Apple runs an entire ad campaign capitalizing on "looks all the things you can do with our OS that isn't built into Windows". They're leveraging their OS to push all their proprietary built-in software (including their own browser Safari). Why is it a crime in Microsoft's case, but not in Apple's? With IE market share at all-time lows, they're hardly killing the competition.
When he starts campaigning for nationalisation of major industries, then he'll be a socialist.
Slippery slopes...he's already pushing for major governmental control of healthcare, and I certainly don't see him decrying the current government "ownership" of banks that is occurring.
On the other hand, we have absolute, concrete evidence for what it takes for life to form. Granted, we have only a single data point, our planet
Did you hear what you just said?;P
And you call that scientific? One data point, not reproducible, and drawing on the _assumption_ that life on Earth occurred until ideal conditions (rather than being a statistical outlier).
Apply such "facts" to any other scientific topic and you'd be laughed out of the scientific community so fast that it would make your head spin.
Sorry, but with all due respect, I think you're completely wrong here (and the OP has an excellent point). Belief in extraterrestrial life has many parallels with embracing a higher power. It's pseudoscience at best. There is zero evidence for life outside of Earth. Zero. It's that simple. To believe anything other than that is just well-wishing or cherrypicking your beliefs. We may continue to seek evidence of "aliens" the same as we may continue to seek evidence for "God's existence", but until something tangible appears, such things fall squarely into the realm of unicorns and ghosts...something you can believe in if you so choose, but lacking scientific merit.
Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that
And "mandatory spending" (ie Social Security/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid) costs us 4.49 BILLION per day and has left us equally poor and obviously just as sick. Convenient YOU would forget about THAT. Just another run-of-the-mill liberal cherrypicking his/her arguments. Btw, that "one time stimulus check" costs about ~250-300 million per day, so don't pretend THAT is trivial as well.
It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to.
I'm glad you know about money trees. In my world, medical resources are scarce, tangibles fixed, and demand high. People can't create "free healthcare" anymore than we can create "free anything". Shit is expensive. Don't act like medicine can be made trivially cheap and plentiful by waving a magic wand.
Falling home prices hurt everyone, not just people who took out bad loans
Incorrect. When prices drop _everywhere_ evenly/equally, everyone's net worth remains relatively the same...things just become cheaper. When prices drop unevenly (say, by letting the greedy asshole speculators keep their ridiculously inflated assets while prices elsewhere return to normal), ONE person comes out AHEAD of another. But if you don't agree, I'll see if I can petition the government to give you a free $1000, and everyone else $100,000. Since we're not in a zero-sum world, that would make you $1000 richer, wouldn't it?
Seriously...as someone who went to a "tech" school (RPI), I wholeheartedly suggest not doing the same. If the 5-to-1 male-to-female ratio isn't enough to scare you away, the absurd tuition cost should be.
Find an affordable fun school and minimize loans. The "Where" doesn't matter that much. Take it from someone in "industry" right now.
Lost episodes don't (typically) waste half their time with filler subplots
The golf course episode
The van w/ beer episode
Sawyer and the boar
Hurley & Rose w/ the food
The whole Sun/Yin debacle
Shannon/Sayid, Hurley/Libby, Jack/Sawyer/Kate, romantic bullshit nuff said
ANY of the zillion "flashbacks" that add nothing to the "island story", nor "character development" since they beat you over the head with it a million times...i GET IT...kate "runs", sawyer "survives", jack "fixes", etc...we've known this shit from season 1, yet they "filler" this crap over and over
the list goes on...I don't know what you define as "filler subplots", but every freakin episode introduces a new "filler subplot" to me...the latest being "sayid the super spy" (where they spent nearly half an episode to get across the message "sayid is killing people in the future for ben"...uhhh, filler much?)
Lost characters don't mysteriously disappear from one location then appear a day later in another
Walt, nuff said...he appears all over the damn place
Locke/Ben/the Others...all also possess damn near magical transportation powers. Or maybe you can explain to me how "triagulation" works without knowing a starting point, time, OR a course? (I'm talking about Ben's intercepting the Losties on their way to the transmitter)
Desmond...magically teleported out of an IMPLODING HATCH
Lost characters are actually likeable and generally don't do anything utterly, bone-headedly stupid.
Ahhhh, the coup de grace. Here goes:
Treating hostile characters like best buds...walking in front of them, with your back to them, with little attention on them...doing things they want just for the hell of it...this card has been played MULTIPLE times, and they get fucked _every time_. Some examples:
Jack giving the walkie to Ben when he asked for it. Result: Ben tells his people to kill the 3 Losties if they don't hear from him in a minute
Locke walking in front of and having his back to a hostile enemy he does _not trust_ who has a _gun_ while viewing a mass grave. Result: Locke gets shot.
The Lostie brain-dead ambush, spearheaded by Sayid the military mastermind. Result: They lose the boat
Not asking any goddamned questions that everyone in their right mind would be asking: it took Locke until mid-Season 4 to even THINK to question Ben about the monster, in even the most half-assed of manners. Did he get an answer? Hell no! Did Locke push? Of course not! Similarly, Jack withholds the videophone from the new psychic guy demanding answers...the new guy demands the phone first...Jack gives it...does the psychic ever provide answers? Hell no! Does Jack push? Of course not!
This list also goes on...everyone acts fantastically stupid all the time in this show, in exactly the fashion needed to advance the plot
he Dems may have a slim majority in Congress, but Congress has nothing to do with any of the FISA/eavesdropping/intelligence controversies... Neither cheetahs nor a Democratically controlled Congress have anything to do with the Executive breaking the law
Huh? What parallel universe do you live in? The Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (judges) branches act as checks on the Executive branch. By passing a law that gives retroactive immunity to telecoms, the Legislative branch (DEMOCRAT-led) is essentially saying they condone and approve of the illegal wiretapping acts of the Executive branch. That law could not have been passed by the Executive branch alone, and if it had not been passed, people would have been held liable. If the president is overstepping his bounds, it's the job of Congress to set him straight. You don't do this by blissfully rubbing stamping his oversteps of the law.
Making bold/bizarre speeches about the gold standard or keeping government out of environmental regulation (what? we settle it with guns?) is very entertaining, but it doesn't get the trash picked up, the schools financed, the roads fixed.
Umm, you do realize the states pay for all those things? (ie, has nothing to do with federal regulation)
Or maybe Obama decides to play the substance card.
Which "substance" are you referring to? From what I've seen, he looks the same as all other traditional establishment Democrats...nanny state and social welfare spending out the wazoo. Only difference is that he's personable (a better speaker) and has less experience. Beyond that, there's very little he's putting forth that supports any dogma of "change". In fact, his recent voting history (such as the Aye vote on the renewed Patriot act) show me little of "substance" or more of "backdoor compromising". For someone who "studied Constitutional law", he sure as hell doesn't uphold it very well.
Presupposing that the reason he didn't win is to flatly state that if everyone were informed and voted their hearts, Ron Paul would have won.
Not true. If a candidate was not known by most of the populace, there's no knowing whether or not they would have voted for said candidate. However, if a candidate is not known, there's an absolute guarantee that the public would not vote for them. Claiming the message "wasn't heard" or "was suppressed" is a fair argument that makes no assumptions to the contrary.
And in fact, my personal experience (in 3 separate states I've visited) confirms such a stance (when I've asked people why they didn't vote for Ron Paul, the typical response was "Who?", not "Because I don't agree with him").
As much as Paul supporters would like to believe otherwise, Paul hasn't been successful largely because not that many people like his ideas.
You say that. However, every time I ask someone why they aren't voting for Ron Paul, about 8 out of 10 say "Who?"
"Somewhat marginalized" is putting it lightly. In this "TV generation", if you can't get your message on the boob tube, no one is even going to know about you.
Huckabee is a perfect example. He was a nobody with no budget until "Big Media" decided to give him loads of free TV exposure. Then his numbers skyrocketed.
If you look, you'll see similar results with Ron Paul. He did damn well wherever he could afford TV advertising. Part of the problem is that his campaign started too late (the funds didn't start rolling in until midway through the primaries). The other problem is that he's too damn frugal with his campaign funds (not enough TV advertising).
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
No matter who wins this race, it is NOT the same old entrenched politics.
Oh, I disagree entirely. The only "viable" candidates remaining are establishment candidates. There will be no significant "change". Even Obama (who everyone apparently is in love with because he has a silver tongue) plays the game (see his "compromising" Aye vote on the renewal of the Patriot Act for example). I mourn the loss of Ron Paul to the presidency...he truly would have changed the political process.
I don't see McCain winning as all that bad.
Yes, he will continue the war in Iraq. But you know what? Unlike George Bush, I think he has the competence to continue it in a manner in which we don't alienate the entire world and look like idiots to those who want us all dead.
You're serious? The guy who thought it would be a good idea to sing "Bomb Iran" during a Republican dinner party wouldn't "alienate the entire world" and "make us look like idiots"?
Just hearing that guy speak at the debates sends shivers down my spine. He has no charisma, acts like a pompous ass, is obviously clueless on very crucial topics (ie "I don't know anything about the economy"), is a warmongerer, and most damning...he appears arrogant and pigheaded enough not to listen to anyone once he thinks he's right. He reminds me of Bush exactly. I'm always amazed when people claim otherwise. Even his "smile" looks condescending.
You know what I think is most exciting about John McCain? He hasn't kowtowed to the Jesus Crispies
Once again, what election have you been watching? How do you explain his cozying up to Jerry Falwell? Or his flipflop on campaigning at Bob Jones university?
I do not live in the US and my point of view is completely from the outside - but where I live we pay 1 half of 1 percent of our salary to pay for healthcare for everyone. Granted our public system isn't the plushest of stays, but you get what you need and no questions asked. And when you think about it, what are you out? $50 a month? Are you that greedy and obsessed with amassing your little cash pile that you'd miss such a paltry sum?
Anyone believing these numbers to be true should take a lot at how much we're paying right now for Medicare/Medicaid, which doesn't cover everyone.
$50/month my arse.
but healthcare (and education) has got to be a fundamental of human dignity
Find a way to pay for it that doesn't bankrupt the nation or _greatly_ reduce quality.
I think with a little research, you'll discover that attempting to force a finite number of doctors w/ a finite supply of machines, beds, and resources to heal anyone who asks for help is akin to trying to squish a square peg into a round hole.
What is the point of comparing the price of oil with the price of gold?
Not entirely sure what that whole angle is myself. Perhaps he's trying to show a disconnect between gold (which typically inversely follows the dollar) and oil.
At any rate, the rampup in oil prices is primarily due to the weakening dollar.
But that aside, it all misses the point entirely...the whole point of pegging currency to something of value is so that it is actually _worth_ something.
Think of an equivalent analogy...do you think it's more fiscally responsible for a person to:
A) Have money available before they purchase something
B) Put it on a credit card and get more credit cards or raise the limit when they feel like spending more (ie "dollar printing")
Having the dollar tied to nothing is like giving the government a zillion credit cards and saying "go wild!"
And when the debt collectors (ie "China") finally realize we can't pay our bills...that's when the repo man comes and we all get fucked.
End the war. Oh goodie, another vietnam style strategic withdrawal
Ya, I don't agree with him here. I think it's really sinking his campaign too.
A policy of cutting spending is like a good intention with no actuall plan attached. Show me where you are going to cut spending, how you are going to deal with the sideeffects and how much it is going to cost to achieve in the first place
Now here's where I disagree with you. Ron Paul has been _very_ clear where he intends to cut spending. And the "side effects" you speak of are positive ones. The whole view here is that our foreign policy of military intrusion is costly and has a _negative_ side effect on our country. So less "world police" saves money _and_ benefits the country. Similar views are held on a variety of topics, including the failing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. Over 50% of all our taxes are sucked into those three programs, yet health is completely in the shitter and the poor are still poor (or poorer). So why not axe the failing programs and put the money back into the pockets of the people? Once again, the removal of the program would have a _beneficial_ side effect.
Removing the income tax, another idiotic scheme. Sure it can be done, but it would require a massive change and is going to upset a lot of people.
Any change that matters will upset a lot of people (ie removal of Social Security). But it needs to be done. The tax system in the US is bloated and full of loopholes. Practically every candidate out there has some plan to simplify the tax code or eliminate the IRS or implement new schemes. A radical change _will_ happen regardless, because it's needed. The question is _which_ radical change to implement. In my mind, the simpler, the better.
No Ron Paul is just another smooth talking figure head who promises everything that people like you want to hear without actually ever going into how he thinks he is going to achieve any of this.
I'm sorry you think this. Maybe you should watch him talk more. What he preaches (small government) is easily achievable (some of his more extreme ideas aside...). The overreach of the federal government is _not_ helping this country. Part of me believes that if we took the money going to all these programs and BURNED it instead, the country would still be better off than where it is now. But I _know_ that money is better off in the hands of the people who can't afford even basic healthcare.
Niche? Focus on music aside, Apple is sporting a 150+ million dollar market cap, nearly half that of Microsoft. They're a major player these days, not a niche.
AND they're engaging in the kind of "anti-competitive" practices that Microsoft got _grilled_ for back in the day...namely, packaging their own applications with their OS.
The things that people praise Apple for today (i.e. having a rich, 'do-anything' desktop experience out of the box) is the same things Microsoft was condemned for (and punished for) in the past.
Maybe now doctors will actually try to explain to a person what is or might be wrong with them instead of simply hand-waving symptoms and eagerly prescribing drugs.
The level of diagnostic effort I've noticed in the US is abyssmal.
I was having some pretty severe stomach problems. By severe, I mean "nothing I've ever felt before in my life", "constant heartburn", "partial vomiting", "acid reflux", "general weariness", etc...of the consistent variety (almost 24/7 over a period of months).
Nothing life threatening, but for someone who had never had such symptoms before, it was rather disturbing to me, especially since I didn't want the problem to get worse, whatever it was.
And it was seriously having a deleterious effect on my life.
So I go to a general practitioner, who generally blew me off. I had to practically beg him to get me an appointment with a Gastroenterologist. Well, after seeing said new doctor, I quickly learned that unless you're practically dying of stomach cancer, they won't even listen to you or look twice in your direction.
I've had similar experiences with Dermatologists (I've been to three different ones at this point)...I have pretty severe psoriasis and until I did internet research I didn't realize that these jackasses don't really know anything. They simply guess with different creams or techniques until something works. And they certainly don't tell you the potential negatives before doing something (ie extended topical steroid use _can_ be bad for you). Hell, _I_ can guess. I pay you to figure out what the hell is wrong. If you're incapable of that, tell me so and I'll keep my damn money.
It's any wonder people seek the internet for medical wisdom...doctors simply don't care to diagnose, explain, or do anything other than send you away with some sample products in your hand.
Those programs don't stop people from being poor, they stop them from being poor enough that they'll revolt and take the food their hungry bellies demand from the stores by force, at night.
That's a rather specious claim. By what proof/facts do you base this opinion on?
Show me studies showing a substantial decrease in grocery store robberies following the implementation of any of our many social programs.
It's bread and games, and it works as intended.
You sound like the Simpsons with the Bear Patrol. If that's how ya think, I have a rock that keeps away tigers I'm looking to sell. It's working exactly as intended too.
In the guise?
Look around, stores full of valuables are protected by no more than a mere sheet of very breakable glass, foreigners walk the streets, people come and go peacefully and in good health busying themselves to their various affairs.
I think you miss the point, sir.
I believe the original poster is specifically referring to the 50+% of the budget than goes to such federal programs as Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security, all of which meet the definition of "guise of improving the standard of living" quite perfectly.
That Medicare/Medicaid budget certainly isn't making our nation any healthier.
The Welfare program isn't making us any less poor.
And the Social Security program is failing to be any kind of a safety blanket whatsoever, with expectations of bankruptcy.
And none of those programs are "paving roads, generating electricity, pumping clean water, or picking up garbage".
The bulk of the things in your post are state-taxed privileges. Since the original poster was referring to federal spending (responding to calls for a Universal Healthcare plan), that which your state does for you isn't exactly applicable to the argument.
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots!"
That allows you to hammer the drug companies on price and share the proceeds with the population. In the American system, it is you against the drug company and you are needy; you are willing to pay anything to fix yourself. In short you're screwed.
That is not a failure of the free market. In a free market, it's you against the drug COMPANIES. And when one stubborn ass insists that you pay a million bucks for an drug, there's always another company there to offer you that same drug for 900k. And maybe some other company for cheaper, and so on. It's how competition is supposed to function as a price-driver.
The main reason this isn't occurring now is because of government interference, because the pricing and cost information isn't available to the general public, and because doctors are in bed with insurance companies.
You don't need purchasing power to drive prices...you simply need a truly free market.
To the right, one would think that gay male rape would be regarded as a sin and a gross violation of manhood.
To the left, one would think that prison abuse happening on a widespread scale should be something that a civil society should abhor.
I know a lot of what he says is horribly misleading. But he really cant help but be correct when he talks about the health insurance industry because there are serious problems there. So what is he saying about the health insurance companies that is untrue?
I haven't seen the movie myself, but that's the whole point. The Falwells, the O'Reillys, the Cindy Sheehans, the Fred Thompsons of the world...once you exhibit enough ignorance, looniness, or bias, people are simply going to stop listening. You could say the most inspirational, poignant, groundbreaking thing, backed with facts and everything, and people won't give a damn because they know you to be nothing but a scummy liar. That's where Moore is now. He dug his own "integrity grave" with his previous tripe and now the only people that will listen to him are the extreme lefties and conspiracy nuts that have eaten up every word he said from the beginning.
I know the state of health care in this country sucks. Most people do. It's been fairly common knowledge for awhile now. However, Moore uses this movie to push some socialist agenda that would only shove our healthcare further into the crapper. People preach "universal healthcare" like it's some miracle cure that will magically just make everything work. Well, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't simply generate money anymore than you can spawn thousands more doctors. The problems that exist in the system exist _because_ of the government, _because_ of regulation. Think of all the social programs out there that are failing spectacularly...Welfare, Medicare, Medicare, Social Security...none of them are doing effectively what they claim they're put in place for, yet they eat up well over 50% of our taxes (and people complain about defense spending?!?). And people want to give MORE money to the government? Show me one federal program that has succeeded cheaply.
The free market, on the other hand, has time and time again proven it's effectiveness. Why not simply take the barriers out of place that keep the medical environment from being governed by the free market? Concentrate on generating competition by making prices and costs a visible component of service. Largely remove the middle men "insurers" from the picture to prevent the bullshit backdoor deals between doctors and insurers. Eliminate the insane amount of waste and overhead in the system. Cut costs by having pharma market to doctors as they should instead of people. Hell, do away with the concept of "insurance"...actually have people save and invest their youthful money in a health savings account so they actually have money to spend when they're old and actually need it instead of blowing it all on "insurance" with a sleazy promise of maybe being treated if costs aren't too high. Eliminate wasteful federal spending to put some actual dollars in the hands of people who need it. Hell, how about spending more money on educating Americans on proper diet and exercise habits. Did you ever think that perhaps the poor health in America is due to poor diet/exercise habits moreso than ineffective doctors/hospitals?
Finally, accept reality. There's a finite supply of doctors. You can't simply "give everyone healthcare" atm without either taking it away from or greatly reducing the quality of someone who can actually afford it. For all you liberals out there, since when is it morally OK to damage the health of the rich to better the health of the poor? Is it morally more "correct" for Poor Joe to get that heart surgery while Jim Millionaire dies because he's still waiting in line for a machine? If you don't think this will occur, show me the logic that allows _everyone_ access to a doctor when they need it, given finite technology, beds, and doctors? It's happened in practically every country out there that Americans praise for their "great universal healthcare".
In conclusion, you don't solve an expensive problem generated by a clusterfuck of regul
Myth? How ignorant. For something to be a myth, it must be invented/imaginary/unproven.
The historical price difference between Macs and PCs is NONE of those.
Whether or not you believe a PC is cheaper now is irrelevant...it doesn't automatically turn a historic FACT into a "myth".
Perhaps "present day stigma" is the phrase you were looking for.
Now when ever I check Digg. I normally get the following topic.
Look at the Cool Picture [cool, beautiful...]
The Bush Administration is Evil because...
Atheist are more moral people then anyone else.
Religious people suck because...
More accurately:
GREATEST PICTURE EVAR!!!
BREAKING!!!: Bush Administration is the MOST EVIL EVER because!!!!!!!!!
Atheeist r more morale than everyone! BUSH SUCKS OMGOMG!!!!
Why Atheists ROX0R!!!
Further capitalization and mispellings, additional exclamation points, and/or any other hyperbolic, retarded communication styles are optional of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple runs an entire ad campaign capitalizing on "looks all the things you can do with our OS that isn't built into Windows". They're leveraging their OS to push all their proprietary built-in software (including their own browser Safari). Why is it a crime in Microsoft's case, but not in Apple's? With IE market share at all-time lows, they're hardly killing the competition.
Slippery slopes...he's already pushing for major governmental control of healthcare, and I certainly don't see him decrying the current government "ownership" of banks that is occurring.
Did you hear what you just said? ;P
And you call that scientific? One data point, not reproducible, and drawing on the _assumption_ that life on Earth occurred until ideal conditions (rather than being a statistical outlier).
Apply such "facts" to any other scientific topic and you'd be laughed out of the scientific community so fast that it would make your head spin.
Sorry, but with all due respect, I think you're completely wrong here (and the OP has an excellent point). Belief in extraterrestrial life has many parallels with embracing a higher power. It's pseudoscience at best. There is zero evidence for life outside of Earth. Zero. It's that simple. To believe anything other than that is just well-wishing or cherrypicking your beliefs. We may continue to seek evidence of "aliens" the same as we may continue to seek evidence for "God's existence", but until something tangible appears, such things fall squarely into the realm of unicorns and ghosts...something you can believe in if you so choose, but lacking scientific merit.
And "mandatory spending" (ie Social Security/Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid) costs us 4.49 BILLION per day and has left us equally poor and obviously just as sick. Convenient YOU would forget about THAT. Just another run-of-the-mill liberal cherrypicking his/her arguments. Btw, that "one time stimulus check" costs about ~250-300 million per day, so don't pretend THAT is trivial as well.
I'm glad you know about money trees. In my world, medical resources are scarce, tangibles fixed, and demand high. People can't create "free healthcare" anymore than we can create "free anything". Shit is expensive. Don't act like medicine can be made trivially cheap and plentiful by waving a magic wand.
Incorrect. When prices drop _everywhere_ evenly/equally, everyone's net worth remains relatively the same...things just become cheaper. When prices drop unevenly (say, by letting the greedy asshole speculators keep their ridiculously inflated assets while prices elsewhere return to normal), ONE person comes out AHEAD of another. But if you don't agree, I'll see if I can petition the government to give you a free $1000, and everyone else $100,000. Since we're not in a zero-sum world, that would make you $1000 richer, wouldn't it?Seriously...as someone who went to a "tech" school (RPI), I wholeheartedly suggest not doing the same. If the 5-to-1 male-to-female ratio isn't enough to scare you away, the absurd tuition cost should be.
Find an affordable fun school and minimize loans. The "Where" doesn't matter that much. Take it from someone in "industry" right now.
- Walt, nuff said...he appears all over the damn place
- Locke/Ben/the Others...all also possess damn near magical transportation powers. Or maybe you can explain to me how "triagulation" works without knowing a starting point, time, OR a course? (I'm talking about Ben's intercepting the Losties on their way to the transmitter)
- Desmond...magically teleported out of an IMPLODING HATCH
Ahhhh, the coup de grace. Here goes:And in fact, my personal experience (in 3 separate states I've visited) confirms such a stance (when I've asked people why they didn't vote for Ron Paul, the typical response was "Who?", not "Because I don't agree with him").
You say that. However, every time I ask someone why they aren't voting for Ron Paul, about 8 out of 10 say "Who?"
"Somewhat marginalized" is putting it lightly. In this "TV generation", if you can't get your message on the boob tube, no one is even going to know about you.
Huckabee is a perfect example. He was a nobody with no budget until "Big Media" decided to give him loads of free TV exposure. Then his numbers skyrocketed.
If you look, you'll see similar results with Ron Paul. He did damn well wherever he could afford TV advertising. Part of the problem is that his campaign started too late (the funds didn't start rolling in until midway through the primaries). The other problem is that he's too damn frugal with his campaign funds (not enough TV advertising).
You're serious? The guy who thought it would be a good idea to sing "Bomb Iran" during a Republican dinner party wouldn't "alienate the entire world" and "make us look like idiots"?
Just hearing that guy speak at the debates sends shivers down my spine. He has no charisma, acts like a pompous ass, is obviously clueless on very crucial topics (ie "I don't know anything about the economy"), is a warmongerer, and most damning...he appears arrogant and pigheaded enough not to listen to anyone once he thinks he's right. He reminds me of Bush exactly. I'm always amazed when people claim otherwise. Even his "smile" looks condescending.
Once again, what election have you been watching? How do you explain his cozying up to Jerry Falwell? Or his flipflop on campaigning at Bob Jones university?
$50/month my arse.
Find a way to pay for it that doesn't bankrupt the nation or _greatly_ reduce quality.I think with a little research, you'll discover that attempting to force a finite number of doctors w/ a finite supply of machines, beds, and resources to heal anyone who asks for help is akin to trying to squish a square peg into a round hole.
Not entirely sure what that whole angle is myself. Perhaps he's trying to show a disconnect between gold (which typically inversely follows the dollar) and oil.
At any rate, the rampup in oil prices is primarily due to the weakening dollar.
But that aside, it all misses the point entirely...the whole point of pegging currency to something of value is so that it is actually _worth_ something.
Think of an equivalent analogy...do you think it's more fiscally responsible for a person to:
A) Have money available before they purchase something
B) Put it on a credit card and get more credit cards or raise the limit when they feel like spending more (ie "dollar printing")
Having the dollar tied to nothing is like giving the government a zillion credit cards and saying "go wild!"
And when the debt collectors (ie "China") finally realize we can't pay our bills...that's when the repo man comes and we all get fucked.
Ya, I don't agree with him here. I think it's really sinking his campaign too.
Now here's where I disagree with you. Ron Paul has been _very_ clear where he intends to cut spending. And the "side effects" you speak of are positive ones. The whole view here is that our foreign policy of military intrusion is costly and has a _negative_ side effect on our country. So less "world police" saves money _and_ benefits the country. Similar views are held on a variety of topics, including the failing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. Over 50% of all our taxes are sucked into those three programs, yet health is completely in the shitter and the poor are still poor (or poorer). So why not axe the failing programs and put the money back into the pockets of the people? Once again, the removal of the program would have a _beneficial_ side effect.
Any change that matters will upset a lot of people (ie removal of Social Security). But it needs to be done. The tax system in the US is bloated and full of loopholes. Practically every candidate out there has some plan to simplify the tax code or eliminate the IRS or implement new schemes. A radical change _will_ happen regardless, because it's needed. The question is _which_ radical change to implement. In my mind, the simpler, the better.
I'm sorry you think this. Maybe you should watch him talk more. What he preaches (small government) is easily achievable (some of his more extreme ideas aside...). The overreach of the federal government is _not_ helping this country. Part of me believes that if we took the money going to all these programs and BURNED it instead, the country would still be better off than where it is now. But I _know_ that money is better off in the hands of the people who can't afford even basic healthcare.Niche? Focus on music aside, Apple is sporting a 150+ million dollar market cap, nearly half that of Microsoft. They're a major player these days, not a niche.
AND they're engaging in the kind of "anti-competitive" practices that Microsoft got _grilled_ for back in the day...namely, packaging their own applications with their OS.
The things that people praise Apple for today (i.e. having a rich, 'do-anything' desktop experience out of the box) is the same things Microsoft was condemned for (and punished for) in the past.
The level of diagnostic effort I've noticed in the US is abyssmal.
I was having some pretty severe stomach problems. By severe, I mean "nothing I've ever felt before in my life", "constant heartburn", "partial vomiting", "acid reflux", "general weariness", etc...of the consistent variety (almost 24/7 over a period of months). Nothing life threatening, but for someone who had never had such symptoms before, it was rather disturbing to me, especially since I didn't want the problem to get worse, whatever it was.
And it was seriously having a deleterious effect on my life.
So I go to a general practitioner, who generally blew me off. I had to practically beg him to get me an appointment with a Gastroenterologist. Well, after seeing said new doctor, I quickly learned that unless you're practically dying of stomach cancer, they won't even listen to you or look twice in your direction.
I've had similar experiences with Dermatologists (I've been to three different ones at this point)...I have pretty severe psoriasis and until I did internet research I didn't realize that these jackasses don't really know anything. They simply guess with different creams or techniques until something works. And they certainly don't tell you the potential negatives before doing something (ie extended topical steroid use _can_ be bad for you). Hell, _I_ can guess. I pay you to figure out what the hell is wrong. If you're incapable of that, tell me so and I'll keep my damn money.
It's any wonder people seek the internet for medical wisdom...doctors simply don't care to diagnose, explain, or do anything other than send you away with some sample products in your hand.
It's a very good question, especially since Voyager I sped up once it crossed the termination shock.
That's a rather specious claim. By what proof/facts do you base this opinion on?
Show me studies showing a substantial decrease in grocery store robberies following the implementation of any of our many social programs.
You sound like the Simpsons with the Bear Patrol.
If that's how ya think, I have a rock that keeps away tigers I'm looking to sell.
It's working exactly as intended too.
I believe the original poster is specifically referring to the 50+% of the budget than goes to such federal programs as Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security, all of which meet the definition of "guise of improving the standard of living" quite perfectly.
That Medicare/Medicaid budget certainly isn't making our nation any healthier.
The Welfare program isn't making us any less poor.
And the Social Security program is failing to be any kind of a safety blanket whatsoever, with expectations of bankruptcy.
And none of those programs are "paving roads, generating electricity, pumping clean water, or picking up garbage".
The bulk of the things in your post are state-taxed privileges. Since the original poster was referring to federal spending (responding to calls for a Universal Healthcare plan), that which your state does for you isn't exactly applicable to the argument.
I don't know where I heard it, but I was always told the safest place was near the wing.
Was that just a myth?
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots!"
The main reason this isn't occurring now is because of government interference, because the pricing and cost information isn't available to the general public, and because doctors are in bed with insurance companies.
You don't need purchasing power to drive prices...you simply need a truly free market.
I haven't seen the movie myself, but that's the whole point. The Falwells, the O'Reillys, the Cindy Sheehans, the Fred Thompsons of the world...once you exhibit enough ignorance, looniness, or bias, people are simply going to stop listening. You could say the most inspirational, poignant, groundbreaking thing, backed with facts and everything, and people won't give a damn because they know you to be nothing but a scummy liar. That's where Moore is now. He dug his own "integrity grave" with his previous tripe and now the only people that will listen to him are the extreme lefties and conspiracy nuts that have eaten up every word he said from the beginning.
I know the state of health care in this country sucks. Most people do. It's been fairly common knowledge for awhile now. However, Moore uses this movie to push some socialist agenda that would only shove our healthcare further into the crapper. People preach "universal healthcare" like it's some miracle cure that will magically just make everything work. Well, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't simply generate money anymore than you can spawn thousands more doctors. The problems that exist in the system exist _because_ of the government, _because_ of regulation. Think of all the social programs out there that are failing spectacularly...Welfare, Medicare, Medicare, Social Security...none of them are doing effectively what they claim they're put in place for, yet they eat up well over 50% of our taxes (and people complain about defense spending?!?). And people want to give MORE money to the government? Show me one federal program that has succeeded cheaply.
The free market, on the other hand, has time and time again proven it's effectiveness. Why not simply take the barriers out of place that keep the medical environment from being governed by the free market? Concentrate on generating competition by making prices and costs a visible component of service. Largely remove the middle men "insurers" from the picture to prevent the bullshit backdoor deals between doctors and insurers. Eliminate the insane amount of waste and overhead in the system. Cut costs by having pharma market to doctors as they should instead of people. Hell, do away with the concept of "insurance"...actually have people save and invest their youthful money in a health savings account so they actually have money to spend when they're old and actually need it instead of blowing it all on "insurance" with a sleazy promise of maybe being treated if costs aren't too high. Eliminate wasteful federal spending to put some actual dollars in the hands of people who need it. Hell, how about spending more money on educating Americans on proper diet and exercise habits. Did you ever think that perhaps the poor health in America is due to poor diet/exercise habits moreso than ineffective doctors/hospitals?
Finally, accept reality. There's a finite supply of doctors. You can't simply "give everyone healthcare" atm without either taking it away from or greatly reducing the quality of someone who can actually afford it. For all you liberals out there, since when is it morally OK to damage the health of the rich to better the health of the poor? Is it morally more "correct" for Poor Joe to get that heart surgery while Jim Millionaire dies because he's still waiting in line for a machine? If you don't think this will occur, show me the logic that allows _everyone_ access to a doctor when they need it, given finite technology, beds, and doctors? It's happened in practically every country out there that Americans praise for their "great universal healthcare".
In conclusion, you don't solve an expensive problem generated by a clusterfuck of regul
Myth? How ignorant. For something to be a myth, it must be invented/imaginary/unproven.
The historical price difference between Macs and PCs is NONE of those.
Whether or not you believe a PC is cheaper now is irrelevant...it doesn't automatically turn a historic FACT into a "myth".
Perhaps "present day stigma" is the phrase you were looking for.
GREATEST PICTURE EVAR!!!
BREAKING!!!: Bush Administration is the MOST EVIL EVER because!!!!!!!!!
Atheeist r more morale than everyone! BUSH SUCKS OMGOMG!!!!
Why Atheists ROX0R!!!
Further capitalization and mispellings, additional exclamation points, and/or any other hyperbolic, retarded communication styles are optional of course.