Well you should have made the choice to buy high deductible catastrophic health insurance with a health savings account you keep forever. This would be much much cheaper than a normal health plan and you save money for the future when your health needs are greater. Make health insurance more affordable and plans that make sense. I don't need the same type of plan my grandmother needs. The health care legislation being pushed hikes up costs and forces people to get coverage they don't want and might not need. It's about power and money which is why the legislation still leaves millions of people without coverage (depending on what bill you look at).
I'm not saying regulations don't need to change so coverage is more affordable and covers pre-existing conditions. That's not what's being pushed, a complete command and control takeover of health care and 2 un-constitutional statutes:
1. People will be forced to by health care (as I stated)
2. The legislation says it cannot be revoked by any other congress after it's passed. Yeah, that's right folks, we can amend our founding documents, but health care reform is a FOREVER document.
A one paragraph law could be passed that says premiums cannot be based on pre-existing conditions, and it would PASS WITH EASE...but that's not what is being pushed, because a bill like that solves a problem and health care 'reform' being pushed is about power and money.
The founding fathers did take health care as a serious issue. Benjamin Rush was a physician and is considered the Father of American Psychiatry. You have a very obvious limited view of history and think that all the problems we have now have never been an issue before. Your delusional...!! You don't think that there were major advances in weaponry when the founding fathers considered the 2nd amendment? The founding fathers in the American War for Independence used war tactics that started to show how deadly firearms could be. MY GOD MAN PICK UP A BOOK NOW AND THEN... You are by far one of the most ignorant persons behind a keyboard I've seen in quite a while.
You want to talk about common good and Republicans, how about democrats that have controlled major US cities for decades upon decades and plunged nearly all of them and the mostly minority population into poverty and dependence. I will say that it seems Democrats and Republicans are in a race to the bottom and only conservative(real conservative) and liberal (real liberal meaning libertarian) ideas will stop the bleeding.
Well said. 'We' are the real idiots than elected the brain dead politicians who drastically change the 'game plan' every 4 to 8 years which only wastes time and money. I mean look at the presidential helicopter program that was canceled. Canceling that program will cost the government more money in the end than if they just followed though with their contracts. When the helicopter has to be replaced it will cost the tax payer more to complete. Not to mention I live in an area where the cancellation of that program alone has removed hundreds (near thousands) of good jobs... That fucking zero gain near trillion dollar stimulus did jack shit except create DC jobs or jobs that last a week and then back to the unemployment line.
You want know why the economy sucks still in the US, it sucks because no one knows what the next failure is going to come out of DC. What stupid tax or policy will come out next that cripples our country and is of no real benefit to anyone.
Health care reform as it stands isn't about covering everyone for health needs, it's about controlling the mechanism for health care. That's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage, meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they don't want or need.
In a democracy, all those people get a vote, regardless of the fact that their opinions are ill-founded.
If the congress does not pass a cap and trade bill, then my vote/opinion/money is spoken for (if they did pass a bill the same would be true). Would you agree that the EPA has no right to step in and over rule congress? That is not a trick question, I'm just curious.
As far as the argument is concerned I've lost by default by your standards because my opinion is immediately irrelevant. I'm not saying you are not listening, you have been thoughtful in your responses. I would encourage you to look at this issue from a non-scientific perspective. When top climate scientists make bold clams that can cost the world trillions of dollars and then we keep seeing non-sense that makes it into these UN reports on climate change or the emails that clearly show questionable ethics, people don't separate the two subjects. Even if these errors were 'small' they are still errors. These were once wildly accepted scientific facts that are now not true. Combine the errors with some poor ethical decisions and people will not trust what science says.
I'd have to assume that those that agree with 'climate-change' and don't have a the appropriate science background are irrelevant as well?
What you said can work with what I said IF and only IF one condition is met. If I as a non-scientist cannot have an opinion, then you cannot have my money. If that is agreed upon, problem solved.
Ignorant am I? Well, point out one thing I said that is factually not true. Ok, now that you see that you can't do that I'll put this in context of TFA and your comments. You said
"private" industry is riding on the coattails of about 70 years of government-financed rocket research
. What I was saying is that private companies don't have the resources because government keeps them in check and limits their size.
-I didn't say I agreed or disagreed and to what extent of either. The reason that private industry cannot do what NASA does is because a private company can't get big enough to have that kind of potential power. Not to mention how long it would take to become profitable in space.
-Government bailouts of companies that are 'too big to fail' is BS. A more accurate term would be companies that are 'too connected to Washington to be ignored'. Also, Washington sees this as a way to have more influence and power over the private sector. (Which keeps with my statement).
-You 'yapped' about private industry riding on the coat tails of NASA. Sure, and the reason is NASA doesn't need profit, can get as big as it needs to and is supported by the government.
The opposite is true for private industry. Whatever yours and my political stances are on those facts are irrelevant.
As soon as I hear the term "climate change deniers", or the more common "climate deniers", I know I'm listening to a climate evangelist. The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off. I think if the money, power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses. Before someone says that 'most' of the masses agree on climate change and it's just a few nut job right wing morons that don't understand science, but somehow at the same time are corporate fat cats with endless bank accounts pushing their addenda...wait...wait...Climate change has been losing steam with the masses for years now. More and more people realize that it is not the end of the world and that it has been cooling not warming in near history. Now if anyone would like to tell me how I'm ignorant, stupid, uninformed, right wing, red neck, republican, Rush Limbaugh, climate denier or whatever insult works best to satisfy you so that you needn't consider my point of view relevant and go on your marry way preaching how carbon is the devil and we will all burn one day for weak indulgences...I need to finish shoveling snow, have at it.
**Oh, please point out any spelling or grammatical errors as well, that will show me! If I use the wrong their, there or they're that will definitely show me that I can't have an opinion on 'global-warming-climate-change'. Thanks.**
Any company that could afford to finance this kind of research are the same companies that the government has tried to tax to death, take over or break up as 'too big'. Becoming a big powerful wealthy company in the US anymore is demonized by the media and Washington. There were times in US history where private individuals 'bailed out' the federal government. That didn't set well with Washington so now they take some of the highest corporate taxes (if not the highest) in the world.
So what you are saying is because the entire cause for this research being 'climate change' (yeah, not just an off handed comment) it doesn't mean this is 'climate change' related science?...what it must be like to be your brain.
So in short what you are saying is it doesn't matter what the entire focus of the scientists statements and TFA was about; what matters is we must assume this is top notch science because it's science and all other evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.
Tell me why the failed tests, meaning Limbaugh sound tests, was the major focus of TFA and the TFA on slashdot? 2/3 of the article describes in detail how Limbaugh testing worked, then 1/3 on what actually worked.
Name of TFA: "Heavy-Metal Music, Other Sounds Aimed at Beetle Pests"
Subtitle: "A novel approach to controlling tree-destroying beetles uses piped-in rock music and backward recordings of Rush Limbaugh."
Name of TFA on slashdot: "Bark Beetles Hate Rush Limbaugh and Heavy Metal"...NOW if you RTFA you would know that 'climate change' WAS part of the conversation:
""beetles have their place in the ecosystem too, of course, but climate change and human activities have allowed beetles to take over more than they should.
To combat such infestations, scientists thought up the "nastiest, most offensive sounds" ""
If you think this is science and how science should be presented, targeting political figures, then you only add to my argument about the poor state of science.
In a nutshell what I think this quote shows is that Obama understands the constitution and it's restrictions on government (even if always looking for a way around it). The 'what the government must do on your behalf' part shows that, to me, Obama does not agree with the restrictions placed on government.
There were detractors during the Bush administration on the right. Was I one? Not at first, but after 9/11 shock wore off and I realized we were trading our freedom for security, I snapped out of it.
People on the left would riot in the street if Bush were doing this. You know it. Your 'left' is more honest than 'right' is BS; you know it.
Criticism was the center of my statements. Wasn't I inferring Bush was guilty of the same thing Obama is doing? Should I draw a picture?
I guess you have me pegged so well that you don't even have to read what I write; you just invoke the words...LIMBAUGH... and your argument is already won in that brain your sitting on. The fact remains that your only criticism has been for me, still.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Nope. I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it. Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.
Obama never backtracked from where Bush left off. He's past Bush already. But thanks for being honest-ish..
You're not OK with it? Then why is the only thing you have to say about this "Fuck you, partisan shithead" ? Again, silent to the problem, but first one to point at the person pointing at the problem...yes, you are the problem you hypocritical hack.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this. After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder...
From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":
"[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted." http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021
The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control. Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.
The 'most annoying sound' was a biased opinion of one scientists: ""the most annoying sound" his colleague, Reagan McGuire, "could think of was Rush Limbaugh or rock music.""(from TFA)
In fact the assumption of it 'working' is wrong because:
"[Richard Hofstetter] and his colleagues found that while Limbaugh and the heavy metal initially bothered the beetles, the insects mostly ignored the sounds after a while."(from TFA)
So what did we learn?
1. Beetles don't like loud 'stuff', but after a while they get used to it.
2. Global warming scientists don't like Rush Limbaugh
3. Science is a lost discipline, replaced by partisan political calculation.
4. Tax payers yet again fund clown-pseudo-science.
Swine flu is not a good example..
Swine flu was hyped up, government took long time to act (thus rationed vaccines), hyped passed as flu was not that bad, now my work place can't give away free vaccines. (We have a nurse/medical staff because we have a lot of engineers making pointy stuff for terrorists.)
Other than the little perks of a blackberry and using the internet to vamp up election day turnout, Obama is just short of a luddite. We spent(and will spend) almost 1T on a worthless stimulus package last year(and this year). We get nothing for this. Social spending, social spending, social spending. No moon, mars..etc.
The first thing you do to prepare for a CompTIA test is forget everything you know about computers. Memorize vague and even incorrect answers. Sit in front of a 10 year old CRT that you can feel and see humming. Pass the test. Get a paper certification in the mail a month later and throw it in the safe next to other certs and college degrees... I don't think I would like doing the CompTIA's over again, so I won't.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you should have made the choice to buy high deductible catastrophic health insurance with a health savings account you keep forever. This would be much much cheaper than a normal health plan and you save money for the future when your health needs are greater. Make health insurance more affordable and plans that make sense. I don't need the same type of plan my grandmother needs. The health care legislation being pushed hikes up costs and forces people to get coverage they don't want and might not need. It's about power and money which is why the legislation still leaves millions of people without coverage (depending on what bill you look at).
I'm not saying regulations don't need to change so coverage is more affordable and covers pre-existing conditions. That's not what's being pushed, a complete command and control takeover of health care and 2 un-constitutional statutes:
1. People will be forced to by health care (as I stated)
2. The legislation says it cannot be revoked by any other congress after it's passed. Yeah, that's right folks, we can amend our founding documents, but health care reform is a FOREVER document.
A one paragraph law could be passed that says premiums cannot be based on pre-existing conditions, and it would PASS WITH EASE...but that's not what is being pushed, because a bill like that solves a problem and health care 'reform' being pushed is about power and money.
The founding fathers did take health care as a serious issue. Benjamin Rush was a physician and is considered the Father of American Psychiatry. You have a very obvious limited view of history and think that all the problems we have now have never been an issue before. Your delusional...!! You don't think that there were major advances in weaponry when the founding fathers considered the 2nd amendment? The founding fathers in the American War for Independence used war tactics that started to show how deadly firearms could be. MY GOD MAN PICK UP A BOOK NOW AND THEN... You are by far one of the most ignorant persons behind a keyboard I've seen in quite a while.
You want to talk about common good and Republicans, how about democrats that have controlled major US cities for decades upon decades and plunged nearly all of them and the mostly minority population into poverty and dependence. I will say that it seems Democrats and Republicans are in a race to the bottom and only conservative(real conservative) and liberal (real liberal meaning libertarian) ideas will stop the bleeding.
Well said. 'We' are the real idiots than elected the brain dead politicians who drastically change the 'game plan' every 4 to 8 years which only wastes time and money. I mean look at the presidential helicopter program that was canceled. Canceling that program will cost the government more money in the end than if they just followed though with their contracts. When the helicopter has to be replaced it will cost the tax payer more to complete. Not to mention I live in an area where the cancellation of that program alone has removed hundreds (near thousands) of good jobs... That fucking zero gain near trillion dollar stimulus did jack shit except create DC jobs or jobs that last a week and then back to the unemployment line.
You want know why the economy sucks still in the US, it sucks because no one knows what the next failure is going to come out of DC. What stupid tax or policy will come out next that cripples our country and is of no real benefit to anyone.
Health care reform as it stands isn't about covering everyone for health needs, it's about controlling the mechanism for health care. That's why the major push is to FORCE everyone to buy coverage, meaning healthy young people will poor money into the system paying for resources they don't want or need.
In a democracy, all those people get a vote, regardless of the fact that their opinions are ill-founded.
If the congress does not pass a cap and trade bill, then my vote/opinion/money is spoken for (if they did pass a bill the same would be true). Would you agree that the EPA has no right to step in and over rule congress? That is not a trick question, I'm just curious.
As far as the argument is concerned I've lost by default by your standards because my opinion is immediately irrelevant. I'm not saying you are not listening, you have been thoughtful in your responses. I would encourage you to look at this issue from a non-scientific perspective. When top climate scientists make bold clams that can cost the world trillions of dollars and then we keep seeing non-sense that makes it into these UN reports on climate change or the emails that clearly show questionable ethics, people don't separate the two subjects. Even if these errors were 'small' they are still errors. These were once wildly accepted scientific facts that are now not true. Combine the errors with some poor ethical decisions and people will not trust what science says.
I'd have to assume that those that agree with 'climate-change' and don't have a the appropriate science background are irrelevant as well? What you said can work with what I said IF and only IF one condition is met. If I as a non-scientist cannot have an opinion, then you cannot have my money. If that is agreed upon, problem solved.
"private" industry is riding on the coattails of about 70 years of government-financed rocket research
. What I was saying is that private companies don't have the resources because government keeps them in check and limits their size. -I didn't say I agreed or disagreed and to what extent of either. The reason that private industry cannot do what NASA does is because a private company can't get big enough to have that kind of potential power. Not to mention how long it would take to become profitable in space. -Government bailouts of companies that are 'too big to fail' is BS. A more accurate term would be companies that are 'too connected to Washington to be ignored'. Also, Washington sees this as a way to have more influence and power over the private sector. (Which keeps with my statement). -You 'yapped' about private industry riding on the coat tails of NASA. Sure, and the reason is NASA doesn't need profit, can get as big as it needs to and is supported by the government. The opposite is true for private industry. Whatever yours and my political stances are on those facts are irrelevant.
As soon as I hear the term "climate change deniers", or the more common "climate deniers", I know I'm listening to a climate evangelist. The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off. I think if the money, power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses. Before someone says that 'most' of the masses agree on climate change and it's just a few nut job right wing morons that don't understand science, but somehow at the same time are corporate fat cats with endless bank accounts pushing their addenda...wait...wait...Climate change has been losing steam with the masses for years now. More and more people realize that it is not the end of the world and that it has been cooling not warming in near history. Now if anyone would like to tell me how I'm ignorant, stupid, uninformed, right wing, red neck, republican, Rush Limbaugh, climate denier or whatever insult works best to satisfy you so that you needn't consider my point of view relevant and go on your marry way preaching how carbon is the devil and we will all burn one day for weak indulgences...I need to finish shoveling snow, have at it. **Oh, please point out any spelling or grammatical errors as well, that will show me! If I use the wrong their, there or they're that will definitely show me that I can't have an opinion on 'global-warming-climate-change'. Thanks.**
Any company that could afford to finance this kind of research are the same companies that the government has tried to tax to death, take over or break up as 'too big'. Becoming a big powerful wealthy company in the US anymore is demonized by the media and Washington. There were times in US history where private individuals 'bailed out' the federal government. That didn't set well with Washington so now they take some of the highest corporate taxes (if not the highest) in the world.
Let them fail and they will learn their lesson. Let them never fail and you will learn their lesson.
One is science the other is religion. Guess which one does not belong in a schoolbook?
Both belong in a school book or at least need to be respected as widely help beliefs in one.
So what you are saying is because the entire cause for this research being 'climate change' (yeah, not just an off handed comment) it doesn't mean this is 'climate change' related science? ...what it must be like to be your brain.
So in short what you are saying is it doesn't matter what the entire focus of the scientists statements and TFA was about; what matters is we must assume this is top notch science because it's science and all other evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.
Tell me why the failed tests, meaning Limbaugh sound tests, was the major focus of TFA and the TFA on slashdot? 2/3 of the article describes in detail how Limbaugh testing worked, then 1/3 on what actually worked.
Name of TFA: "Heavy-Metal Music, Other Sounds Aimed at Beetle Pests" Subtitle: "A novel approach to controlling tree-destroying beetles uses piped-in rock music and backward recordings of Rush Limbaugh." Name of TFA on slashdot: "Bark Beetles Hate Rush Limbaugh and Heavy Metal" ...NOW if you RTFA you would know that 'climate change' WAS part of the conversation:
""beetles have their place in the ecosystem too, of course, but climate change and human activities have allowed beetles to take over more than they should.
To combat such infestations, scientists thought up the "nastiest, most offensive sounds" ""
If you think this is science and how science should be presented, targeting political figures, then you only add to my argument about the poor state of science.
In a nutshell what I think this quote shows is that Obama understands the constitution and it's restrictions on government (even if always looking for a way around it). The 'what the government must do on your behalf' part shows that, to me, Obama does not agree with the restrictions placed on government.
There were detractors during the Bush administration on the right. Was I one? Not at first, but after 9/11 shock wore off and I realized we were trading our freedom for security, I snapped out of it. People on the left would riot in the street if Bush were doing this. You know it. Your 'left' is more honest than 'right' is BS; you know it.
Criticism was the center of my statements. Wasn't I inferring Bush was guilty of the same thing Obama is doing? Should I draw a picture? I guess you have me pegged so well that you don't even have to read what I write; you just invoke the words ...LIMBAUGH... and your argument is already won in that brain your sitting on. The fact remains that your only criticism has been for me, still.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Nope. I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it. Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.
Obama never backtracked from where Bush left off. He's past Bush already. But thanks for being honest-ish..
You're not OK with it? Then why is the only thing you have to say about this "Fuck you, partisan shithead" ? Again, silent to the problem, but first one to point at the person pointing at the problem...yes, you are the problem you hypocritical hack.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this. After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder... From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights": "[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted." http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control. Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.
The 'most annoying sound' was a biased opinion of one scientists: ""the most annoying sound" his colleague, Reagan McGuire, "could think of was Rush Limbaugh or rock music.""(from TFA) In fact the assumption of it 'working' is wrong because: "[Richard Hofstetter] and his colleagues found that while Limbaugh and the heavy metal initially bothered the beetles, the insects mostly ignored the sounds after a while."(from TFA) So what did we learn? 1. Beetles don't like loud 'stuff', but after a while they get used to it. 2. Global warming scientists don't like Rush Limbaugh 3. Science is a lost discipline, replaced by partisan political calculation. 4. Tax payers yet again fund clown-pseudo-science.
Swine flu is not a good example.. Swine flu was hyped up, government took long time to act (thus rationed vaccines), hyped passed as flu was not that bad, now my work place can't give away free vaccines. (We have a nurse/medical staff because we have a lot of engineers making pointy stuff for terrorists.)
Other than the little perks of a blackberry and using the internet to vamp up election day turnout, Obama is just short of a luddite. We spent(and will spend) almost 1T on a worthless stimulus package last year(and this year). We get nothing for this. Social spending, social spending, social spending. No moon, mars..etc.
The first thing you do to prepare for a CompTIA test is forget everything you know about computers. Memorize vague and even incorrect answers. Sit in front of a 10 year old CRT that you can feel and see humming. Pass the test. Get a paper certification in the mail a month later and throw it in the safe next to other certs and college degrees... I don't think I would like doing the CompTIA's over again, so I won't.