Which is how they learned to spell Canada, by the way. C, eh! N, eh! D, eh!
/Dives behind desk before the RCMP polites me to death, because I've been waiting for a proper Canadian thread to use that joke and couldn't hold back anymore. With credit - I think - to Bob and Doug.
The problem is that people STILL won't use it properly if it's free. Incentivized health care checkups in the private sector, and let people write off their premiums. Introduce more free-market applications and PUT THE CONSUMER back in the doctor-pharmaceutical-insurance loop (the main problem nowadays). I REALLY don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for someone who can't put down a bag of Oreos.
I wanted it loaded on purpose. A non-loaded question can be answered with a waffle maybe-answer. I wanted to present a challenge - he has to address my view to answer the question.
Yeah, it's a bit weighted, but I wanted to editorialize instead of trying to appear "unbiased." I want him to show how - if he's against nuclear - that the alternative is better.
One is the already mentioned emergency room issues (money holes in many hospitals); another is the rampant idiocy of people stuffing their faces with way too much - and unhealthy - food, and not knowing enough or not caring about what goes into their bodies. I don't want my tax dollars further supporting anyone who eats half their meals at McDonald's, exercises too little, smokes, and drinks too much. Yes, I know what the poor in this country don't have access to. Yes, it's wrong - but how many take the easy way out when they COULD be going in another direction?
Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?
With your opposition to some current tactics, how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?
How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?
I'm seeing a gravitation of most news efforts towards what everyone cares about (we're seeing more economic news, btw) from news organizations on the extremes (pick your favorite kook and conspiracy website) and mainstream media. It's a bit of a stating the obvious, but everyone wants to break news - no matter what the source, report on something, and state an opinion.
What we are ALSO seeing - which TFA doesn't comment much on - is the watchdog nature of the internet and how EVERYTHING gets fact-checked, particularly major news items. It led to the downfall of Dan Rather, who assumed everyone would believe him (and may actually have had a credible story) and had such a hot line that he forgot he was a journalist. John Kerry's "swiftboating" was the opposite - he has never been able to effectively disprove claims, despite everything at his disposal.
BTW, as an aside, I'm a history guy, and never liked journalism's tendencies to ignore history and leave conflicting facts out of stories.
That wasn't my intent. I was referring to recent history, and those "committees" which Dems put together that haven't done anything lately...which is all.
There's the problem. This congress was put into office to deal with two things - spending and immigration - NOT corruption. All it appears they've been doing is trying to "deal with corruption" and the populace has gotten more and more disgusted.
It's been a two-way street. BOTH sides of the aisle are openly hostile toward each other, and neither has been able to get much done. It's coming down to a do-nothing government, and the only things which MIGHT be good for the country and both sides could probably come to a conclusion on (immigration, MAYBE taxes), the Dem-controlled congress won't do because Republicans would be able to take credit for it.
There weren't that many current sitting members of congress on there, and one person who should have been questioned (Gorelick). I'm talking about our current elected nincompoop do-nothings.
Study up on early American political theory. Remember, the President is elected (typically) by the people as well as Congress. It prevents Congress from becoming too radical. Go study "checks and balances." Vetoes CAN be overridden.
Has ANY of the "investigating committees" actually been able to do ANYTHING other than political grandstand? If the dems had actually been focused on holding to their ideals and getting their votes done rather than waste our taxpayer money on pointless exercises that produce no real results (unless you count publicity), they may not have wasted the last few years.
Such committees have done NOTHING. All they do is provide platforms for speeches and "questions" which the speaker doesn't care about any findings or answers, just their own political position.
At least they're not screwing anything up when they do this, they're just spinning their wheels.
The problem? IT people don't typically understand good business practices, how to make money, and The Big Picture. Management doesn't typically understand the overall usefulness of IT and how it isn't the plumbing and lights - they just know it isn't management or sales. When management and IT REALLY don't get along, there's a serious productivity disconnect that affects everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just saying "eh" a bunch in the sentences.
Which is how they learned to spell Canada, by the way. C, eh! N, eh! D, eh!
/Dives behind desk before the RCMP polites me to death, because I've been waiting for a proper Canadian thread to use that joke and couldn't hold back anymore. With credit - I think - to Bob and Doug.
Ready GO!
The problem is that people STILL won't use it properly if it's free. Incentivized health care checkups in the private sector, and let people write off their premiums. Introduce more free-market applications and PUT THE CONSUMER back in the doctor-pharmaceutical-insurance loop (the main problem nowadays). I REALLY don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for someone who can't put down a bag of Oreos.
I wanted it loaded on purpose. A non-loaded question can be answered with a waffle maybe-answer. I wanted to present a challenge - he has to address my view to answer the question.
I intentionally loaded it instead of going non-biased. You can waffle on a non-loaded question. This way, the answer also has to address my view.
Yeah, it's a bit weighted, but I wanted to editorialize instead of trying to appear "unbiased." I want him to show how - if he's against nuclear - that the alternative is better.
One is the already mentioned emergency room issues (money holes in many hospitals); another is the rampant idiocy of people stuffing their faces with way too much - and unhealthy - food, and not knowing enough or not caring about what goes into their bodies. I don't want my tax dollars further supporting anyone who eats half their meals at McDonald's, exercises too little, smokes, and drinks too much. Yes, I know what the poor in this country don't have access to. Yes, it's wrong - but how many take the easy way out when they COULD be going in another direction?
And this is bad how....
Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?
People only fear what they don't understand. Then you'll fear my nucular gun.
Oddly enough, it's the people who understand the most about both in which nuclear energy and guns find the safest hands.
With your opposition to some current tactics, how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?
Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?
How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?
I'm seeing a gravitation of most news efforts towards what everyone cares about (we're seeing more economic news, btw) from news organizations on the extremes (pick your favorite kook and conspiracy website) and mainstream media. It's a bit of a stating the obvious, but everyone wants to break news - no matter what the source, report on something, and state an opinion.
What we are ALSO seeing - which TFA doesn't comment much on - is the watchdog nature of the internet and how EVERYTHING gets fact-checked, particularly major news items. It led to the downfall of Dan Rather, who assumed everyone would believe him (and may actually have had a credible story) and had such a hot line that he forgot he was a journalist. John Kerry's "swiftboating" was the opposite - he has never been able to effectively disprove claims, despite everything at his disposal.
BTW, as an aside, I'm a history guy, and never liked journalism's tendencies to ignore history and leave conflicting facts out of stories.
That wasn't my intent. I was referring to recent history, and those "committees" which Dems put together that haven't done anything lately...which is all.
You Are Not The World
It won't get in the way if you remember your cover sheet.
p.p.p.p.s. and they're bigger than any of yours. Combined.
There's the problem. This congress was put into office to deal with two things - spending and immigration - NOT corruption. All it appears they've been doing is trying to "deal with corruption" and the populace has gotten more and more disgusted.
It's been a two-way street. BOTH sides of the aisle are openly hostile toward each other, and neither has been able to get much done. It's coming down to a do-nothing government, and the only things which MIGHT be good for the country and both sides could probably come to a conclusion on (immigration, MAYBE taxes), the Dem-controlled congress won't do because Republicans would be able to take credit for it.
Again, 9/11 commission had NO SITTING CONGRESSMEN, and Watergate was in the SEVENTIES. I'm talking CURRENT.
There weren't that many current sitting members of congress on there, and one person who should have been questioned (Gorelick). I'm talking about our current elected nincompoop do-nothings.
Study up on early American political theory. Remember, the President is elected (typically) by the people as well as Congress. It prevents Congress from becoming too radical. Go study "checks and balances." Vetoes CAN be overridden.
Has ANY of the "investigating committees" actually been able to do ANYTHING other than political grandstand? If the dems had actually been focused on holding to their ideals and getting their votes done rather than waste our taxpayer money on pointless exercises that produce no real results (unless you count publicity), they may not have wasted the last few years.
Such committees have done NOTHING. All they do is provide platforms for speeches and "questions" which the speaker doesn't care about any findings or answers, just their own political position.
At least they're not screwing anything up when they do this, they're just spinning their wheels.
The problem? IT people don't typically understand good business practices, how to make money, and The Big Picture. Management doesn't typically understand the overall usefulness of IT and how it isn't the plumbing and lights - they just know it isn't management or sales. When management and IT REALLY don't get along, there's a serious productivity disconnect that affects everyone.