Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal
You can read it pretty much anywhere, but Clinton took Ohio and Texas meaning that the democratic primaries are far from over. Unlike the Dems, McCain has locked his nomination for the Republicans by breaking the 1,191 delegates necessary. So there it is. Talk amongst yourselves.
she left the state with fewer delegates.. I'm trying to understand what a "win" means in this race.
Now that McCain has clinched the nod, expect all those that would have voted for McCain 'when it mattered' to now vote for Clinton when possible. Clinton is by far the easier candidate to beat and everyone knows it. It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary.
We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.
That statement is only valid for the few rights that haven't already been annihilated by the current administration.
Which would leave one to assume that the situation can only get better, but that was also what we thought when approaching the 2004 presidential election. Yet somehow we were proven wrong.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There's plenty of evidence that in both Texas and Ohio, Republicans are voting for Hillary in order to "bloody Obama" politically. Rush Limbaugh has been urging his listeners to do that for weeks. http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/04/mj030408switchweb.html Similar stories are coming in about Ohio. The political machine is starting to conspire against Obama from both sides. But I still believe that Obama will win the nomination because Hillary has a math problem. http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240 But the feeling of dread comes from the notion that even if she loses the delegate count, that she'll still be able to pull out a victory via her usual shenanigans. She's going to fight to have Michigan and Florida's delegates seated even though in Michigan for instance, Barack's name wasnt even on the ballot.
The nifty thing for Obama, is that he is far enough ahead in pledged delegates that he still doesn't have to go sharply negative. Notice the things he hasn't talked about. Tax returns? Bill's last minute pardons (against the advice of the Justice Department, but for people who paid consulting fees to Hillary's brothers)? Kazakhstan? Clinton library donors? Lincoln bedroom guest list? Norman Hsu? Trying to win the nomination without getting these matters in the mainstream media is a kindness to the Democratic Party that the superdelegates would be blind to ignore.
The only question left is Florida and Michigan. Particularly the latter. If she manages to seat her Michigan delegates and none for Obama (since he wasn't on the ballot), I will be disappointed if Detroit doesn't take to the streets.
TFA: In the Texas primary, [Clinton] won with 51 pecent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Obama.
3% is winning the state? Remember that Democratic state delegates are divided up by vote percentages, unlike the Republican "winner take all" delegate process. So Clinton's win in Texas is fairly thin, and frankly a poor showing after all the money and campaigning she's spent lately in a state that was always considered an automatic win for her.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Well, Ron Paul SHOULD still be in at this point. That's not trolling.
There are a lot of Republicans who just WON'T vote for McCain. Ron should and will stay in the race, and those McCain haters are going to vote for him, just like they did for Huckabee. Hopefully they'll also learn something. The current election is always about the next one for the candidates who don't win. I think that inspite of what we know here, and the best efforts of many on this board, there are about 300 million citizens in the US who don't know anything more about Ron Paul's positions than that he is completely against the Iraq war. If the nation becomes better informed about the REAL cost of lowering interest rates and devaluing the dollar, things might actually change.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
"As much as I'd like to see a woman or a (excuse the wording) black man in the White House, because it'll do the world as a whole a lot of good
How does that follow? Unless you mean it literally, in the sense that these individuals will send more of our taxes overseas to support the underprivileged. Other countries have had their share of female and black presidents, both good and bad (and very bad: Idi Amin).
The economy is tanking due to the Republicans. Whomever the next president will be is about to oversee the greatest collapse we've seen since the Great Depression, as the only thing shoring up our economy at the moment is over $600 billion of loaned capitol which is going to baloon to $2 trillion by years end at the current pace. If I were a strategist, I would throw the election, to let the Republicans take it, and watch as everything collapses around them.
Alternatively, put forth the strongest dream-team, a Regan/Bush 1980 style team. Idealist speechgiver as the main ticket, the strong and reasoned seasoned senate veteran in the VP chair. Push forward using the collapsing economy as your footprint. Forget the war, people don't think of war when they're worried about their jobs! It's the economy stupid!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
The media was playing it up as Clinton's "last chance", so naturally that will energize people who are emotionally involved with that candidate and get them out to vote... just like in New Hampshire, where women came out strong for their candidate.
Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that. If you look at the facts, Obama is a better speaker, more motivational, more liked overseas, less divisive. Obama has more experience in public service, he's made better decisions, and he's more likely to win against McCain. He's run a more organized and effective campaign. So given that he pretty much outclasses her in every way as a candidate, you have to ask yourself why people are voting for Clinton, and is it right.
Some people say that Obama is benefiting from being half-black by winning the black vote 10:1. I don't think that's really true, I think he'd be winning the other groups that much if not for the factors working against him. For instance, the Hispanic community has historically been at odds with African Americans. And whites and women, obviously, have a bias for a white woman. It seems to me that by merit he should be winning close to that ratio among most groups.
(excuse the wording)? What the hell? This is what is wrong with America. I swear to God I am so sick of this political correct cry baby crap. He is black, call him black. I am white, why the hell is it perfectly acceptable to call me white instead of "Irish-American" or some other hypenated nonsense, but its a big deal to call a black guy black. Why the hell would you need to be excused for calling him black?
Lets put this stupid liberal guilt shit to rest. A black man has been tearing up the campaign trail and looking like a possible win on the Democrat side if not the whole race for the top. Can we PLEASE get over this sensitivity crap. I think having a black man with a pretty viable shot at the oval office pretty much means that the whole slavery thing is long over. It's time to quit the apologizing.
Stunningly ironic is that the party that goes on about those "poor minorities that need our help" has a black man making a damned good run. Seems kinda counter to the nonsense about the minorities need our help and handouts.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
"The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States."
Unfortunately, the public is never going to get this through their thick skulls as long as they thing their candidate will set up a system whereby they are able to get things slightly cheaper at other people's expenses. Everyone thinks they'll cheat the system but they're only cheating themselves as long as they let the government have its fingers in the economy.
Referring to centrists like Hillary and Obama as Socialists indicates an intense and pervasive ignorance of all matters social and political. Socialism does not encourage private property or corporate participation, just for starters. You really should visit some places that embrace Socialism before you make pronouncements like that, but like most Americans staying fearfully within your own borders is as much as you can handle. With ignorance on this scale being commonplace it is amazing that we can do this well.
I grew up in Mexico, and often refer to Hispanics. My girlfriend at the time gave me crap because some group of them (I'm assuming it was The Council of the Wise) decided that Hispanic reminded them of the Spanish conquest, and they preferred Latino. Which I think is ridiculous, because when I say Hispanic, I mean a Spanish-speaker (which excludes Brazilians), and when I say Latino, I mean a Latin American (which excludes Spaniards).
Also, Iranians are caucasians, so calling white people caucasians is stupid. So hey everybody, let's just stop being insulted by things that aren't insulting, and stop bowing to unfounded, ridiculous reactionary pressure. And if you find out that one person prefers Latino over Hispanic, use the word they prefer when referring to them. It's super easy.
Close enough for the popular opnion.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
As opposed to the current system where the ER is often the first, last and only choice for the poor, resulting in increased medical bills that are unpaid and passed onto wealthier hospital patrons who do have insurance?
There are places that capitalism fails. Healthcare looks like it is one of them. Even if doctors could refuse treatment until after they were paid (what a dystopic thought!), the lack of access to healthcare would decrease the total health of the population, resulting in a population that is more prone to infectious diseases and epidemics.
PS: We have the ability to wipe out polio from the world relatively easily. That's due to government, not private practice footing the bill. We also have the ability to eradicate the MMR trio if we are willing to push for an international campaign to do so.
No one cares what you think. Seriously.
I think some do. Maybe not many, but in all honesty, let's look at the long term viability of my posting on slashdot:
1. People add me as their friend. This means they have some respect for my style of writing, even if they disagree with the content.
2. People email me often. My real name is up there, not a fake name or worse "Anonymous Coward." I appreciate that people connect me to my posts on slashdot, and when future customers Google me, they will get literally thousands of Slashdot posts pointing to my opinion. I even tell people to Google my name along with what they want to know about me, and Slashdot comes to the rescue, usually pulling up a few past posts over what I said. I profit from what I say here, as do those who learn from me (or help me learn from what I may have missed).
3. Slashdot provides a venue for alternative opinions, and not just a heads-or-tails situation. We have a fairly massive user base, but the content that comes out of the users is more varied than almost any other blog or forum. This means that we all learn from each other (or help each other learn). My posts are just a drop in the bucket, but they add something to this system of learning.
4. I am moderated generally high, but I am not a Karma whore. If you go through my mod history, you'll see that I am -1 about 1/2 the time as +5. That's fine with me, it helps me gauge "the market" of what people are interested in hearing, and what they're not. I no longer user the term "anarcho-capitalist" in my posts, because people didn't like my use of the term. I learned.
5. There are features that allow you to ignore me on the board completely. Make me a Foe, moderate foes to -5, and I'm gone from your screen. Easy as pie.
Let me tell you what's really sad, a (presumably) grown man like you who finds the need to repeatedly share the details of his life on a technology web board.
So I'll ask "GO THE FUCK AWAY". Will I receive?
Well, the first thing that you need to see is that Slashdot works for me as a community to bounce ideas off of. These ideas are either accepted fully by some, or denied fully by others. Rarely do I get any gray area in how people relate to what I have to say. Now, why would I share details on my life? Because Slashdot is heavily archived by Google, and I love to look over the years at how my opinions have changed, plus I can compare it to what other people said. My blogs don't get as much traffic as Slashdot does, so I have an excellent archive of how I have progressed over time, versus how technical/geek society has changed. When I first registered at slashdot, just saying "libertarian" was sure to get you moderated Troll. Now it is almost as sure to moderate you up. Tech society has changed, and I'd say for the better.
So I will go away, but you have to take the steps to do so.
Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic party to lose even them most winnable election. They're so bad at this point that, even when they win, they STILL somehow lose (i.e. 2006--and not a SINGLE promise they made actually delivered on). There just is no place for guys like me in the political process anymore. I'm a civil-libertarian, social-liberal, fiscal-conservative, non-bible-thumper with no place to call my own. Every election I'm forced to choose between a bunch of spineless, undisciplined losers and a bunch of bible-thumping, war-mongering demagogues.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm tired of this American crap when people who have a drop of black blood they are considered black, he's half black and half white. But that's irrelevant, he's grey... whatever... what about judging him for what he does and what he says not for his color?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
(excuse the wording)? What the hell? This is what is wrong with America. I swear to God I am so sick of this political correct cry baby crap. He is black, call him black. I am white, why the hell is it perfectly acceptable to call me white instead of "Irish-American" or some other hypenated nonsense, but its a big deal to call a black guy black. Why the hell would you need to be excused for calling him black?
Hogwash. He is white. You say Barak Obama is "black" because his father was "black". I say he is "white" because his mother was "white".
Someone who is truly cutting through the "political correct cry baby crap" would say he is "multiracial".
I hear child molesters and dog abusers are big fans of Tim Russert. They watch his show religiously and purchase products from his advertisers. There for, every guest who come on his show has the responsibility to ask him for his side of the story, in a similar fashion:
"Tim, we all know that a lot of people who like kicking dogs and throwing puppies off cliffs are big fans of yours. We also know that you are widely respected in the child porn industry. What do you have to say about that?"
That's not a hard question, that's a loaded question. A hard question would be:
"Our economic advisers believe that your economic policy will fail for reasons X, Y, and Z. Explain how your plan will work to avoid X, Y, and Z."
But watching a man defend an economic policy is no where near as fun as watching him defend himself from accusations of being a terrorist, a Black Panther, Muslim, corrupt, Jewish, antisemitic, etc... If you want some tough questions, get some English interviewers over here to badger the candidates on the issues. If you want BS and fluff, stay tuned to American TV for it's 'Entertainment Value'.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Ah yes, your rights to have everything you want. I take it you won't drive on any bridges, flush your toilet into any sewers, or rely on any police to keep you safe, because the government shouldn't be "clawing away" your money. And definitely you wouldn't want to put that money into a bank insured by the FDIC, or take a mortgage backed by the same federal guarantees (explicit and implicit), or participate in a stock market where liars and thieves are kept (somewhat) at bay by the SEC. Nor do you want any assurance that your medicines are not contaminated, your foodstuffs safe, and your children's teachers are not psychopaths.
The "market will solve everything if you only you set it free" meme was new (and woefully simplistic) in 1971. Now it's tired, overused and foolishly simplistic. Your whole lifestyle is made possible by a profound set of government-run or backed institutions. If they're broken, the answer is to fix them and work for fair, well-regulated markers, not scrap everything we've learned and go back to the 1860s (as appealing as them sometimes seems from within a fluorescent-lit cube). I'm all for leaner and more effective government (as, in fact, are almost all of us who think government has a key role in society), but the nonsense about greedy government taking all your tax dollars sounds increasingly petulant when bridges are falling down, tainted food and drugs are being allowed into our stores, and people are losing their homes in droves, and the top marginal tax rate is the lowest its been in decades.
Government regulation of healthcare is indeed a gigantic mess, and the Blues are a great example of that mess. And yes, government intervention in a market can indeed make a problem worse. But it takes two to tango, so let's recall Gingrich-led cuts to Medicare in the 90s, and permanent resistance to Medicaid's existence (because after all, that's just more poor - read "lazy" - people clawing your government-backed money away) and general conservative opposition to every government program that doesn't involve fat contracts for their buddies don't really to much to promote fair, orderly and efficient markets either.
Sure, comparison shopping for healthcare would improve the system and make the market for healthcare more efficient, if there were choices real humans could afford. Have you ever priced non-employer sponsored "insurance" (the quotes are because health coverage is much more a bundled service agreement that it is insurance against unlikely adverse events)? The prospect of paying $10,000-$15,000 per year sounds like great set of choices, huh? I've learned a fair bit about the dysfunction of the medical reimbursement system in my current job, and I'm not sure a government-run healthcare program is all peaches and cream, primarily because the current incarnations sidestep the hard questions we need to debate about how much care should really cost and who should pay for what. There is a cost control element to healthcare that's deeply difficult to answer once your parent gets cancer or your sibling gets a debilitating disease. But that's a debate about how to structure things well within government and the private sector, not a worn-out screed about drowning government in the bathtub.
First, an argument can be made that insurance is already forced upon you. Most post-secondary institutions in this country require all students and employees to carry insurance. Many private companies also require insurance as a condition of employment.
Even more so, what fundamental right is being violated in universal health care? The right to die? The conservatives have attacked that many times already (see the Terri Schaivo case, for example).
Why do you feel the need to violate the rights of your neighbors and fellow citizens by telling them that, if they want to live in this country, they have to support your chosen cause.
Well, somebody made the invasion of Iraq their chosen cause. I never supported it. I didn't support it before it was done, and I certainly don't support it now. But I don't get to chose to withhold the portion of my tax dollars that go to the war because I don't support it.
If I can't withhold the part of my tax dollars that are used to kill people, why do you get to withhold the part of your tax dollars that could be used to heal people?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
>>This country desperately needs a REAL party for liberals, libertarians, and progressives.
It could use a party for real conservatives, too since this latest batch of Republicans is a spend-happy, big-government social-engineering disgrace. But even that would be a short-term solution as the real problem is that our Federal government is no longer bound by the limits of the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment. The Federals are supposed to just run the Navy, print the money, and mostly stay the hell out of our lives. Instead, well, we have our current situation of Bread & Circus.
10th Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant an authority, the Federals can't do it. What a quaint notion.
So tell me, what did the strong party discipline of the Republicans get us? Let me list you a couple: tax cuts at the same time at the same time as deficit spending, the Iraq War, & nominations for high office (including the supreme court) whose only qualification is loyalty to the Republican party or Bush. What you're calling weak party discipline is actually a rational debate about what the best policy is, in this case, who the best candidate would be. This is governing in the interest in the public because policy decisions are discussed in the open rather than ruling by fiat which is what the Republicans do, where the real decisions are made behind closed doors without public input and the result is presented fait accompli. Open and transparent government is not a bad thing!!
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Since the list of all possible problems is pretty much infinitely long, being able to prepare for MOST problems still leaves a very long list of problems that cannot be prepared for.
I can not imagine any problems that can't be prepared for in some way. In fact, I've personally spoken with many hundreds of people over the past 5 years or so, and heard of some real doozies, and in every case, I've made preparations that will cover me if those same problems should happen to me. Again, there are numerous ways to prepare for MANY unlikely situations, but most people don't care. They just want to spend today (and spend tomorrow's income today) and ignore the bad things that may happen. Then, when they do happen, we all have to pay for them. We don't share in their joy of overspending and irresponsibility, but we have to share in their problems.
What about problems that don't stem from the person who has them making a bad decision ? Or do you follow the "You've got problems, so you must have made a bad decision." line of thinking ?
No, I don't always believe that bad things come of bad decisions, but they do come from bad planning.
6 figures doesn't really require HUGE mistakes. Some car accidents will be right in that range (especially when people are injured). You just don't realize that you've been lucky so far.
Don't even get me started on car accidents, which are completely harmed by government intervention in the insurance and tort/civil industries. First of all, the only insurance that should matter is YOUR insurance, based on YOUR needs. A very wealthy individual should be buying uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance to cover what HIS loss would be in a near-fatal accident. If you earn $250k per year, and a car accident could ruin your future, PLAN FOR IT. Buy insurance. The same is true for medical malpractice liability: it should not exist. Instead, people should buy "negative outcome" insurance based on what their needs are in the event of a negative outcome. The insurers have gotten together with the State to protect their assets, while requiring ridiculous insurance for all so that everyone's insurance options are limited. Why should you FORCE people to get auto insurance? Instead, give others the chance to protect themselves against the possibility of an uninsured motorist. Easy enough.
In every case where people say "I never saw it coming," I'll say "Then you didn't research your decision well enough." I got castigated here on Slashdot for YEARS when I recommended people rent or buy a mobile home in 2004 and 2005, and hundreds of people told me I was wrong. Well, I researched it, and in the end, I was right. I've told hundreds of people to consider NOT going to college if it will cost them $150,000 out of pocket in student loans, and some listened, got good jobs, and in 4 years are making well more than the college graduates who now have $500,000 to pay over the next 15 years (in interest and principle). Again, I researched it. I've explained to many friends that marriage is a terrible idea unless their religion requires it. Now, more than 55% of those who got married are going through horrible divorces because they did not think things through. Again, research will give you the statistics for you to protect yourself against.
Unemployment? That's why you SAVE. Disability? Get good disability insurance (one friend of mine bought a $10k a year policy that would pay $1.5 million. When he went blind 6 years later, he thanked me for the idea) to cover the remaining years of income. Divorce? Don't get married without a prenup. Death? Life insurance. Illness? High deductible medical emergency insurance, with your regular visits paid at the cash-on-the-barrel discount rate (as much as 80% off with minimal negotiations).
It is endless: the excuses people make for why they didn't prepare for negative outcomes. Yet the information is there, and people just don't listen. They want things NOW, but the important things they want others to pay.
I saw the effects of this in 2006 when the two candidates did their absolute best to turn voters away from the other candidate. The end result after the primary was a lot of people who were so burned by the attack ads, that they refused to aid the winning candidate against the opposition with campaign donations. (Many also refused to vote in the upcoming election, but most said that they'd hold their nose and vote for our candidate but that they intended to donate money to other members of the party in other elections.)
The net result: A landslide victory for the opposition as the candidate who won the primary was never able to reenergize the party base and unable to match the opposition's funding afterwards. Our candidate tried to run on issues and on the corruption of our opponent, and the opposition ran on personality and won hands down after the sour note left by the primary.
If voters are left saying, "Who's McCain?" then that's not necessarily a good thing if all they can remember about Clinton or Obama is months of attack ads. Brand recognition isn't a good thing when the product's tainted.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh yeah, saying the Hillary supporters are hard-working adults and the Obama supporters are first-time-voter college students with plenty of time on their hands is REALLY OBJECTIVE.
Troll.
I like basketball!!1!
"No one ever grilled Ron Paul on the support he gets from far right wing racist groups on air . . ."
:-)
No one ever gave Ron Paul much air time to begin with, and we all know it.
This whole "guilt by association" thing is one of the most ridiculously flawed arguments in political discourse, whether we're talking about specific issues, parties, or individuals. The frequency with which this propaganda technique is used however highlights the unfortunate fact that it must be an effective one.
1. Person/Group A is BAD
2. Person/Group A supports P
3. Therefor P must also be BAD
It's utterly and completely absurd.
1. Hitler was evil
2. Hitler was a vegetarian
3. Therefore vegetarianism(vegeterians) must be evil.
Right?
It's an emotional BS argument that has no place in an intelligent debate. In fact, the Nazis and Hitler are used for this purpose so often that someone coined a term "Reductio ad Hitlerum" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) to define the phenomenon.
We definitely need a new term in the lexicon of U.S. politics to represent the frequent attempts to associate people and organizations with racists/racism because of such ridiculously tenuous connections.
A system of healthcare exactly like what you described existed in the developed world from antiquity up until 1930 or so. There was no insurance, no regulation, no licensure, no anything; healthcare was exactly like any other trade, and those who would provide healthcare competed solely on the basis of price and advertising. The result was nothing short of miserable. Those who could afford it had the best medical and surgical treatment they could buy, although that generally wasn't much (no training requirements, remember?) Those who couldn't relied on folk remedies (what we now call "alternative medicine") and their own physiological reserves, and if they became seriously ill or injured, too bad. Oh, and the average lifespan was about 35 years give or take, and the sick were left to rot on the public streets - or, if they were very, very lucky, they were taken in by charitable groups and largely treated with benign neglect. I sincerely hope that you can figure out why we abandoned that model of healthcare.
In public health, it has been proven hundreds of times that when you have large numbers of sick people in circulation, the general health of the population tends to decline, and the diseases they suffer tend to increase in severity. In short, sick people make the people around them sick as well. If nothing is done about the sick (i.e. they're left to die), the population's health rapidly becomes so severely compromised that any suitable crisis - a plague, a famine, a drought, whatever - can kill off the entire population in one shot. Luckily, though, the reverse is also true: when a population is maintained at a certain level of health, the illnesses suffered by each individual tend to be less severe than they would be otherwise, and the lifespan, working capacity and general health of that population tends to increase. Thus, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint, you'd actually be smarter to provide a certain, basic level of healthcare to each individual out of the common treasury, since it costs far, far less to treat the minor illnesses than the severe illnesses, and it also results in massive net gains in productivity when everyone is healthy enough to work. Everything else, of course, the individual can pay for, but providing basic care - an annual physical, immunizations, emergency care when necessary, etc - ought to be a no-brainer.
Our current system is far from perfect - anyone will tell you that. However, throwing it out the window for some mythical "free-market" solution is just as foolish and ultimately even more harmful than single-payer care could hope to be. It is true that people in good health, who can be expected not to incur any particularly egregious health expenditures in their lifetimes, would pay less for their care at first. However, people in poor health, who not only cost more to care for but generally aren't physically capable of working hard enough or long enough to earn the required amount of money to pay for their healthcare and all their other expenses, will be in even worse straits. Meanwhile, thanks to the masses of sick people in circulation, now all of a sudden the healthy people are getting sick more often and more severely, which throws your putative cost savings right out the window. You're right back to the Middle Ages - either the sick would be rotting on the streets, or you'd be asking physicians, nurses and allied health providers to shoulder those patients' costs through charity care. How is that fair to me and my colleagues, for us to subsidize a tax break for you? Are we not entitled to the fruits of our labors?
I find it amusing how you and your ilk tout the wonders of the free market, without ever realizing that what you propose is neither free nor market-driven. You're just demanding that someone else pay the bill for you, whether through taxes or charity. Funny how that's so often true - the people who yell the loudest about free markets are also the ones who demand the biggest handouts, breaks and subsidies from said markets.
I'll thank you to take your trolling elsewhere, and good day to you, sir.
(Full disclosure: The author is a healthcare professional.)
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
Do we still have cotton plantations where white rich men are whipping blacks in the fields? Are we we still bringing black people from africa stuffed like sardines in the hulls of ships? Are we still lynching hundreds of black folks a year? Are blacks not allowed to vote, or have a good paying job, or make decisions that impact the entire country? Are blacks not allowed to talk back to white people?
Please. Slavery is long over. Black people today do not know the meaning of the word racism. Racism isn't having a hard time getting a cab or having trouble becoming a CEO. Racism is getting the shit beat out of you because you weren't picking fast enough.
Slavery is finished, in the past...accept it.
Living With a Nerd
His father, was muslim, and at age 2, his father left the mom. When that happened, she took obama back to Christianity. As to the execution thing, give me a break. If that is the case, are you going to push the arkan items in the bible? As in, are you going to sell slaves? Ties to "MANY" dirty politicians in Chicago? By definition, Chicago has nothing but dirty politicians. The question is has be done anything dirty? I mean, if you want to look at dirty politics, then simply look at Clinton and McCain who have loads of issues with connections. And exactly what organization has be supported that was supporting terrorism?
/. has loads of it).
It is obvious that a good chunk of your statement is pure FUD and not a shred of truth. The question is, what about the rest. In particular, what real dirt do you have? Keep in mind, that ppl like me can be changed. But I want to see proof. There is far too much FUD and BS all over (and
If Clinton has proof of these things, and not just BS, she absolutely should bring it up. Better her, than later.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you run for president for a year and most people still don't know anything about you, that pretty much proves that you have absolutely no chance of winning.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Well I guess you better get McCain on the phone. We don't want the poor man to think he has a chance.