The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency [dhs.gov].
Fail.
I was against the theater that is DHS. I was against invading Iraq (hell, I'm against all the military bases we have spread all over the world).
And...I am very MUCH against this health care system power-grab atrocity, thank you very much.
furthermore, I am against all of it for the very same reason.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A system of governance that is based upon "what is good for me personally" is simple anarchy. Forcing an insurance company to pay for a pre-existing condition is simple theft, regardless of how hard that makes your situation.
Instead of trying to convince you of anything, let me offer the following question:
Is it sensible to convey responsibility, without conveying an equal amount of authority? That is, does it make sense to claim that the government is responsible for the health of the populace without also making the claim that the government should have the power to do what is necessary to make the populace conform to healthy habits?
Bipartisan ship means that the right-wing folks need to accept some of the left wing folks' ideas.
Bull. That's not bipartisanship. That's horse trading.
Bipartisanship would be the Dems not liking the way insurance companies ride roughshod over subscribers, and the Reps not liking the idea of the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, so they reach an agreement that answers both concerns. A law that would require insurance policies to match one of a few DHHS outline policies, or state clearly how they differ.
Dems are concerned about the huge cost of the tax liability and portability between jobs, and Reps are concerned about the lack of accountability. A viable compromise would be that all policies are taxed like normal income, raising necessary funds and removing the chain between insurance and a job.
In no way is bipartisanship a "you get one, I get one" game. That leads to the ridiculous robbing of the public purse and our grandchildren's inheritance that we see now.
So, if the government has to pay for your entire rehabilitation when you get shot in the leg, should the government be allowed to determine where you are allowed to walk? You are asking the government to be responsible without having the power to control? Responsibility without authority. That is a ridiculous situation in ANY system.
If the government has responsibility they must have authority to regulate. Would you agree that a 9pm curfew on everyone would be an agreeable measure?
If they do have such rules, there seems no reason why they should not publish the principles behind the rules.
The rules exist, enforced by a news media that is all to ready to expose any mistakes to a queasy populace, but the commanders would be a fool to make such a statement. If you get in a fist fight, you don't tell your opponent that you will stop beating his face once he passes out. I do hope you have enough compassion to do so, but it is not the time or place to be publicizing such sentiments.
No, the commanders stance MUST be that we will chase our enemies to the gates of hell and put a bullet through the head of everyone there if it takes that to drag them back to our torture chambers where we will disembowel them in front of their infant children unless they lay down their weapons and surrender.
Once they stop fighting, then we can get serious and talk to them about how we can help them build roads, schools, and other infrastructure.
The Constitution is a dead document. Realistically it can't be touched... so instead we use it as a guide for governance.
Horsepoop. Really, just plain horsepoop. The Constitution is a living document. It was devised to be amended. There is a well defined process for amending it that has been used dozens of times before.
Of course, you qualified your statement with "realistically", which basically means either "not fast enough to suit my tastes" or "not in a manner which will allow power to accrue to the federal government without a proper vetting period so that normal people realize that all their rights are vanishing into thin air."
You're not thinking on the level of a criminal, bsDaemon. Face it, we're not talking the fairest and brightest of society here. We're talking about that species of human that has barely above being an evolutionary kickback. They're STUPID. We're talking about the sort of people that would kill Michael Jordan's father on the side of a lonely NC highway, hear and see the ensuing hoopla spread through the news, and THEN go around showing off his NBA championship ring.
Collecting Tweets and Facebook entries is just picking the low hanging fruit for law enforcement.
However, the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to undermine our rights.
Would someone please mod this "+1...World's Dumbest Criminal's Apologist"
Heh, betterunixthanunix, did you know that if you buy a car with $20K in small, unmarked bills, the police will consider you a person of interest and start an investigation on you?
Did you know that if you are in a gang, there might be policeman around you that look like normal people? They call themselves "undercover agents".
Did you know that the "young lady" that is asking you if you "want to party" could actually be an undercover policeman? Yeah, he could actually be in drag, but it might also be a policewoman.
The things that you do in public are not private. You have no right to privacy in public places. If you don't want to tell people that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert, don't publicize on FACEBOOK that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert.
Unless they become your friend, and then you invite them back to your 'crib' and give them a key to your front door. Maybe they become close enough of a 'friend' that you invite them to your next drug deal, where the other cops that are listening in over the hidden microphone learn the names of the other dealers and start surveillenc on them. Eventually, they map out your entire friend network and arrest everyone in one big bust.
Of course, that cost thousands of dollars to pull off and puts policemen in danger. Facebook, OTOH, allows them to do the same surveillance and avoid the messy "initiation" routines that all the TV cops have to do to get to the inner circle of the gang.
Yes, you can. But if you fly below 500ft, you are trespassing, and can be fined. This is usually waived in the case of an emergency landing, but not necessarily always.
Furthermore, the FAA requires that all flights be planned to end with a minimum amount of fuel remaining. That minimum is 15 minutes of flight time, if I'm not mistaken. That leaves enough time to get off the ground, and look around for a refueling spot. Note, you won't have time to fly there. Just time to look for it.
Immigration isn't difficult to control. Just go around to all the constructions sites and haul in all the workers that can't speak English. No, this isn't a troll. Those that can't speak English at all will either have some very fresh papers saying they can work here, or they will have a concerned family member monitoring them.
But even then. This is a lame excuse for a national ID card. The "illegal immigrants" are here because they can make more in a month here than they can in a year at home. Our government could stop this illegal immigration in its tracks with a little patrolling of the border. But guess what; nobody in power wants to stop the flow of CHEAP labor. If they wanted, REALLY wanted, to contol the flow, they could set up a VISA system to control the work.
An American employer would submit a request to a government agency responsible for vetting and admitting the immigrants. The same agency would have oversight of working conditions and seeing that the immigrants receive fair pay. The work gets done, everything is legal, and everyone's rights are protected.
It's a simple solution that would be much less expensive than the current law enforcement model, and much less obtrusive that the current or future scams of making every citizen carry work papers. It won't happen though. "Illegal immigration" is just a red herring to distract people into surrendering their civil rights.
Not if there isn't an infrastructure for televisions, newspapers and radios.
We could all go back to using horse drawn carriages if the fuel ran out tomorrow, right?
My brother-in-law is an executive for a printing company. He moved up through the ranks. Started out cleaning bathrooms, and spent years reloading ink into massive printers. His company like many others got bought up, and he has seen the company that bought his be bought by a yet larger company. Most large scale printing has been consolidated into a few large companies.
What has been the enabler? The Internet. Nearly everything is digital now, and the work flow goes from an artist work, to corporate approval, directly to the press. The industry could eventually return to a small guys in warehouses each with a few dozen employees, but that would be a long, hard trek backwards.
Getting the methane out of the sea water is actually easy.
You sink a pipe to where the gas is concentrated. You cap the pipe with a bell. The bottom of the bell is sunk to form a sealed chamber, and then a pump pulls water up and out of the pipe to get the process started. Water will rise in the pipe. As the water rises in the pipe, pressure will drop and the dissolved methane gas will expand, making the water in the pipe less dense. The water inside the pipe will start rising on its own, making it even less dense and more apt to rise. At this point the starter pump can be switched off.
When the water gets to the top of the pipe, the methane will come out of solution. The water will spill over the edge of the pipe and back into the sea. The methane will be capture in the bell and directed to a turbine.
This system could easily be built into the bottom of a factory boat for fish processing.
Oh. Yeah. OK, now I get it. Up until this moment I couldn't see any possible reason why anyone would want to do this other than to burn some VC money.
Now I realize this is the next big thing.
However it won't take off until some lame non-porn apps use it somehow, so we can justify having it installed on our machines. Once that happens, people will use it like fornicating monkeys.
The parent is marked "funny", but I'm completely serious.
There fixed that for you.
My wife is a personal trainer. She has her clients do this exercise called "fornicating monkey". Do a deep knee bend, and then grab the back of your ankles. Now repeatedly squat lower.
No. I don't have any idea what this has to do with the subject at hand. Just thought it was funny.
Real history demonstrates that the smarter (and therefore richer) members of society have had fewer children, but more that reach a reproductive age. This has been an environmental selection.
Idiocracy explores what happens when cultural selection overwhelms environmental selection. No, it is not a documentary. It is a thought study cast as humor.
Now, since you have such a disregard for this fictional thought study, please explain to the group what happens when the smartest people in mass decide not to reproduce, to the point that culture is selecting for traits that make one a dumbass?
Slashdot Mirror
The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency [dhs.gov].
Fail.
I was against the theater that is DHS. I was against invading Iraq (hell, I'm against all the military bases we have spread all over the world).
And...I am very MUCH against this health care system power-grab atrocity, thank you very much.
furthermore, I am against all of it for the very same reason.
A system of governance that is based upon "what is good for me personally" is simple anarchy. Forcing an insurance company to pay for a pre-existing condition is simple theft, regardless of how hard that makes your situation.
Instead of trying to convince you of anything, let me offer the following question:
Is it sensible to convey responsibility, without conveying an equal amount of authority? That is, does it make sense to claim that the government is responsible for the health of the populace without also making the claim that the government should have the power to do what is necessary to make the populace conform to healthy habits?
And the practice of giving multiple exemptions to a single request would have begun with the Obama administration?
Well, I guess when people worship a charlatan they will go to great extents to justify it.
Bipartisan ship means that the right-wing folks need to accept some of the left wing folks' ideas.
Bull. That's not bipartisanship. That's horse trading.
Bipartisanship would be the Dems not liking the way insurance companies ride roughshod over subscribers, and the Reps not liking the idea of the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, so they reach an agreement that answers both concerns. A law that would require insurance policies to match one of a few DHHS outline policies, or state clearly how they differ.
Dems are concerned about the huge cost of the tax liability and portability between jobs, and Reps are concerned about the lack of accountability. A viable compromise would be that all policies are taxed like normal income, raising necessary funds and removing the chain between insurance and a job.
In no way is bipartisanship a "you get one, I get one" game. That leads to the ridiculous robbing of the public purse and our grandchildren's inheritance that we see now.
So, if the government has to pay for your entire rehabilitation when you get shot in the leg, should the government be allowed to determine where you are allowed to walk? You are asking the government to be responsible without having the power to control? Responsibility without authority. That is a ridiculous situation in ANY system.
If the government has responsibility they must have authority to regulate. Would you agree that a 9pm curfew on everyone would be an agreeable measure?
And how often, in previous wars, was a building bombed because it was suspected that some officials might be meeting there?
If they do have such rules, there seems no reason why they should not publish the principles behind the rules.
The rules exist, enforced by a news media that is all to ready to expose any mistakes to a queasy populace, but the commanders would be a fool to make such a statement. If you get in a fist fight, you don't tell your opponent that you will stop beating his face once he passes out. I do hope you have enough compassion to do so, but it is not the time or place to be publicizing such sentiments.
No, the commanders stance MUST be that we will chase our enemies to the gates of hell and put a bullet through the head of everyone there if it takes that to drag them back to our torture chambers where we will disembowel them in front of their infant children unless they lay down their weapons and surrender.
Once they stop fighting, then we can get serious and talk to them about how we can help them build roads, schools, and other infrastructure.
The Constitution is a dead document. Realistically it can't be touched... so instead we use it as a guide for governance.
Horsepoop. Really, just plain horsepoop.
The Constitution is a living document. It was devised to be amended. There is a well defined process for amending it that has been used dozens of times before.
Of course, you qualified your statement with "realistically", which basically means either "not fast enough to suit my tastes" or "not in a manner which will allow power to accrue to the federal government without a proper vetting period so that normal people realize that all their rights are vanishing into thin air."
Yes. It is reinforcement. Not completely foundational reinforcement, but in an investigation everything counts (until it doesn't).
You're not thinking on the level of a criminal, bsDaemon. Face it, we're not talking the fairest and brightest of society here. We're talking about that species of human that has barely above being an evolutionary kickback. They're STUPID. We're talking about the sort of people that would kill Michael Jordan's father on the side of a lonely NC highway, hear and see the ensuing hoopla spread through the news, and THEN go around showing off his NBA championship ring.
Collecting Tweets and Facebook entries is just picking the low hanging fruit for law enforcement.
However, the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to undermine our rights.
Would someone please mod this "+1...World's Dumbest Criminal's Apologist"
Heh, betterunixthanunix, did you know that if you buy a car with $20K in small, unmarked bills, the police will consider you a person of interest and start an investigation on you?
Did you know that if you are in a gang, there might be policeman around you that look like normal people? They call themselves "undercover agents".
Did you know that the "young lady" that is asking you if you "want to party" could actually be an undercover policeman? Yeah, he could actually be in drag, but it might also be a policewoman.
The things that you do in public are not private. You have no right to privacy in public places. If you don't want to tell people that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert, don't publicize on FACEBOOK that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert.
Unless they become your friend, and then you invite them back to your 'crib' and give them a key to your front door. Maybe they become close enough of a 'friend' that you invite them to your next drug deal, where the other cops that are listening in over the hidden microphone learn the names of the other dealers and start surveillenc on them. Eventually, they map out your entire friend network and arrest everyone in one big bust.
Of course, that cost thousands of dollars to pull off and puts policemen in danger. Facebook, OTOH, allows them to do the same surveillance and avoid the messy "initiation" routines that all the TV cops have to do to get to the inner circle of the gang.
Birds of a feather flock together.
Damn! Mama was right again. And the researchers didn't figure it out until 30 years later.
Yes, you can. But if you fly below 500ft, you are trespassing, and can be fined. This is usually waived in the case of an emergency landing, but not necessarily always.
You can't walk around with it. 250lbs isn't all that much. What you meant to say is that it isn't Slashdot Geek Portable.
To do that, you will need to build it yourself, especially with the FAA rewriting the regulations to make the 51% legitimate.
Furthermore, the FAA requires that all flights be planned to end with a minimum amount of fuel remaining. That minimum is 15 minutes of flight time, if I'm not mistaken. That leaves enough time to get off the ground, and look around for a refueling spot. Note, you won't have time to fly there. Just time to look for it.
Immigration isn't difficult to control. Just go around to all the constructions sites and haul in all the workers that can't speak English. No, this isn't a troll. Those that can't speak English at all will either have some very fresh papers saying they can work here, or they will have a concerned family member monitoring them.
But even then. This is a lame excuse for a national ID card. The "illegal immigrants" are here because they can make more in a month here than they can in a year at home. Our government could stop this illegal immigration in its tracks with a little patrolling of the border. But guess what; nobody in power wants to stop the flow of CHEAP labor. If they wanted, REALLY wanted, to contol the flow, they could set up a VISA system to control the work.
An American employer would submit a request to a government agency responsible for vetting and admitting the immigrants. The same agency would have oversight of working conditions and seeing that the immigrants receive fair pay. The work gets done, everything is legal, and everyone's rights are protected.
It's a simple solution that would be much less expensive than the current law enforcement model, and much less obtrusive that the current or future scams of making every citizen carry work papers. It won't happen though. "Illegal immigration" is just a red herring to distract people into surrendering their civil rights.
Not if there isn't an infrastructure for televisions, newspapers and radios.
We could all go back to using horse drawn carriages if the fuel ran out tomorrow, right?
My brother-in-law is an executive for a printing company. He moved up through the ranks. Started out cleaning bathrooms, and spent years reloading ink into massive printers. His company like many others got bought up, and he has seen the company that bought his be bought by a yet larger company. Most large scale printing has been consolidated into a few large companies.
What has been the enabler? The Internet. Nearly everything is digital now, and the work flow goes from an artist work, to corporate approval, directly to the press. The industry could eventually return to a small guys in warehouses each with a few dozen employees, but that would be a long, hard trek backwards.
That would be great. Then we could recycle all the failed policies that we've already slogged through.
Getting the methane out of the sea water is actually easy.
You sink a pipe to where the gas is concentrated. You cap the pipe with a bell. The bottom of the bell is sunk to form a sealed chamber, and then a pump pulls water up and out of the pipe to get the process started. Water will rise in the pipe. As the water rises in the pipe, pressure will drop and the dissolved methane gas will expand, making the water in the pipe less dense. The water inside the pipe will start rising on its own, making it even less dense and more apt to rise. At this point the starter pump can be switched off.
When the water gets to the top of the pipe, the methane will come out of solution. The water will spill over the edge of the pipe and back into the sea. The methane will be capture in the bell and directed to a turbine.
This system could easily be built into the bottom of a factory boat for fish processing.
Oh. Yeah. OK, now I get it. Up until this moment I couldn't see any possible reason why anyone would want to do this other than to burn some VC money.
Now I realize this is the next big thing.
However it won't take off until some lame non-porn apps use it somehow, so we can justify having it installed on our machines. Once that happens, people will use it like fornicating monkeys.
The parent is marked "funny", but I'm completely serious.
There fixed that for you.
My wife is a personal trainer. She has her clients do this exercise called "fornicating monkey". Do a deep knee bend, and then grab the back of your ankles. Now repeatedly squat lower.
No. I don't have any idea what this has to do with the subject at hand. Just thought it was funny.
Luckily, we had the OMG ponies! guys running all of the debates during the last US Presidential election cycle.
Real history demonstrates that the smarter (and therefore richer) members of society have had fewer children, but more that reach a reproductive age. This has been an environmental selection.
Idiocracy explores what happens when cultural selection overwhelms environmental selection. No, it is not a documentary. It is a thought study cast as humor.
Now, since you have such a disregard for this fictional thought study, please explain to the group what happens when the smartest people in mass decide not to reproduce, to the point that culture is selecting for traits that make one a dumbass?