Reporting only the fact you like, ignoring the facts you don't on an incomplete process is factually inaccurate at BEST. I've always said, liberal bias isn't what is being reported as much as what is not being reported.
Case in point, Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol's Bruhahah has been reported on several times (as many as a dozen on one network), while the more serious charge of Cocaine possession caused him to be discharged by the Navy was not covered by most and only once by those that did.
What is the difference other than liberal disdain for anything "Palin" and covering up anything that makes the current Administration look bad? FYI, the Bidens are part of the "1%" that liberals love to hate (except when it is liberal democrat)
Mind you, I don't have a dog in this fight between (R) and (D), since I am an (L). I just wish coverage was equal. But then again, I believe that politics is so infused in reporting these days, watching news from either MSNBC or FOX NEWS is only getting part of stories, and why we all should spend more time getting news from raw sources.
I've heard horror stories about almost all the phones. Having a OnePlus One, I am very happy with it. Not one issue, or complaint.
On a side note, I was in a car with my Boss, and avid iPhone, iPad fan and watching him struggle with watching videos on an iPad was almost painful. Of course, he blamed everything but the iPad for the issue. Meanwhile, I was happily streaming away in the back seat on my OPO. I almost hurt for him. Almost, but not quite.
Think about it, this is the beginning of the end for CATV. It will likely only exist for another 10 - 15 years as a dominant form of Infotainment Delivery. Heck with HBO offering Streaming only, I can only imagine it will be getting worse for CATV providers. My estimation is that in Ten-Fifteen years, only "old people" will have CATV, and CATV will be the next industry killed off by the internet (similar to Newspapers today)
How about somebody with mild schizophrenia? Autism? Depression? In some of these cases, it's really hard to tell what's "can't" and what's "won't".
Can't is an ability. Won't is an attitude.
Every case you mentioned, as an aspect of "can't" not "won't",
Stephen Hawking is a fantastic example of someone who "can't" but does anyway. Why? Because he has an attitude that allows him to. Making excuse for outliers doesn't do them any good.
that being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met.
Who is "we" ?
What definition of "basic needs" are we using today?
" Everyone" meaning 100%
What defines "are met" ?
I am pretty sure that your definition and my definition of "basic need" are different. I would consider sex to be a basic need, that everyone should have, and not everyone's needs are being met.
When you live in a society that kicks you down the bottom of the social ladder and hands you a shovel to dig further down, you can expect some to give up.
The only ones I know telling people they can't make it are liberals. "Your too stupid/poor/wrong color we have to help you! "
There are plenty of people proving your assertion wrong. Dr Ben Carson is a great example.
I have nothing against people smoking pot. I'm sick of people claiming to be "hungry" and "looking for work";);) filling our Downtown Park with Pot smoke. Or do you think they should get a pass because they are "homeless"?
Oh, most of the "homeless" are that way because of poor life choices...
A couple quick points. HealthCare is a privilege of wealth, not a right. If you want to assert that is a privilege of citizenship, that is fine, but make sure it is clearly defined as such. FYI, Privileges can be revoked by social contract, rights exist apart from social contracts.
The problem is insurance, but not in the way that you think. Middlemen increase prices, every time. Every proceedure that is not covered by insurance, is always much more affordable, and much more available when compared to procedures that are performed primarily by the insured, and are improved at a much faster rate. Laser eye surgery used to be quite expensive, and wasn't covered by insurance. It quickly became much more affordable and had vast improvements as more and more people paid for it (out of pocket, not covered by insurance).
National or even State run health care sucks. I have relatives in France and while they love Nationalized Health Care, they hate going to the doctors / hospitals because of how bad they are.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
Cute. But I'll refute your delusion with a single word. ObamaCare.
When Government tells me I have to buy a product, or else face fines by the IRS, under threat of guns and penalty of prison for non-compliance, I am no longer being "administrated", but ruled. I am not the state. I am opposed to the state as it exists right now.
You're fine with people mooching off the state now?
Reality doesn't mean I agree or disagree. The reality is, there are PLENTY(perhaps too many) of programs designed to keep people from starving to death. This is the reality. My statement was one of fact, not opinion.
Well, they're not.
Not stoned? Well the ones I was talking about are. And they manage to figure out how to get stoned, but not manage how to hold a job. But then again, that right there might be the problem. They would rather be stoned and sponge off the labor of others than actually hold a job. Yes, they exist, in quantities to be noticed every day in my city.
we're giving handouts to those who don't work and can't work anyway, I see no reason this makes a difference.
Can't work, and wont' work are two different things. Equating them does a disservice to both classes.
Having been unemployed a few times myself, and not spent any money on pot, and not been able to get a job I was overqualified for, I kinda feel that your projudices aren't based on real world experience.
I've been unemployed, under employed. Heck, I came to this town with a suitcase and a backpack, and had a job before I had a place to live. Is that real world enough. My prejudices are what allowed me to figure out that I could make it in this world, simply by working hard and smart. And your not smoking pot has nothing to do with the homeless in our downtown that smells of Pot 24/7.
Tobacco companies need to figure out the "Medicinal" value of cigarettes so that they can get the same pass as pot smoking.
And you just made the case that government can take any land away for any reason it deems sufficient to confiscate. Old people living in a hovel have no right to live there, because big government and big business just said they would rather have a shopping mall. Once you remove a "right" like you just did, you make government the grantor of rights, and that is a very very dangerous place to be.
Or how about the "'Escort whore out the door'..." comment recently made by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincet Sheheent about Republican Gov. Nikki Haley (the "whore").
Where is NOW? Where is Eric Holder looking for violations of Civil Rights Laws? Where is the front page outrage on the NYT? Where is "war on women" battle cry?
Democrats don't care about women. They care about Liberal Women, and only liberal women. All others are not worthy. The most sexist people I know are liberals who view women as objects of sexual desire (like Bill Clinton), but liberal women love being sexually desired, so it is symbiotic parasitical relationship.
And heating his mansions with Natural Gas is what? Carbon Trading is nothing but a sham investment scheme he is also benefiting from... economically, so don't bother claiming that either.
Being a Hypocrite doesn't support what he was saying either. In fact, it lends itself to the opposite (not proof, but evidence), Al Gore was in the AGW game for personal gain, an not to save the planet. Even though he might actually believe he was saving the planet, but flying around in big planes and heating mansions with Natural gas (CO2 gas producer) simply means he is trying to make OTHERS save the planet, while he does more harm in a month than I do in a year (assuming he is right about CO2 emissions and Greenhouse gases) .
Rights exist apart from law. Laws are simply a convention of social contracts, designed to protect rights (they already exist). If your government is not creating laws that protect your rights, then your government should change, and you should champion that change. But beware, plenty of people talk about rights as entitlements, and entitlements as rights, as you have just done. A Telco has no obligation to you, without a contract. You had no contract, therefore you had no rights with regard to the telco.
Crying "rights" when you have none does a real disservice, similar to the boy who cried wolf. When real rights are abused, your voice has been lost to your own false cries.
It is worse than what you claim. They are taking powers of the people and accumulating them as far away from "the people" as they can, to solve problems that the people's own creation. At some point, we have to say to people, "you made your bed, now lie in it". But that sounds harsh to the idiots who make unwise choices.
If you paid for any durable good, called it "mine", you believe in private property. Oh, you believe in private property, you are just too stupid to realize it. From the time your sibling (assuming you're not an only child) took your favorite toy, and you cried "mine" to you momma or daddy, you believed in private property.
Yes you do. But you have eliminated it as an option because you think it is humanitarian. Besides, there is no reason why people "starve" in first world countries. Between Government and Charity and plain old "will work for food" signs (which are lies for the most part), there is very little chance of someone starving. There is, however, a much higher chance of me inhaling second hand Pot Smoke walking through our downtown park though. It seems, your "starving" people are too stoned to realize they are hungry. Which seems odd considering my college days filled with the munchies.
Suffice it to say, I love people who make excuses for the lazy being lazy./sarcasm
That's what they said about Ebola. And they are planning on expanding Ebola in the US even as they prove they cannot contain even one nurse. Brilliant!
2) Something happens to the plane. 3) Sue the Airlines 4) ??? 5) Profit (mostly lawyers)
If you don't do something, and something bad happens, because you didn't bother, are you liable? Of course you are, and you'll go out of business. Brilliant Business Plan.
Here's the reason for the "overreaction". Lawyers. Suppose, just for a second, that they ignored the SSID and the plane fell out of the sky. End of that Airlines (multi-billion dollar business). Risk / Reward analysis is you don't risk the entire company on something that might be a joke.
The issue isn't the overreaction (it is), the issue is that there is an asshole who thought the whole thing was funny.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that cash price for surgery is $65,000 while insurance paid only $6200 is criminal.
That, and adding middlemen always increases prices. Insurance is middleman.
Reporting only the fact you like, ignoring the facts you don't on an incomplete process is factually inaccurate at BEST. I've always said, liberal bias isn't what is being reported as much as what is not being reported.
Case in point, Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol's Bruhahah has been reported on several times (as many as a dozen on one network), while the more serious charge of Cocaine possession caused him to be discharged by the Navy was not covered by most and only once by those that did.
What is the difference other than liberal disdain for anything "Palin" and covering up anything that makes the current Administration look bad? FYI, the Bidens are part of the "1%" that liberals love to hate (except when it is liberal democrat)
Mind you, I don't have a dog in this fight between (R) and (D), since I am an (L). I just wish coverage was equal. But then again, I believe that politics is so infused in reporting these days, watching news from either MSNBC or FOX NEWS is only getting part of stories, and why we all should spend more time getting news from raw sources.
I've heard horror stories about almost all the phones. Having a OnePlus One, I am very happy with it. Not one issue, or complaint.
On a side note, I was in a car with my Boss, and avid iPhone, iPad fan and watching him struggle with watching videos on an iPad was almost painful. Of course, he blamed everything but the iPad for the issue. Meanwhile, I was happily streaming away in the back seat on my OPO. I almost hurt for him. Almost, but not quite.
Think about it, this is the beginning of the end for CATV. It will likely only exist for another 10 - 15 years as a dominant form of Infotainment Delivery. Heck with HBO offering Streaming only, I can only imagine it will be getting worse for CATV providers. My estimation is that in Ten-Fifteen years, only "old people" will have CATV, and CATV will be the next industry killed off by the internet (similar to Newspapers today)
How about somebody with mild schizophrenia? Autism? Depression? In some of these cases, it's really hard to tell what's "can't" and what's "won't".
Can't is an ability. Won't is an attitude.
Every case you mentioned, as an aspect of "can't" not "won't",
Stephen Hawking is a fantastic example of someone who "can't" but does anyway. Why? Because he has an attitude that allows him to. Making excuse for outliers doesn't do them any good.
OnePlus One is pretty good budget phone.
Can't work, and wont' work
They aren't as distinct as they look
Can't is an ability. Won't is an attitude.
My wife Can't work (bad back, three blown disks, car accident). She would work if given the ability.
that being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met.
Who is "we" ?
What definition of "basic needs" are we using today?
" Everyone" meaning 100%
What defines "are met" ?
I am pretty sure that your definition and my definition of "basic need" are different. I would consider sex to be a basic need, that everyone should have, and not everyone's needs are being met.
That works, until Doctors and Nurses refuse to be quarantined, claiming civil rights or some such shit.
When you live in a society that kicks you down the bottom of the social ladder and hands you a shovel to dig further down, you can expect some to give up.
The only ones I know telling people they can't make it are liberals. "Your too stupid/poor/wrong color we have to help you! "
There are plenty of people proving your assertion wrong. Dr Ben Carson is a great example.
I have nothing against people smoking pot. I'm sick of people claiming to be "hungry" and "looking for work" ;) ;) filling our Downtown Park with Pot smoke. Or do you think they should get a pass because they are "homeless"?
Oh, most of the "homeless" are that way because of poor life choices...
http://verkoren.files.wordpres...
proper public health system.
A couple quick points. HealthCare is a privilege of wealth, not a right. If you want to assert that is a privilege of citizenship, that is fine, but make sure it is clearly defined as such. FYI, Privileges can be revoked by social contract, rights exist apart from social contracts.
The problem is insurance, but not in the way that you think. Middlemen increase prices, every time. Every proceedure that is not covered by insurance, is always much more affordable, and much more available when compared to procedures that are performed primarily by the insured, and are improved at a much faster rate. Laser eye surgery used to be quite expensive, and wasn't covered by insurance. It quickly became much more affordable and had vast improvements as more and more people paid for it (out of pocket, not covered by insurance).
National or even State run health care sucks. I have relatives in France and while they love Nationalized Health Care, they hate going to the doctors / hospitals because of how bad they are.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
Cute. But I'll refute your delusion with a single word. ObamaCare.
When Government tells me I have to buy a product, or else face fines by the IRS, under threat of guns and penalty of prison for non-compliance, I am no longer being "administrated", but ruled. I am not the state. I am opposed to the state as it exists right now.
You're fine with people mooching off the state now?
Reality doesn't mean I agree or disagree. The reality is, there are PLENTY(perhaps too many) of programs designed to keep people from starving to death. This is the reality. My statement was one of fact, not opinion.
Well, they're not.
Not stoned? Well the ones I was talking about are. And they manage to figure out how to get stoned, but not manage how to hold a job. But then again, that right there might be the problem. They would rather be stoned and sponge off the labor of others than actually hold a job. Yes, they exist, in quantities to be noticed every day in my city.
we're giving handouts to those who don't work and can't work anyway, I see no reason this makes a difference.
Can't work, and wont' work are two different things. Equating them does a disservice to both classes.
Having been unemployed a few times myself, and not spent any money on pot, and not been able to get a job I was overqualified for, I kinda feel that your projudices aren't based on real world experience.
I've been unemployed, under employed. Heck, I came to this town with a suitcase and a backpack, and had a job before I had a place to live. Is that real world enough. My prejudices are what allowed me to figure out that I could make it in this world, simply by working hard and smart. And your not smoking pot has nothing to do with the homeless in our downtown that smells of Pot 24/7.
Tobacco companies need to figure out the "Medicinal" value of cigarettes so that they can get the same pass as pot smoking.
And you just made the case that government can take any land away for any reason it deems sufficient to confiscate. Old people living in a hovel have no right to live there, because big government and big business just said they would rather have a shopping mall. Once you remove a "right" like you just did, you make government the grantor of rights, and that is a very very dangerous place to be.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Or how about the "'Escort whore out the door'..." comment recently made by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincet Sheheent about Republican Gov. Nikki Haley (the "whore").
Where is NOW? Where is Eric Holder looking for violations of Civil Rights Laws? Where is the front page outrage on the NYT? Where is "war on women" battle cry?
Democrats don't care about women. They care about Liberal Women, and only liberal women. All others are not worthy. The most sexist people I know are liberals who view women as objects of sexual desire (like Bill Clinton), but liberal women love being sexually desired, so it is symbiotic parasitical relationship.
And heating his mansions with Natural Gas is what? Carbon Trading is nothing but a sham investment scheme he is also benefiting from ... economically, so don't bother claiming that either.
Being a Hypocrite doesn't support what he was saying either. In fact, it lends itself to the opposite (not proof, but evidence), Al Gore was in the AGW game for personal gain, an not to save the planet. Even though he might actually believe he was saving the planet, but flying around in big planes and heating mansions with Natural gas (CO2 gas producer) simply means he is trying to make OTHERS save the planet, while he does more harm in a month than I do in a year (assuming he is right about CO2 emissions and Greenhouse gases) .
No law, no right!
Rights exist apart from law. Laws are simply a convention of social contracts, designed to protect rights (they already exist). If your government is not creating laws that protect your rights, then your government should change, and you should champion that change. But beware, plenty of people talk about rights as entitlements, and entitlements as rights, as you have just done. A Telco has no obligation to you, without a contract. You had no contract, therefore you had no rights with regard to the telco.
Crying "rights" when you have none does a real disservice, similar to the boy who cried wolf. When real rights are abused, your voice has been lost to your own false cries.
It is worse than what you claim. They are taking powers of the people and accumulating them as far away from "the people" as they can, to solve problems that the people's own creation. At some point, we have to say to people, "you made your bed, now lie in it". But that sounds harsh to the idiots who make unwise choices.
If you paid for any durable good, called it "mine", you believe in private property. Oh, you believe in private property, you are just too stupid to realize it. From the time your sibling (assuming you're not an only child) took your favorite toy, and you cried "mine" to you momma or daddy, you believed in private property.
I have no idea how to do that
Yes you do. But you have eliminated it as an option because you think it is humanitarian. Besides, there is no reason why people "starve" in first world countries. Between Government and Charity and plain old "will work for food" signs (which are lies for the most part), there is very little chance of someone starving. There is, however, a much higher chance of me inhaling second hand Pot Smoke walking through our downtown park though. It seems, your "starving" people are too stoned to realize they are hungry. Which seems odd considering my college days filled with the munchies.
Suffice it to say, I love people who make excuses for the lazy being lazy. /sarcasm
That's what they said about Ebola. And they are planning on expanding Ebola in the US even as they prove they cannot contain even one nurse. Brilliant!
2) Something happens to the plane.
3) Sue the Airlines
4) ???
5) Profit (mostly lawyers)
If you don't do something, and something bad happens, because you didn't bother, are you liable? Of course you are, and you'll go out of business. Brilliant Business Plan.
Here's the reason for the "overreaction". Lawyers. Suppose, just for a second, that they ignored the SSID and the plane fell out of the sky. End of that Airlines (multi-billion dollar business). Risk / Reward analysis is you don't risk the entire company on something that might be a joke.
The issue isn't the overreaction (it is), the issue is that there is an asshole who thought the whole thing was funny.