priority scale than it is for someone else. But to automatically label something penis envy is just as stupid as to buy an SUV because you think it's safer.
What the fuck is with this need to bash countries? Especially when it's so far off the mark.
What the fuck is with this habit to slap "ugly" on everything what is purely functional?
I live in Nepal and you would be hard pressed to find one person to buy that based upon its looks.
That was precisely my point.
Maybe you misunderstood. It is ugly. And that is why people in Nepal would not buy it. Looks matter A LOT. However, even if something is ugly, if it can raise your status and image because it is expensive or rare, then people might buy it.
What the fuck is with this need to bash countries? Especially when it's so far off the mark.
People are MUCH more superficial and image conscious in southeast Asia than the US. I live in Nepal and you would be hard pressed to find one person to buy that based upon its looks. In Nepal, cars are damn expensive since they're taxed 250% as luxury items as imports. A "cheap" Hyundai would cost $18K-$20K. But the roads in Nepal are filled with middle class families buying cars for status.
If someone wants fuel efficiency, they'll buy a model of Hero Honda Splendor or Bajaj XCD. Both of them give over 60-70 km/l. But even then, people don't buy low powered bikes that save fuel.
Nowadays, in Kathmandu, people seem to prefer 180cc to 220cc even though they will never use the power. Personally, I have a Bajaj Pulsar 150cc. Based upon my own weight, road conditions, hills and so forth, I figured 150cc is plenty. I rarely go over 55 kmph since it's hard to find a straight stretch much less clear roads. During the day, it's usually 20-30 stop and go traffic and occasionally 40. While most of India doesn't have the hills of Kathmandu, it does have the congested traffic.
In India, you can get 10% interest from certain banks. What can you get in the US? What are the mortgage rates in India and how does it compare with the rates for education loans? So many important factors you've left out in your comparison.
And this doesn't began to cover issues like normal salaries and cost of living and how that relates to whether education is affordable or the job market competition afterward and ability to pay off loans. It's nice to have simple comparisons or explanations. But often, they're biased, grossly inaccurate or a small glimpse which is misleading.
What disappointed me more was what he wrote. Because either he was dishonest about his reasons when trying to show honesty (which is worse than regular dishonesty) or he showed his first signs of stupidity saying this bill passes needed tools.
The real reason to pass the bill is simple. Because the country needs to move forward and look to the future. Sometimes, one needs to let bygones be bygones, even on such egregious crimes such as this. Even though Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment and many in this administration deserve to be brought on charges, that will only divide the country and the gridlock would be devastating (moreso on missed opportunity costs). Obama, above all, is pragmatic. If he wants to enact legislation, if he wants the country to change, then he can't have the country divided as it's been.
But I believe he was dishonest about why he is supporting the bill. Usually he laces his statements with nuances, so he can make minor shifts and I can understand where is he coming from (though most people don't take well to the nuances). However, here, he not only completely flipped his position, he later straight up lied about why. But he's still better for the US and the world than any of the other candidates.
Because it is an electrically neutral lepton, the neutrino interacts neither by way of the strong nor the electromagnetic force, but only through the weak force and gravity.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh