You might find this article a helpful starting place in learning the truth about the so-called 'nuclear option,' rather than the Faux News tripe you've been feeding on. Look at who used it, and when. Hmm, funny, it was okay when Republicans used it. Hypocrite.
You have to surrender a potion of your property to pay for a public good. Know what that is? Something that benefits everyone. Sick people spread disease. Desperate people do desperate things. I'm not going to let selfish free riders like you force me to pay the whole cost. You are basically refusing to help pay your share, so why should you get the benefits? If you don't like it, you can leave.
You don't understand the Constitution. Do you really think filibusters should be a matter of course, or do you think that, as is stated in the damn thing, 51 percent is enough? Why would it say, except for constitutional amendments, 51% is enough, if that weren't the case?
Show me where in the constitution the word 'filibuster' is mentioned. Go ahead, try to find it.
Well, I don't give a great God damn how useful my certs are on my job. I already know I can do my job. I don't need a cert to prove that to myself. I thought the whole point of certs was to help get a foot in the door.
So, what? Leave them off entirely? It's been, oh, seven years since I last took a CompTIA cert. I feel old now. I've got five of the damn things, and a pile more other certs since then, so do you really recommend not mentioning them at all?
And, dare I ask again, what are you basing this on? Not to be a dick, but without some kind of evidence, it sounds like you are playing little dominance heirarchy games, "look at me! I'm so much better than CompTIA certs, if you have them, what a loser!" So, seriously, besides your own enlightened opinion, care to cite something meaningful, or do you just want to keep knob-polishing?
You have to jump through far more arbitrary hoops for a degree, even a measly four year. That's what employers want to see. Not particular skills, but arbitrary hoop-jumping ability.
What company do you recommend? Personally, I've found CompTIA certs a useful part of my portfolio of credentials. Not the only part, of course, but worth the money. I've heard people complain that all certifications are worthless, or some are, but I've never seen any evidence. Where's your evidence? Or is this less about evidence and more about polishing your knob?
Keep telling yourself that you are 'mainstream.' I'll believe the polls I've read. Of which this is just one. Sorry to piss on your parade.
Single payer is the only real way to go. Simply look at countries that have it. Look at health care outcomes. Look at costs. You DO realize that our current system is, quite literally, the worst per dollar spent. The. Absolute. Worst.
But that's the free market for you: when it comes to things like health care, it fails. You can't 'shop around' for health care.
Personally, I hope the Dems make the Republicans filibuster. And if the Republicans filibuster, the Dems should nuke them with reconciliation. The Constitution never meant for 41 votes to be able to stop 59 votes, sorry.
No, that's bullshit. They polled MA voters, and they still want socialized medicine. Coakley is a shill, she ran a craptastic campaign, and people are pissed that Dems haven't done enough.
Governments do not 'reserve' anything. In a pure free market capitalist economy, if someone is unable to feed themselves (say because a powerful group has decreed 'no one give him any work if you want to do business with us.') then that person will starve to death. Destroyed, and not by a government. Corporations destroy people's lives all the time, and what do you think this financial mess was about? Corporations making money up out of thin air.
The bailouts: bad. The stimulus: meh, not done right. Health care? It's a moral issue. We're the only first world nation without socialized medicine. And we have the least effective yet most expensive system. Look at some figures:
Most recent polls show a supermajority of the population supports radical health care reform and socialized medicine. Despite big pharma spending billions to change public opinion.
We've both got our detractors here. Sorry little cuntflaps with the debating skills God gave a marmoset. However, I get modded up when it isn't justified too, so, that crap evens out.
The ratio is over 50% of people that really should not have a license.... but here in the USA it's a god given right!
Well, we don't have the mass transit that countries with stricter driving laws do. And we can't, economically, because we are so spread out. So what's the answer? Do we relocate everyone into cities where there's mass transit? Build mass transit to every tiny town in America, and damn the cost? Shoot people in the head when we take their license, because honestly it's better than letting them starve to death? You take away the license of fifty percent of Americans and what will you do? I mean, I kind of agree with you, many people shouldn't be driving and we pay a 55,000 person a year toll in deaths from accidents. But what's the alternative?
I don't think you could get the funding to do these kinds of experiments in real city streets. Or even a real mock up. But how much would you like to make a bet that there are studies comparing driver's reactions in obstacle courses to known accident rates? And we could go double or nothing that these cell phone tests take those previous studies into account when making conclusions. Most scientists aren't idiots.
Have you ever been to the USA? I was just visiting London, and I saw something different. I saw a hell of a lot more politeness and courtesy than I've seen in some American cities. Maybe that's just because I was in the touristy areas.
I spent some time in the country, near Peterborough, and I guess people were a little nicer there, maybe. But not a big difference. I don't know, I like you chaps. You see societal decay, I see you all taking the stick out of your arse a little bit.
What say you come visit America, then you can complain all you like. Or go to Germany. Or France. Seriously, have you been outside of your country at all?
What makes you think the obstacle course WAS artificial? Or that subjects weren't allowed to drop the phone?
Your anecdotes are not data. Your feelings are untested, and not a reliable guide to what is more distracting and what is less. Sorry, but I'll take science over anecdotes any day.
Okay, you win the official prize for 'funniest response to spun's mistake.' Of course, out of the half dozen other entrants, yours is the only one to qualify as 'funny' at all.
As if government is the only source of power. Democratic government is a check on the power of powerful, nondemocratic groups. Just getting rid of government would allow the powerful to control everything. It would NOT magically balance a very unbalanced system. It would make things much worse.
Money is a VERY big lever of control. In fact, beyond a certain dollar amount, all money does is allow you to control others. The more money you have, the more power you have. The more power you have, the more money you can make. Money does not need to be funneled through government to be used to control others. If you are starving you aren't really free at all, and you can be controlled by anyone with a bite to eat. Without government, the powerless have NO recourse.
Well, the study I saw had people drive an obstacle course. One group had cell phone conversations, the other group had conversations with a passenger. No contest, cell phone talkers screwed up more often. In fact, they screwed up as much as people who were legally drunk do on the same types of courses. Believe what you like, the data shows that talking on a cell phone is VERY distracting.
You live in society, you follow society's stupid rules. Like, you know, wearing clothes, not stinking up the place, pooping only in designated areas, and so forth. We don't need any new rules to cover cell phones: we already have the rule to cover this: don't talk loudly in public places. You see, quiet is a shared resource. If you use up all the quiet, there is no quiet left for anyone else. That's stealing, and stealing is wrong.
Now, I will agree that taking a loud talker's cell phone and jamming it up their rectum is probably an over-reaction, but it really depends on the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
You might find this article a helpful starting place in learning the truth about the so-called 'nuclear option,' rather than the Faux News tripe you've been feeding on. Look at who used it, and when. Hmm, funny, it was okay when Republicans used it. Hypocrite.
For my paralyzed homies, the little rovers that could. *snif*
You have to surrender a potion of your property to pay for a public good. Know what that is? Something that benefits everyone. Sick people spread disease. Desperate people do desperate things. I'm not going to let selfish free riders like you force me to pay the whole cost. You are basically refusing to help pay your share, so why should you get the benefits? If you don't like it, you can leave.
You don't understand the Constitution. Do you really think filibusters should be a matter of course, or do you think that, as is stated in the damn thing, 51 percent is enough? Why would it say, except for constitutional amendments, 51% is enough, if that weren't the case?
Show me where in the constitution the word 'filibuster' is mentioned. Go ahead, try to find it.
Well, I don't give a great God damn how useful my certs are on my job. I already know I can do my job. I don't need a cert to prove that to myself. I thought the whole point of certs was to help get a foot in the door.
So, what? Leave them off entirely? It's been, oh, seven years since I last took a CompTIA cert. I feel old now. I've got five of the damn things, and a pile more other certs since then, so do you really recommend not mentioning them at all?
And, dare I ask again, what are you basing this on? Not to be a dick, but without some kind of evidence, it sounds like you are playing little dominance heirarchy games, "look at me! I'm so much better than CompTIA certs, if you have them, what a loser!" So, seriously, besides your own enlightened opinion, care to cite something meaningful, or do you just want to keep knob-polishing?
You have to jump through far more arbitrary hoops for a degree, even a measly four year. That's what employers want to see. Not particular skills, but arbitrary hoop-jumping ability.
What company do you recommend? Personally, I've found CompTIA certs a useful part of my portfolio of credentials. Not the only part, of course, but worth the money. I've heard people complain that all certifications are worthless, or some are, but I've never seen any evidence. Where's your evidence? Or is this less about evidence and more about polishing your knob?
Keep telling yourself that you are 'mainstream.' I'll believe the polls I've read. Of which this is just one. Sorry to piss on your parade.
Single payer is the only real way to go. Simply look at countries that have it. Look at health care outcomes. Look at costs. You DO realize that our current system is, quite literally, the worst per dollar spent. The. Absolute. Worst.
But that's the free market for you: when it comes to things like health care, it fails. You can't 'shop around' for health care.
Personally, I hope the Dems make the Republicans filibuster. And if the Republicans filibuster, the Dems should nuke them with reconciliation. The Constitution never meant for 41 votes to be able to stop 59 votes, sorry.
No, that's bullshit. They polled MA voters, and they still want socialized medicine. Coakley is a shill, she ran a craptastic campaign, and people are pissed that Dems haven't done enough.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/20/poll-majority-of-massachusetts-health-voters-wanted-to-save-ref/
Governments do not 'reserve' anything. In a pure free market capitalist economy, if someone is unable to feed themselves (say because a powerful group has decreed 'no one give him any work if you want to do business with us.') then that person will starve to death. Destroyed, and not by a government. Corporations destroy people's lives all the time, and what do you think this financial mess was about? Corporations making money up out of thin air.
The bailouts: bad. The stimulus: meh, not done right. Health care? It's a moral issue. We're the only first world nation without socialized medicine. And we have the least effective yet most expensive system. Look at some figures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/
Most recent polls show a supermajority of the population supports radical health care reform and socialized medicine. Despite big pharma spending billions to change public opinion.
We've both got our detractors here. Sorry little cuntflaps with the debating skills God gave a marmoset. However, I get modded up when it isn't justified too, so, that crap evens out.
There's no money in that, so, forever?
Well aren't you the practical one? Stop being so reasonable, this is supposed to be a flamewar.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html
The ratio is over 50% of people that really should not have a license.... but here in the USA it's a god given right!
Well, we don't have the mass transit that countries with stricter driving laws do. And we can't, economically, because we are so spread out. So what's the answer? Do we relocate everyone into cities where there's mass transit? Build mass transit to every tiny town in America, and damn the cost? Shoot people in the head when we take their license, because honestly it's better than letting them starve to death? You take away the license of fifty percent of Americans and what will you do? I mean, I kind of agree with you, many people shouldn't be driving and we pay a 55,000 person a year toll in deaths from accidents. But what's the alternative?
I don't think you could get the funding to do these kinds of experiments in real city streets. Or even a real mock up. But how much would you like to make a bet that there are studies comparing driver's reactions in obstacle courses to known accident rates? And we could go double or nothing that these cell phone tests take those previous studies into account when making conclusions. Most scientists aren't idiots.
Have you ever been to the USA? I was just visiting London, and I saw something different. I saw a hell of a lot more politeness and courtesy than I've seen in some American cities. Maybe that's just because I was in the touristy areas.
I spent some time in the country, near Peterborough, and I guess people were a little nicer there, maybe. But not a big difference. I don't know, I like you chaps. You see societal decay, I see you all taking the stick out of your arse a little bit.
What say you come visit America, then you can complain all you like. Or go to Germany. Or France. Seriously, have you been outside of your country at all?
What makes you think the obstacle course WAS artificial? Or that subjects weren't allowed to drop the phone?
Your anecdotes are not data. Your feelings are untested, and not a reliable guide to what is more distracting and what is less. Sorry, but I'll take science over anecdotes any day.
Okay, you win the official prize for 'funniest response to spun's mistake.' Of course, out of the half dozen other entrants, yours is the only one to qualify as 'funny' at all.
I always give credit where credit is due. It's an unwritten rule of Slashdotters :)
Wow, now I agree with you. This is getting weird.
As if government is the only source of power. Democratic government is a check on the power of powerful, nondemocratic groups. Just getting rid of government would allow the powerful to control everything. It would NOT magically balance a very unbalanced system. It would make things much worse.
Money is a VERY big lever of control. In fact, beyond a certain dollar amount, all money does is allow you to control others. The more money you have, the more power you have. The more power you have, the more money you can make. Money does not need to be funneled through government to be used to control others. If you are starving you aren't really free at all, and you can be controlled by anyone with a bite to eat. Without government, the powerless have NO recourse.
Well, the study I saw had people drive an obstacle course. One group had cell phone conversations, the other group had conversations with a passenger. No contest, cell phone talkers screwed up more often. In fact, they screwed up as much as people who were legally drunk do on the same types of courses. Believe what you like, the data shows that talking on a cell phone is VERY distracting.
Spun is right.
I never thought I'd hear that from you ;)
Yeah, well, after this, we will need a Constitutional amendment to keep money out of politics, and that's going to be a hard sell.
You live in society, you follow society's stupid rules. Like, you know, wearing clothes, not stinking up the place, pooping only in designated areas, and so forth. We don't need any new rules to cover cell phones: we already have the rule to cover this: don't talk loudly in public places. You see, quiet is a shared resource. If you use up all the quiet, there is no quiet left for anyone else. That's stealing, and stealing is wrong.
Now, I will agree that taking a loud talker's cell phone and jamming it up their rectum is probably an over-reaction, but it really depends on the situation.