...they are also meant as punishment and a deterrent against continuing whatever action they shouldn't be doing. Wether the student suffered emotional or academic damage only makes a difference on the size of the judgment, not on if the teacher and/or school should be sued or not.
It's really not any different than criminal statutes on attempted murder. Unless you think I should go scott free if I walk up to you on the street and unload my pistol in the general direction of your head but missed. Cuz hey, you're still alive, no harm no foul, right?
No, it isn't. Science is based around what is observable and testable. If scientists are able to test and observe something that contradicts the theory of gravity, they'll throw Newtons and Einstiens work out the window and start over. Religious belief is holding something to be true that is completely untestable and unobservable.
Even if your trash sorting robots are completely solar powered, it's still going to take energy and resources to make them, and then more energy and resources to recycle the material. Compare that to just taking 5 seconds out of your day to recycle it in the first place.
So in other words, no, the book doesn't say recycle and the Earth will be destroyed. Thanks for being a sport and proving the parent's hypothesis that you are indeed full of crap.
Depends on the locality and contract. New York City public schools are NOTORIOUS for having a Union Contract that took 5 years to fire a guy who sent sexually explicit e-mails to a student, not even to mention teachers who were just bad at teaching. So no, it isn't just a "myth". No private company has to deal with that kind of bureaucracy to fire inept employees.
Since anecdotes prove everything on the Internet, here's mine. I work for a private company in a right to be fired state that will throw you out the door if you even whisper the word "union". However, for whatever reason they refuse to fire a guy who's a walking multimillion dollar sexual harrasment suit. I could go on and on with examples of how he's your sterotypical profane misogynist, but I'll just go with my favorite quote of him, said to a young woman:
I'd like to rape the shit out you
That's the problem with anti-union arguments: they invariably depend on anecdotes and double standards. I say double standards because the anti-union gripes apply to businesses every day of the week, but only unions get blamed as the problem.
But, government size and power would continue to increase.
The Federal government shrunk during the Clinton Administration.
There would be more attacks against our Second amendment RIGHTS
Gun control as an issue went away with the high rates of urban crime.
people would more likely have to get a permit to cut down a tree on their own property
Riiight.
ther would be more first Amendment attacks such as the CDA, etc.
Both parties are quite capable of "we must protect the children" hysteria, yes. But the Communications Decency Act isn't on the same planet as legalizing torture and indefinite, secret detentions with no trail or attorney.
I'm right, there is no difference between a "Demoncrat" and "Repugnican."
You are not right. You are an idiot. You continue to insist that there is no difference between night and day despite all the evidence in the world to the contrary. Quite frankly, I'm amazed you have enough brain cells to keep your lungs functioning, much less use the Internet. Please do not breed, ever. Have a good day, sir.
Maybe, just maybe, because government ALWAYS does a worse job than the private sector?
That's as stupid as saying businesses NEVER fail.
Take a look at VA hospitals some time. That's the government at work. I have a feeling you don't live in one of these socialist utopias where it takes months, if not years, to get a knee surgery, if you get one at all (joint surgeries are often considered "elective").
Well...yeah. That's what you get when you have a government that talks about "supporting the troops" and then cuts veterans benefits left and right. I could just as easily talk about how capitalism is a complete and utter failure based on Worldcom and Enron.
That would be Clinton, who inherited a robust economy from his predecessor sending in lots of money, combined with a Republican congress that didn't spend like idiots (contrary to recent Republican congresses). In any case, perhaps you've forgotten that congress spends the money, not the President.
If by "robust" you mean "slowly recovering from recession", then yes. And no, the reason he had a great budget was the large tax increase he passed with the DEMOCRATIC Congress to pay down the defecit.
Bush gave tax breaks to EVERYONE.
That's a lie. He cut income and capital gains taxes. Millions of Americans don't make enough income to pay income taxes, and the certianally don't own stocks to pay capital gains tax on. And much of the middle class pays more in sales and payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, as opposed to the rich who's tax burden is composed of income and capital gains taxes. By only cutting income and capital gains taxes, Bush and the Republican Congress gave the vast majority of their tax breaks to the rich.
And what is with the jealousy and envy of the rich (who, by the way, create the jobs in the economy)?
Because their income has gone through the stratosphere, because they've gotten huge tax breaks the rest of us have not, and because our incomes have stagnanted while our fuel, health care, and housing costs have exploded. And no, the rich do NOT create jobs in the economy, consumers do. And who are the vast majority of consumers? The middle class.
I've never understood it. The top earners pay so far in excess of their "fair share" that it's ridiculous.
Ridiculous? Oh my heart bleeds for the top 1% who now rake in 16% of the wealth comapred to 8% in the 80's. Look at how much disposable income your Fortune 500 executive has after taxes compared to a middle class family. Look who's really gotten Bush's tax cuts (see above). Look at all the tax loopholes available to them. Look at how much that Fortune 500 executive makes compared to his average worker today, vs 40 years ago. Look at comparisons of income from 20 or 30 years ago on the lower, middle and upper income classes compared to today.
That's because you have zero understanding of economics, and think the economy is some static thing. Tax cuts always means less revenue, and tax increases always mean more revenue. That's how Democrats think, which is another reason I hate the party. They are STUPID when it comes to understanding economics.
Better to be stupid than A COMPLETE FREAKING IDIOT. The largest tax increase (at the time) in history was signed by Reagan to reduce his huge deficits. George Herbert Walker Bush signed in the largest tax increase in history (at the time) to pay down his and Reagan's deficits. Clinton signed the largest tax increase in history to pay down the Bush and Reagan deficits. After George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have added trillions to the national debt, just what the hell do you think is going to have to happen sooner or later? And who's fault is it?!?
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I'm continually amazed at the ubiquity of the notion that any problem can be solved by passing a law.
Not as amazing as the lunacy of the notion that nothing can be solved by passing a law, so there's no point in trying.
Fuel shortages? No problem - just impose a 55 MPH national speed limit and there'll be plenty for everyone. (You'll recall how well that worked out.)
For the point that it was intended, yes it worked. It wasn't popular, and not everyone obeyed it, but it was less unpopular than high prices and waiting in line at gas stations and it did save gas. Your point?
Reality check (1): Any elected officials putting such measures into law would be turned out of office at the next election - if not sooner - and their successors, well-knowing why they were elected, will immediately repeal those measures.
Nonsense. Most laws would not impact consumers directly, but power plants and Detroit. The problem isn't that they can't do it or that it's even that expensive, but that they are lazy and greedy. Ford and GM wanted to ride out the bigger & heavier SUV bonanza forever, and then got slammed by higher gas prices. If GM had had a line of fuel efficent cars like the Prius that you mocked, they could have been making money hand over fist after Katrina instead of wallowing in bankruptcy court for months.
And you're also ignoring the fact that a lot of environmental action is on the local rather than on the national level, driven by citizens. California and Seattle are good examples of this.
Reality check (2): China, IIRC, has under construction over 50 new coal-fired power plants.
Ah, the "China isn't doing anything now, so we shouldn't have to either" defense. Yawn. Here's your reality check: the U.S. produces an incredibly high amount of pollution for the size of our population. You go asking China, a devloping nation with vastly lower per capita income, to take action before the wealthiest country in the world and you're asking for a punch in the nose.
Reality check (3): Arbitrary restrictions on peoples' behavior do not work. See the 55MPH thing, the War On Fill-In-The-Blank, any 4th of July in a state that outlaws fireworks, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Problem: your analogies are worthless. We aren't talking about controlling behavior, we are talking about controlling supply. Xcel Energy isn't going to smuggle black market coal burning power plants up from Mexico into New Jersey. Sammy Hagar might not be able to drive 55, but he will have to pay a $3,000 gas guzzler tax if he buys a Mustang GTO.
Gore was about as charming and captivating as an endangered sea turtle.
When hemmed in by incompetent campaign consultants, yes. Otherwise, no. It also didn't help that the press drank liberal amounts of Hatorade in 2000, and went out of their way to bust his chops, inventing stories if necessary.
Doesn't matter. Whatever the guy did before the camera started rolling is irrelevant - there is no excuse for repeatedly shocking a handcuffed suspect for being uncooperative. What happened before might have a bearing on wether or not the cops acted properly in arresting him, but not on if the cops were engaging in blatant police brutality.
That doesn't mean it's OK for the Muslim faith and the fanatics supporting it to destroy human rights in the countries they rule.
Ah, so then it must be OK to blame poor people because human rights violations happen in poor countries, if it's okay to blame Muslims because of civil rights violations in Islamic countries. Islam is not the problem here, the legacy of Western imperialism is. And as far as "destroying human rights" goes, have you kept up on how Bush is trashing the Bill of Rights?
I never said fanatical Christians are any better..but most countries with a Christian population are not ruled by religious fanatics, while many Muslim countries are.
No dice. You said
"Considering the laws of many Muslim countries and the resulting state of civil liberties there, various terrorist acts around the world and especially the murder of Van Gogh, I think Muslims are more than scapegoats and some people's fear of them is kinda justified.
You could just as easily look at abortion doctors killed by Christian exremists, look at the half million Iraqis that have died since the invasion and say that fear of Christians is "kinda justified".
(and no, Bush does not qualify as a religious fanatic).
He's just as much a religious fanatic as the president of Iran.
Also, abortion doctors are pretty much nobodies, while Van Gogh was 1) a celebrity and 2) someone who actually did something to reveal some very bad stuff happening...the two types of murders we are talking about are totaly different
Why are celebrities more imporant than medical professionals? Why is the killing of Van Gogh by religious extremists "totally different" than the killing of abortion doctors by religious extremists?
That depends on your interpretation - you can have an official govermnent church
Not so much:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I assume this is what you're talking about. Yeah, the cop screamed at him to get up, the man started to get up, and the cop shot him three times - chest, leg and shoulder. The man, Elio Carrion, is lucky to be alive, and that cop belongs in prison for attempted murder.
If this happened in an airport I have a feeling people would be singing a different tune rather than calling out TSA brutality.
No, there wouldn't. The only difference would be that there would be more people screaming at the TSA cops. Repeatedly tasering someone, no matter how uncooperative or profane they may be, is simply inexcusable.
If you believe that, then I suspect you weren't around when the Democrats had power. Hell, look at Hillary Clinton's health plan from way back when. It was an absolute travesty of power-grab horror.
Nonsense. Every other industrialized nation has socialized medicine, and they sure didn't do it as a "power grab". Anything other than socialized medicine is both a conservative position, and stupid. Stupid because the whole system in the United States is based around paying a middle man to pay your bill, who then tries to find ways to deny you coverage. It's also why 15% of health care costs in the U.S. get sucked up into administration, compared to 2% for most other countries. With socialized medicine you would get the SAME quality care for a LOT less money.
And I highly doubt that the Democrats have suddenly found fiscal responsibility
You want to talk fiscal responsibility? Okay, here's a little pop quiz for you, "Reality Master". Which president in the last 30 years managed to get a budget surplus? Which party invented the trillion dollar deficit? Which president gave a huge tax break to the upper class while lanching an incredibly expensive war?
At least the Republicans held the line on taxes. I'll give them that small sliver of success. And to me, financial freedom is the most important freedom, so they automatically win over Democrats.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I were completely insane. Reagan and the Bushes have given us the most enormous tax increases in this country's history with their trillion dollar deficits. It's only a matter of time and when they go into effect.
The last 6 years have proven him to be correct. In the last 6 years, government has grown, spending has increased, security has not improved, and our jobs continue to go overseas. The Demoncrats would not have done significantly better.
Um, no. Gore might not have been able to stop the 911 attacks, but he damn sure wouldn't have sat on his ass for 20 minutes while we were under attack. Gore and Kerry also would not have added trillions to the defecit, and wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Nor would they have gone for warrantless spying, indefinite detentions, torture, or suspending habaes corpus. They would have raised the minimum wage a long time ago.
Look, this is like the Richter Scale. Claiming there was no difference between Gore and Bush was ludicrous back in 2000, when Gore had spent his whole adult life in public service whereas Bush had done nothing but fail at business until he was elected govenor. But each year it gets more and more obvious that Nader was more wrong than any person has been on this planet, and making the "no difference" claim gets more and more stupid.
It was stupid in 2000, it was 10 times as stupid after 911, 10 times as stupid as that in 2002 when the Administration ran around demonizing anyone who questioned the "War on Terror", 10 times as stupid as that when we invaded Iraq in 2003, 10 times as stupid after Valirie Wilson, 10 times after we learned about NSA wiretapping, secret prisons, Abu Garib, waterboarding, indefinite detentions, pushing 3,000 dead in Iraq, and so on and so on.
You've spent the last six years insisting there is no difference between night and day.
Slashdot Mirror
...they are also meant as punishment and a deterrent against continuing whatever action they shouldn't be doing. Wether the student suffered emotional or academic damage only makes a difference on the size of the judgment, not on if the teacher and/or school should be sued or not.
It's really not any different than criminal statutes on attempted murder. Unless you think I should go scott free if I walk up to you on the street and unload my pistol in the general direction of your head but missed. Cuz hey, you're still alive, no harm no foul, right?
No, OP is correct.
No, he's not.
Science is a system of belief.
No, it isn't. Science is based around what is observable and testable. If scientists are able to test and observe something that contradicts the theory of gravity, they'll throw Newtons and Einstiens work out the window and start over. Religious belief is holding something to be true that is completely untestable and unobservable.
OK, Mr. Science. Prove it.
Even if your trash sorting robots are completely solar powered, it's still going to take energy and resources to make them, and then more energy and resources to recycle the material. Compare that to just taking 5 seconds out of your day to recycle it in the first place.
Any more stupid questions?
So in other words, no, the book doesn't say recycle and the Earth will be destroyed. Thanks for being a sport and proving the parent's hypothesis that you are indeed full of crap.
and the myth that American Indians were all peaceful tree-hugging poets and philosophers until the horrible white man slaughtered them.
And your point is....? That because some of them weren't peaceful tree huggers, they deserved slaughtering?
Since anecdotes prove everything on the Internet, here's mine. I work for a private company in a right to be fired state that will throw you out the door if you even whisper the word "union". However, for whatever reason they refuse to fire a guy who's a walking multimillion dollar sexual harrasment suit. I could go on and on with examples of how he's your sterotypical profane misogynist, but I'll just go with my favorite quote of him, said to a young woman:
That's the problem with anti-union arguments: they invariably depend on anecdotes and double standards. I say double standards because the anti-union gripes apply to businesses every day of the week, but only unions get blamed as the problem.
But, government size and power would continue to increase.
The Federal government shrunk during the Clinton Administration.
There would be more attacks against our Second amendment RIGHTS
Gun control as an issue went away with the high rates of urban crime.
people would more likely have to get a permit to cut down a tree on their own property
Riiight.
ther would be more first Amendment attacks such as the CDA, etc.
Both parties are quite capable of "we must protect the children" hysteria, yes. But the Communications Decency Act isn't on the same planet as legalizing torture and indefinite, secret detentions with no trail or attorney.
I'm right, there is no difference between a "Demoncrat" and "Repugnican."
You are not right. You are an idiot. You continue to insist that there is no difference between night and day despite all the evidence in the world to the contrary. Quite frankly, I'm amazed you have enough brain cells to keep your lungs functioning, much less use the Internet. Please do not breed, ever. Have a good day, sir.
Maybe, just maybe, because government ALWAYS does a worse job than the private sector?
That's as stupid as saying businesses NEVER fail.
Take a look at VA hospitals some time. That's the government at work. I have a feeling you don't live in one of these socialist utopias where it takes months, if not years, to get a knee surgery, if you get one at all (joint surgeries are often considered "elective").
Well...yeah. That's what you get when you have a government that talks about "supporting the troops" and then cuts veterans benefits left and right. I could just as easily talk about how capitalism is a complete and utter failure based on Worldcom and Enron.
That would be Clinton, who inherited a robust economy from his predecessor sending in lots of money, combined with a Republican congress that didn't spend like idiots (contrary to recent Republican congresses). In any case, perhaps you've forgotten that congress spends the money, not the President.
If by "robust" you mean "slowly recovering from recession", then yes. And no, the reason he had a great budget was the large tax increase he passed with the DEMOCRATIC Congress to pay down the defecit.
Bush gave tax breaks to EVERYONE.
That's a lie. He cut income and capital gains taxes. Millions of Americans don't make enough income to pay income taxes, and the certianally don't own stocks to pay capital gains tax on. And much of the middle class pays more in sales and payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, as opposed to the rich who's tax burden is composed of income and capital gains taxes. By only cutting income and capital gains taxes, Bush and the Republican Congress gave the vast majority of their tax breaks to the rich.
And what is with the jealousy and envy of the rich (who, by the way, create the jobs in the economy)?
Because their income has gone through the stratosphere, because they've gotten huge tax breaks the rest of us have not, and because our incomes have stagnanted while our fuel, health care, and housing costs have exploded. And no, the rich do NOT create jobs in the economy, consumers do. And who are the vast majority of consumers? The middle class.
I've never understood it. The top earners pay so far in excess of their "fair share" that it's ridiculous.
Ridiculous? Oh my heart bleeds for the top 1% who now rake in 16% of the wealth comapred to 8% in the 80's. Look at how much disposable income your Fortune 500 executive has after taxes compared to a middle class family. Look who's really gotten Bush's tax cuts (see above). Look at all the tax loopholes available to them. Look at how much that Fortune 500 executive makes compared to his average worker today, vs 40 years ago. Look at comparisons of income from 20 or 30 years ago on the lower, middle and upper income classes compared to today.
That's because you have zero understanding of economics, and think the economy is some static thing. Tax cuts always means less revenue, and tax increases always mean more revenue. That's how Democrats think, which is another reason I hate the party. They are STUPID when it comes to understanding economics.
Better to be stupid than A COMPLETE FREAKING IDIOT. The largest tax increase (at the time) in history was signed by Reagan to reduce his huge deficits. George Herbert Walker Bush signed in the largest tax increase in history (at the time) to pay down his and Reagan's deficits. Clinton signed the largest tax increase in history to pay down the Bush and Reagan deficits. After George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have added trillions to the national debt, just what the hell do you think is going to have to happen sooner or later? And who's fault is it?!?
I'm continually amazed at the ubiquity of the notion that any problem can be solved by passing a law.
Not as amazing as the lunacy of the notion that nothing can be solved by passing a law, so there's no point in trying.
Fuel shortages? No problem - just impose a 55 MPH national speed limit and there'll be plenty for everyone. (You'll recall how well that worked out.)
For the point that it was intended, yes it worked. It wasn't popular, and not everyone obeyed it, but it was less unpopular than high prices and waiting in line at gas stations and it did save gas. Your point?
Reality check (1): Any elected officials putting such measures into law would be turned out of office at the next election - if not sooner - and their successors, well-knowing why they were elected, will immediately repeal those measures.
Nonsense. Most laws would not impact consumers directly, but power plants and Detroit. The problem isn't that they can't do it or that it's even that expensive, but that they are lazy and greedy. Ford and GM wanted to ride out the bigger & heavier SUV bonanza forever, and then got slammed by higher gas prices. If GM had had a line of fuel efficent cars like the Prius that you mocked, they could have been making money hand over fist after Katrina instead of wallowing in bankruptcy court for months.
And you're also ignoring the fact that a lot of environmental action is on the local rather than on the national level, driven by citizens. California and Seattle are good examples of this.
Reality check (2): China, IIRC, has under construction over 50 new coal-fired power plants.
Ah, the "China isn't doing anything now, so we shouldn't have to either" defense. Yawn. Here's your reality check: the U.S. produces an incredibly high amount of pollution for the size of our population. You go asking China, a devloping nation with vastly lower per capita income, to take action before the wealthiest country in the world and you're asking for a punch in the nose.
Reality check (3): Arbitrary restrictions on peoples' behavior do not work. See the 55MPH thing, the War On Fill-In-The-Blank, any 4th of July in a state that outlaws fireworks, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Problem: your analogies are worthless. We aren't talking about controlling behavior, we are talking about controlling supply. Xcel Energy isn't going to smuggle black market coal burning power plants up from Mexico into New Jersey. Sammy Hagar might not be able to drive 55, but he will have to pay a $3,000 gas guzzler tax if he buys a Mustang GTO.
Gore was about as charming and captivating as an endangered sea turtle.
When hemmed in by incompetent campaign consultants, yes. Otherwise, no. It also didn't help that the press drank liberal amounts of Hatorade in 2000, and went out of their way to bust his chops, inventing stories if necessary.
You and people like you are exactly why there is definitely a very real debate as to whether man made global warming is happening or not.
No, he's not. You're just looking for excuses to continue to ignore the giant elephant in the room.
The answer that invariably comes back from whomever I am discussing this with is that the drunkenness somehow represents an intent to harm.
Not so much harm as gross negligence.
Read this article before passing judgement:
Doesn't matter. Whatever the guy did before the camera started rolling is irrelevant - there is no excuse for repeatedly shocking a handcuffed suspect for being uncooperative. What happened before might have a bearing on wether or not the cops acted properly in arresting him, but not on if the cops were engaging in blatant police brutality.
Ah, so then it must be OK to blame poor people because human rights violations happen in poor countries, if it's okay to blame Muslims because of civil rights violations in Islamic countries. Islam is not the problem here, the legacy of Western imperialism is. And as far as "destroying human rights" goes, have you kept up on how Bush is trashing the Bill of Rights?
I never said fanatical Christians are any better..but most countries with a Christian population are not ruled by religious fanatics, while many Muslim countries are.
No dice. You saidYou could just as easily look at abortion doctors killed by Christian exremists, look at the half million Iraqis that have died since the invasion and say that fear of Christians is "kinda justified".
(and no, Bush does not qualify as a religious fanatic).
He's just as much a religious fanatic as the president of Iran.
Also, abortion doctors are pretty much nobodies, while Van Gogh was 1) a celebrity and 2) someone who actually did something to reveal some very bad stuff happening...the two types of murders we are talking about are totaly different
Why are celebrities more imporant than medical professionals? Why is the killing of Van Gogh by religious extremists "totally different" than the killing of abortion doctors by religious extremists?
The problem with an Audience Participation version is coming up with a line as good as "Not as lucky as that banister!"
Many Religions folk base their "morality" on "God said so." What, pray tell, does an Atheist base his morality on?
The Golden Rule, obviously. Treat others as you would wish to be treated.
Not so much:
Considering the laws of many Muslim countries and the resulting state of civil liberties there
Lots of poor countries that aren't predominantly muslim have crappy human rights records. Yawn.
various terrorist acts around the world and especially the murder of Van Gogh
Tell that to abortion doctors murdered by fanatical Christians.
I think Muslims are more than scapegoats and some people's fear of them is kinda justified.
No, its not. You're just rationalizing prejudice.
I assume this is what you're talking about. Yeah, the cop screamed at him to get up, the man started to get up, and the cop shot him three times - chest, leg and shoulder. The man, Elio Carrion, is lucky to be alive, and that cop belongs in prison for attempted murder.
Cops don't get tazers to use them on people who are uncooperative. Their asses belong in jail for assault.
A civilian using a taser on someone in an argument has nothing to do with a cop using a taser to deal with people resisting arrest
You're right - the cops are held to a much higher standard.
Tazers were developed so that cops wouldn't have to resort to violence
Using a tazer is violence.
First, we're not catching anything before the video, which firsthand accounts make it seem like the guy should be tasered.
Based on what.
Second, they repeatedly warned him before tasing him each time.
Irrelevant. They had no business tasering a handcuffed suspect for being uncooperative.
Third, according to firsthand accounts and the story, he was provoking the crowd.
Watch the video. He wasn't doing anything more than screaming "here's your Patriot Act, here's your fucking abuse of power."
Sure, it looks like the cops overreacted, but not to the extent that you're saying.
Yes, they did, and they belong in jail for assault.
If this happened in an airport I have a feeling people would be singing a different tune rather than calling out TSA brutality.
No, there wouldn't. The only difference would be that there would be more people screaming at the TSA cops. Repeatedly tasering someone, no matter how uncooperative or profane they may be, is simply inexcusable.
If you believe that, then I suspect you weren't around when the Democrats had power. Hell, look at Hillary Clinton's health plan from way back when. It was an absolute travesty of power-grab horror.
Nonsense. Every other industrialized nation has socialized medicine, and they sure didn't do it as a "power grab". Anything other than socialized medicine is both a conservative position, and stupid. Stupid because the whole system in the United States is based around paying a middle man to pay your bill, who then tries to find ways to deny you coverage. It's also why 15% of health care costs in the U.S. get sucked up into administration, compared to 2% for most other countries. With socialized medicine you would get the SAME quality care for a LOT less money.
And I highly doubt that the Democrats have suddenly found fiscal responsibility
You want to talk fiscal responsibility? Okay, here's a little pop quiz for you, "Reality Master". Which president in the last 30 years managed to get a budget surplus? Which party invented the trillion dollar deficit? Which president gave a huge tax break to the upper class while lanching an incredibly expensive war?
At least the Republicans held the line on taxes. I'll give them that small sliver of success. And to me, financial freedom is the most important freedom, so they automatically win over Democrats.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I were completely insane. Reagan and the Bushes have given us the most enormous tax increases in this country's history with their trillion dollar deficits. It's only a matter of time and when they go into effect.
The last 6 years have proven him to be correct. In the last 6 years, government has grown, spending has increased, security has not improved, and our jobs continue to go overseas. The Demoncrats would not have done significantly better.
Um, no. Gore might not have been able to stop the 911 attacks, but he damn sure wouldn't have sat on his ass for 20 minutes while we were under attack. Gore and Kerry also would not have added trillions to the defecit, and wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Nor would they have gone for warrantless spying, indefinite detentions, torture, or suspending habaes corpus. They would have raised the minimum wage a long time ago.
Look, this is like the Richter Scale. Claiming there was no difference between Gore and Bush was ludicrous back in 2000, when Gore had spent his whole adult life in public service whereas Bush had done nothing but fail at business until he was elected govenor. But each year it gets more and more obvious that Nader was more wrong than any person has been on this planet, and making the "no difference" claim gets more and more stupid.
It was stupid in 2000, it was 10 times as stupid after 911, 10 times as stupid as that in 2002 when the Administration ran around demonizing anyone who questioned the "War on Terror", 10 times as stupid as that when we invaded Iraq in 2003, 10 times as stupid after Valirie Wilson, 10 times after we learned about NSA wiretapping, secret prisons, Abu Garib, waterboarding, indefinite detentions, pushing 3,000 dead in Iraq, and so on and so on.
You've spent the last six years insisting there is no difference between night and day.