When facts, truth and logic are talking point and need modded down to maintain an ideology, it says more about your politics then mine. You are right, people are waking up which is why the Tea Party was able to do what it did. Over 2 million voters not only supported what they did but signed a petition to make it happen.
How close would a terrorist have to be? I mean antennas are great and you can hide them in other devices or out in the open and relay your cracking from a distance. That's the advantage of wireless isn't it.
Imagine a scenario where a terrorist gets a hotel room in the same hotel he is staying at. Would the security detail turn off the house WIFI so I couldn't access his pace maker from the hotel's WIFI in my room or the lobby or something? What if he visits a company that has wifi and I have a remote connection into the building?
perhaps we just aren't there yet, perhaps we already are.
lol.. I guess news and factual information doesn't get in your way at all. The government wasn't all shut down, less then 25% of it was because of the budget battle. The rest remained open because of a law passed after the previous shutdown that declared certain government services and departments essential to the security and safety of the country and that they would remain open for a period of time if congress fails to provide funding for them.
Also, of that 26 billion spent, a sizable portion was spent on going the extra steps of securing open air monuments that have remained open in previous shutdowns and forcing private businesses near parks to close down for the duration. Or in other words, part of the 26 billion was specifically induced in order to make the people pay for the actions in congress.
Now what is a fucking joke is when an aging war vet is locked out of the war memorials and faces arrest for trying to see what was erected in their honor while illegal immigrants are welcomed to the same area to protest the fact they haven't been granted citizenship for not following the rules to enter the country.
And your version of fiscal responsibility issues ignores the fact that the shut down was an attempt to save loads more then 26 billion. The only reason the $26 billion was wasted is because they failed to accomplish their goals. Had they been successful, the 26 billion would have been less then the amount saved.
Well, I guess that is a start but I think there are more relevant information in the same speech as well as others.
BTW, the Green eggs and ham was about his kids watching on CSPAN and it was timed to be right before their bedtime. He was reading them a bedtime story and he concluded the story with âoeBrush your teeth, say your prayers, and daddyâ(TM)s going to be home soon.â I do not see the problem with that seeing how he wasn't able to leave the senate floor.
I don't think it does in any meaningful way. The idea of a terrorist is mostly that it attacks civilian populations instead of governments in order to effect change in governments. That would be like paying attention to the driveling of a mass murder who attacks a school of kids because his pet hamster died or something.
A lot of serial rapist and serial murderers are also educated and intelligent. I can't see myself caring about their corollary on buttered toast or the meaning of life any of them produce. I'm not sure I would even care that his mother didn't love him and daddy never hugged him.
I don't know, can you explain the differences between hominoidea, hominoidae, and hominini in scientific terms that don't make my eyes want to gouge my brain out?
I know what they are, it's just a headache keeping them strait or learning more then a simple understanding,
I have no idea how they can stream on a $30/month plan when my $50/month plan bogs down my game playing if there's something downloading in the background
Try an add on network card if the other guy's suggestion isn't feasible for you. An Intel or 3com would be nice if you can lay your hands on one. A used one would be ok
Some of the on board network cards (and even ad on) use the host computer's system processor and memory like the old wintel modems did. What this does is creates a CPU and Memory load when using the network. This load increases when you increase the demand like playing an online game and downloading files at the same time. While it should in theory be such a small load that it won't effect performance, other applications maxing the CPU out like a game which also uses sound that might do the same, and you could notice a lag in performance as the CPU will prioritize for the application.
Some on board sound cards (and cheap addons) do the same. They have a DSP chip that translates signals but the processing is done on the host system's CPU and Memory. It's all part of making things cheaper I guess. I have seen add on sound cards make a huge difference in gaming performance. It has been a while since I messed with games so I can't recommend anything current.
Both the sound and network add on cards will likely only improve performance if your system is a little low or mid level for the games you are playing. A top of the line processor likely will show no difference but if your computer has some age to it, it might help. The Gaming Network cards seem to be a gimmick so don't bother spending too much money on them. Just make sure the card doesn't offload the processing to the system and used is generally just fine if your main board and OS supports the card. Find a friend and borrow theirs to test if you don't want to shell cash out trying things. Mom and Pop computer shops sometimes are good sources of cheap used cards.
OK, so we're moving them into an entirely different category of worker by grand fiat. I suppose the fact that hey get paid better than the average McDonald's worker is also "special treatment" and not just part of their normal compensation package for their skill sets. Somebody should pass a law cutting them to minimum wage so they really feel the pinch. Forget paying market wages for marketable skills, we have a point to make. In fact, let's test our welfare system by cutting their pay to $0. Surely that's not a stupid idea that will backfire as soon as it hits market realities.
First, McDonald's is getting special treatment. they have received on the first waivers to the mandate that had been given out. I know that isn't what you tried to present but it is reality and not ad hoc bullshit.
No one is stopping them from making market wages. They can get raises or even go somewhere else and make more. The difference is that just like the rest of Americans who now have this huge expense they previously didn't, with a raise in pay, they are using after tax dollars and can only deduct what is in excess of 7.5% of their income just like every other American who goes through the exchanges. With the special subsidy, it is all pretax and doesn't count as income which again defeats the entire purpose of making congress and the staffers subject to the same rules the rest of America who was forced into this are subject to.
f you're walking around without insurance secure in the knowledge that you'll be treated in case of catastrophe, you're basically stealing catastrophic coverage from the rest of us. We pay more so you can do that. The fact that you never use it is a side issue. Risk has a price, and insulation from risk has a value. If everybody behaves that way, the system collapses.
Bullshit. Everything I do that is dangerous is already covered by insurance either through motor vehicle insurance or workers compensation or homeowners insurance. Outside of those, I do nothing that would create a catastrophe and many others are quite the same. Everyone had played that way and the system did not collapse before Obamacare became law. The difference is the people who got treated and couldn't pay ended up losing their homes and other things to pay the bills or were legitimately bankrupt from the lack of income due to the illness or injury. That is hardly secure in knowledge that everything will be honky dory.
How, exactly, would that work mathematically? What you're describing is known as adverse selection. Again, if everybody behaves this way, the system collapses.
It would be no different then if someone had purchased health insurance the week before having the injury or illness except they would actually pay more with a pre-existing injury penalty. The system had never collapsed before.
I like how you believe nothing would work except this one specific way and anything else will cause your car to stop, your wife to leave you, and your dog to stop waiting to go outside to poop.
Insurance is pretty simple. Most people pay in more than they ever take out so that a small subset of people can take out way more than they put in. The only way it works is if the ratio of payers to redeemers is high enough. You can't create a system where everybody opts out of being a payer and then jumps into being a redeemer when they need it, even if you penalize them some small amount.
That is not true. All you have to do is make the penalty for not being able to pay for your medical costs more. Most of the people who could not pay for their healthcare before Obamacare will now fall under one of the government programs anyways.
You are also missing the fact that even without the ACA, the vast majority of Americans were already enrolled in health insurance or had some sort of coverage. less then 20% of Americans are not covered in some way and of those
One problem is that it's not at all clear what "stick to Constitutional powers" means, it is something that people can validly disagree about. However many of the loudest Tea Partiers, at least the ones that most people manage to hear, believe that it is all obvious and there's no need for debate. Some may even propose unconstitutional actions (defaulting on the debt which seems on the surface to be against the 4th clause of 14th amendment).
Defaulting on the debt is only a scare job. The US government takes in roughly 200 billion a month in tax revenue and serving the debt only take about 20 billion. The problem with not raising the debt limit is that we spend roughly 1/3 more then we take in so spending over that limit would be absolutely required to stop. This is easy to do but it would mean that entitlements stop and other things until either the debt can get under control or the limit is raised.
So a default for not raising the debt limit is only a default if the president insists on not servicing our debt and keeping entitlements and/or other government not subject to a shutdown active.
The other problem is "spending more money than it has". This is a great principle. But it has to be achieved in a rational manner. That means not cutting it off cold turkey. We actually managed to slow this down and flatten the growth of the debt during the Clinton era (with lots of Republican help of course). However there does seem to be a big desire to do more than just keeping the spending in limit, but to actually reduce the spending even after there is no debt. Plus the idea of using taxes to eliminate the debt is anathema to most tea partiers.
There were economic activities during the Clinton year that made a balanced budget more probable that simply won't be recreated. We had Y2k fears which spurred an entire industry trying to avoid a computer meltdown that would send us back to the stone age, there was the creation and conversions of the IRAs to ROTH IRAs in which retirement income that was saved before tax had the option to pay the taxes and then become tax free at withdraw. We also saved a load on government spending by modernizing a lot of the departments and automating some systems. But Clinton actually negotiated with congress when the government was shut down which got welfare reform and a few other footholds in entitlement reform that allowed the budget to be balanced.
President G.W Bush had actually produced and passed a balanced budget in 2001 which projected to be balanced his entire first term as president. The problem is that those other activities didn't follow into his term and economic activity collapsed greatly after 9/11. Something else that Clinton had was cheap energy. This is something we found to be missing during Bush's terms in office, somewhat present today but is unlikely to happen on the same scale because of the threat of global warming. Energy is something the impacts everything from the production of food and products to the enjoyment of either as well as the costs just to get to work. If you look back at almost every booming economy in history (in the US) we have had cheap energy and when that energy became too expensive, the boom was over. But note, a booming economy doesn't mean a balanced budget or debt reduction. It just makes it more plausible if someone where to attempt to do it.
As you state the two principles above, there are probably many liberals who would agree with those statements but who would be unwelcome in the Tea Party movement. That's because there's also a very strong conservative and libertarian leaning there. So while there many be many who say they are only basing their views on those two principles only, they also have very specific ideas about the corollaries they derive from those principles.
It would depend on your meaning of liberal. There are Tea Party politicians who appose the federal government doing a lot of th
Ah, so we're talking about people who don't have insurance already. OK. So that's a little different. Congressional staffers had insurance as part of their pay and then lost it, and the Republicans fought for the Vitter Amendment which prevents the OPM from making up that cut in dollars like it would in the regular market for people who have insurance as part of their pay package. They're creating a perverse situation that doesn't actually exist in the private markets which specifically screws the staffers.
It was the law that was passed. It said that congress and it's staffers were to use the exchanges like everyone else without insurance. Of course we are talking about people without insurance already and the law specifically puts congress and it's staffers into that category so including them is more then appropriate.
People who don't have insurance fall into two categories. Either they can't afford it, in which case the exchanges should be a major boon to them, or they're mooching off the rest of us by making us bear their medical cost risks for them, and I don't have a lot of patience for whining over them having to pay into the system. Cry me a river.
Wrong. You have people who can't afford it, or do not incur medical costs and do not purchase insurance, and you have some who might be mooching off the rest of us by making us bear their medical cost. What you are missing is that the vast majority of uninsured either pay their own health care bills when needed or simply do not rack them up. No sound evidence has ever surfaced that shows 48 million people get medical treatment and do not pay for it. It is all inuendo and assumptions you people trot out. Well, here is a constructive alternative, instead of forcing everyone to get insurance, how about forcing people who don't pay their medical bills to get insurance. Most insurance requires a year waiting period before they will cover preexisting conditions so even tack on a year or two cost of the insurance as a penalty for not having it before hand. At least that would be more consistent with the American ideal of due process and being free to determine their own life.
Nobody was keeping them off the exchanges. They were going to the exchanges. They're still going to the exchanges. The only question was whether the government would behave like a normal employer and pay the cash savings over to the employees so they could spend it on the exchanges or whether they'd take an arbitrary pay cut the likes of which doesn't happen to the rest of us if our employer drops coverage.
The law blocks the government from playing a normal employer. FFS, the law was amended and passed for a reason, to subject congress and the staffers to the same process that they are subjecting the citizens without insurance to. If the intent was to subject them to the same process that large employers are subjected to, they would have kept their original government coverage.
What you are arguing here is the effect of making the amendment meaningless. It completely ignores the purpose and scope of the amendment which congress made into law.
If you take a few deep breaths and calm down, maybe you'll see it more clearly. You seem pretty amped up on hate for congressional staffers. They didn't have a "special exemption" before the Grassley amendment. They just had employer health care like most of us do. They weren't getting special treatment before the Vitter amendment. The only problem comes from the fact that Congress is calling this a "subsidy" which is illegal, instead of what it really is: being paid their negotiated wage.
I see it clear enough. The law uprooted what you would consider normal and purposely subjected these people to something else. The reason for doing so was to ensure all those people were subject to the same failings or successes the rest of the populace would be subjected to as a result
Yeah. Just like the entire populace is enslaved with the ADA that mandates new constructions install wheelchair ramps or get fined. Or how the entire populace is enslaved by the Civil Rights Act that mandates that everyone not kill black people because they don't like them or else be charged criminally.
Actually, the ADA does not mandate that you modify your house or car and even provides exemptions to historical sites as well as businesses with under a certain level of income. The civil rights act does nothing to stop anyone from killing black people. The law already made that illegal. It is also note worthy that the Civil Rights legislation does not require ever single American to purchase something from a third party.
So your examples so far just miss the point. I can understand your confusion though, I was told long ago that if someone cannot argue on principle and facts, they will skip logic and go with emotion.
The racist liberals would have preferred to have a single-payer plan, but they needed at least a couple of Republicans. So they went with a classically Republican plan, instead. "[Something something] PRIVATE SECTOR! [mock-fap]"
No Republican voted for the ACA (Obamacare). This notion that rejected republican plans of the past somehow makes it legitimate ignores not only this fact of no republicans voted for the legislation, but the fact that those plans received no traction and got nowhere when the republicans considered them.
You certainly are delusional on this entire subject. First, you equate requiring businesses to do something or behave in a certain way as the same as requiring every individual to pay a third party or get fined, then you attempt to pretend that the ACA was bipartisan and only passed because of that. Neither of those positions are factually correct.
Sorry, but that's backward There is no way an "independent" party could "hijack" the enormous Republican party. The very idea is laughable. If they could have, there would have been no need for a third party at all. They could have just joined the Republicans and then reformed the party.
One of the biggest reasons the libertarian and Green Parties get glossed over is that about 80% of their platforms are functionally identical or compatible to existing platforms of other parties. The problem for them is that the differences that do remain are showstoppers for them to be in those other platforms. The tea party movement realized that infiltrating one of those parties would allow changes like when the Christian Coalition took over the republicans at one point in time.
The Republicans realized that the Tea Party (which, again, contained a significant number of former liberals) was actually trying to do what the Republicans SAID they were doing for decades, but not actually doing. This could have been devastating to the Republican party. So the Republican donned the masks of the Tea Party and pretended to be them. Successfully. And some of them are even halfway serious about it.
That might be more believable if the Tea Party had not challenged republicans who held safe seats in government during the primaries just to lose the general election to political adversaries. What you are claiming would require the republicans to actually defeat themselves in an attempt to make themselves win under a false pretense. That's a little like a bank robber asking the cops to drive the get away car at his next heist.
But make no mistake: this isn't the original Tea Party, even though some people have hung on. You will find no liberals there. You will probably find a lot of rhetoric about smaller government and lower taxes, but little real action.
I think the recent government shut down proves you wrong on this. It was ineffective action but if you paid attention to the contents of Ted Cruze's speeches or the speeches of the Tea Party members who were behind it, you would understand that they did it specifically because the people asked them too do something.
Just watch cruze's concession speech before the vote to end the shutdown and pay attention to what is being said before injecting your ideological opinions of the content.
So you suggest that the republican party put on masks and pretended to be tea part members for some sort of gain. What type of gain have they received? what gain has the republicans received when it only divided the party showing the difference between the establishment and the tea party conservatives? Your own president marks a clear distinction between the two, so which is it? One in the same or two separate movements?
Once the self driving cars become common, the skies and roads should be able to handle it well. We are still a ways away before that happens but it wouldn't be technically too much different in approaches from a technical and safety standpoint.
Right now, from a safety standpoint, we give aircraft a large space between each other. A computer driving them and calculating the risks can close this gap quite a bit but more appropriately, a computer can do systems checks that could prevent most if not all mid air accidents or malfunctions before allowing the car to take to the air. That already happens on large and expensive aircraft. When self driving cars become a reality, most of it will be happening on cars before they drive themselves too.
Just to add a bit to this, most of our perception of political entities we are not directly involved with are largely shaped by the wording others use to define and deal with them. In the recent shutdown episode, some of the conservative commentators have compared tactics by the president and democrats with Saul D. Alinsky's rules for radicals and found most of them to be in use.
I will highlight a few that specifically intend to instil a picture of a group that is not consistent with reality.
âoeRidicule is manâ(TM)s most potent weapon.â âoeThe threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.â âoeIf you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.â âoePick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.â
If in fact these tactics are in use, it is no wonder people find out what they think about the other guy is often wrong or vastly over inflated.
There are racists on the extremes of all political parties in the US. Most of the parties ignore them and go on. Only the democrat party embraced them that I know of. David Duke failed at getting elected but Robbert Bird held office longer then most people reading this have been alive. Both Duke and Bird were not only practicing members of the KKK but held high offices within the KKK.
That being said, there are a lot of assumptions flying around that because the tea party popped up at the end of Bush's term and grew popular during Obama's first term, it has to be racist. But this ignores the reasons why the tea party formed and why it is even called the tea party- the bailouts and excessive slush funds called the stimulus. They were a bunch of concerned citizens upset over that and staged a symbolic Boston tea party where they gathered to protest holding tea bags symbolizing the Boston Tea Party that ended up with tea being thrown into the harbor of Boston from ships in order to protest a tax.
Of course those in power mocked them, some even resorted to calling them tea baggers in an attempt to associate a slang term with the movement while laughing behind their backs because those good citizens had no clue what they were talking about. Then Obama gets elected and not only continues the bailouts and slush funds, but goes and enslaves the entire populous with the ACA that mandates everyone purchase something from a third party or get fined.
What he means is what he finds out from international journalism reporting on the subjects.
I don't think his bias is showing, I think the media's bias is showing. His opinions are subjected to those biases. Or in other words, his opinions are limited to the exposure he receives which being an outsider, it limited to a few sources. I doubt he has enough interest to actually have a bias.
Another problem is that disagreement on what to do about climate change if anything is mostly lumped into the denier category. This translates directly into more scientifically informed climate deniers by default as some people, the more they know about it, the less alarmed they become.
You are almost right. The association with republicans leans from the fact that most of the tea party objections to the parties line up with the facade the republicans would put forward to get elected but forget about once in office. This was highlighted enormously with the bank bailouts, the GM bailouts, and the slush fund created under the guise of the stimulus in which the tea party movement more or less was created.
In short, it was easier to hijack the republican party then to create a new party and complain that they don't get any respect like the libertarians and the greens party do. (note, that isn't a jolt on the libertarians or the greens, it is just an explanation of what was happening). This is what Obama is so pissed at, it is what McCain the maverick who lost against Obama was pissed at, and what the talking heads in the MMS echoed but failed to grasp. A group of people outside the system are successfully using the system to demand change and they call themselves the tea party.
They can't change the law illegally either. But none of that bars them from attempting to change the law does it? There is only a few ways to change a law, all of them are legal so adding legally suggests something illegal which isn't the case. Even if something is voted down in the house of representatives, it is still not illegal to bring it back up for a vote. Of course the house has rules to how often failed legislation can be brought to the floor but even those rules are somewhat flexible.
"Having to buy insurance" is not analogous to "suddenly being paid less than market wage AND having to buy insurance."
But it is still a pay cut directly due to a law passed by congress and signed into law by the president. Either a penalty or the costs of insurance will have to come from earnings by law every year. Every single citizen in the US who did not have insurance had their market wage reduced by the requirement by law to spend part of those wages or have them removed by the federal government.
You cannot say it is not a pay cut for millions of citizens. I would say it is an even larger cut then what congress and their staffers would endue due to the fact that most of those effected make less money so the amounts now taken will have be a larger percentage of their income.
All the law said was that they weren't to be on the federal health plan any more. It didn't specify what to do with the money they saved in the process. In private industry, most, if not all of that money will eventually end up being used to pay wages, so it makes perfect sense to do the same thing in this case. It's a pretty reasonable interpretation of the Republican claim a they want to mirror the private market experience.
The law specifically said they had to go onto the exchanges. Any rational person not believing that there is one set of rules for the subjects of the crown and another for the crown's court would understand this to mean they had to participate in the exchanges just like the millions of other people who fall under the law. It's entire premise was to make congress be subjected to the same rules the public is in order to ensure they didn't fuck it up or create special provisions to better their positions while ignoring the rest of the country like what had happened since 1973.
So you're coming out against the Republican position, which says "We explicitly don't want to address the pay issue and are making it illegal to do so"?
First, why are you surprised that I hold a position I have stated several times now and the only person who has missed it was you? The entire idea of taking the luxury health care away from congress and putting them onto the exchanges is so that their medical care is directly impacted by their own works or the works of the DHHS. This means they won't ignore changes for the worse and for once in American history, if congress decides to make something better for themselves, it will automatically make it better for the rest of the country.
Second,what republican has ever said staffers couldn't get a raise? All of the ones I have seen have said that they didn't want the special subsidy because it defeated the purpose of placing them into the exchanges. I'm willing to bet that congress will listen to it's staffers a lot sooner then the people and if they fuck something around, we won't have to wait ten elections for someone to finally notice the peasants are rebelling. The only other republican wording I have seen on the issue if that they want the administration and top level advisers on the exchanges and subject to the same shit they forced on the rest of the country.
You put that in quotes like it was actually said, but a google search brings up nothing of the sort concerning health care or the exchanges. Perhaps you are being mislead by someone or your own desire to hate.
Supply curves slope up, demand curves slope down. Shift your demand curve left and you'll have fewer people in the same market. You don't get the same thing at the new lower price.
Perhaps we do not want the same thing. Perhaps some people think the same thing would just ignore the populous and do whatever their ideological leaders decided the night before in a smoked filled back room surrounded by lobbyist.
This isn't a major tragedy--lots of these staffers have serious careers ahead of them and are already
Sort of. It it largely a different government that does it though.
BTW, the government that is by and large argued against is usually the federal government. Most policies people reject or object to government doing would be acceptable on a state or local level. This is something more unique to the US but can be compared to the EU verses the states that make it up.
Yes, i am saying the government went and said everyone who doesn't have insurance has to get it or pay a fine and those with insurance who lose it because the laws add on made it to expensive or for whatever reason has to do the same.
I have also said that if you want to raise their wages, then fucking raise them instead of sneaking subsidies in to bypass the intent and spirit of the law. Why is it so damn dificult to follow the law without creating special exception and quasi coverages due to executive decree that violates the spirit of the law. I mean fuck, the provision was put into the law specifically to make the law makers subject to the same rules and processes the citizens they work for are subjected to.
As i said before, STOP making shit up to support your preconcieved notion and pay attention to ehat was said. I never said don't address the issue of lost pay which will not happen for the citizens who now have a huge expenditure, i said do it wiyhin the limits of the law. As you mentioned, labor is a market force and if congress and the staffers do not like the deal being handed to them by law, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Plenty of qualified people will be more than happy to replace them and be within the confines of law.
This idea that laws are only for common folk and not the people who make them has to stop. We need a world where ehen a drunken senator crashes his car snd kills the prostitute in it, he gets a dui and manslaughter charges instead of 20 more years fucking healthcare up then claiming it needs fixed again and his brand of fixing is the only fixing that will work.
If you want to increase their wages then do it. The wrangling was about a specific subsidy that was created outside the law to skirt the effects of the law which the rest of the country does not get.
Stop trying to attatch shit that doesn't exist in reality in order to maintain some preconcieved notion you hold. The republican specifically said, if we cannot stop it, they want it enforced as passed into law. If the law was going to force the citizens to do something, congress and the people behind it should be forced to do the same.
Now, as for a pay cut. Every single citizenwho doesn't already have insurance or who's employer dumped it has had to take a pay cut by either buying insurance themselves or being fined a tax penalty for not having it. Congress and their staffers can just as well suffer the same experiences the rest of the subjects are forced to by law they created.
Why is it that you think congress and staffers are so privileged that they deserve a srparate set of rules compared to the rest of the citizens? We have businesses cutting employee hours, dumping spouses from family plans if the spouse works, and businesses refusing to hire and expand because the cost of dealing with the ACA is a burden. Why is all that perfectly fine and subjecting congress to the same shit not?
Slashdot Mirror
When facts, truth and logic are talking point and need modded down to maintain an ideology, it says more about your politics then mine. You are right, people are waking up which is why the Tea Party was able to do what it did. Over 2 million voters not only supported what they did but signed a petition to make it happen.
How close would a terrorist have to be? I mean antennas are great and you can hide them in other devices or out in the open and relay your cracking from a distance. That's the advantage of wireless isn't it.
Imagine a scenario where a terrorist gets a hotel room in the same hotel he is staying at. Would the security detail turn off the house WIFI so I couldn't access his pace maker from the hotel's WIFI in my room or the lobby or something? What if he visits a company that has wifi and I have a remote connection into the building?
perhaps we just aren't there yet, perhaps we already are.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-can-hack-a-pacemaker-and-other-medical-devices-too/
lol.. I guess news and factual information doesn't get in your way at all. The government wasn't all shut down, less then 25% of it was because of the budget battle. The rest remained open because of a law passed after the previous shutdown that declared certain government services and departments essential to the security and safety of the country and that they would remain open for a period of time if congress fails to provide funding for them.
Also, of that 26 billion spent, a sizable portion was spent on going the extra steps of securing open air monuments that have remained open in previous shutdowns and forcing private businesses near parks to close down for the duration. Or in other words, part of the 26 billion was specifically induced in order to make the people pay for the actions in congress.
Now what is a fucking joke is when an aging war vet is locked out of the war memorials and faces arrest for trying to see what was erected in their honor while illegal immigrants are welcomed to the same area to protest the fact they haven't been granted citizenship for not following the rules to enter the country.
And your version of fiscal responsibility issues ignores the fact that the shut down was an attempt to save loads more then 26 billion. The only reason the $26 billion was wasted is because they failed to accomplish their goals. Had they been successful, the 26 billion would have been less then the amount saved.
Well, I guess that is a start but I think there are more relevant information in the same speech as well as others.
BTW, the Green eggs and ham was about his kids watching on CSPAN and it was timed to be right before their bedtime. He was reading them a bedtime story and he concluded the story with âoeBrush your teeth, say your prayers, and daddyâ(TM)s going to be home soon.â I do not see the problem with that seeing how he wasn't able to leave the senate floor.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/25/ted-cruz-reads-green-eggs-and-ham-on-senate-floor-and-thats-not-the-weird-part/
I don't think it does in any meaningful way. The idea of a terrorist is mostly that it attacks civilian populations instead of governments in order to effect change in governments. That would be like paying attention to the driveling of a mass murder who attacks a school of kids because his pet hamster died or something.
A lot of serial rapist and serial murderers are also educated and intelligent. I can't see myself caring about their corollary on buttered toast or the meaning of life any of them produce. I'm not sure I would even care that his mother didn't love him and daddy never hugged him.
I don't know, can you explain the differences between hominoidea, hominoidae, and hominini in scientific terms that don't make my eyes want to gouge my brain out?
I know what they are, it's just a headache keeping them strait or learning more then a simple understanding,
Try an add on network card if the other guy's suggestion isn't feasible for you. An Intel or 3com would be nice if you can lay your hands on one. A used one would be ok
Some of the on board network cards (and even ad on) use the host computer's system processor and memory like the old wintel modems did. What this does is creates a CPU and Memory load when using the network. This load increases when you increase the demand like playing an online game and downloading files at the same time. While it should in theory be such a small load that it won't effect performance, other applications maxing the CPU out like a game which also uses sound that might do the same, and you could notice a lag in performance as the CPU will prioritize for the application.
Some on board sound cards (and cheap addons) do the same. They have a DSP chip that translates signals but the processing is done on the host system's CPU and Memory. It's all part of making things cheaper I guess. I have seen add on sound cards make a huge difference in gaming performance. It has been a while since I messed with games so I can't recommend anything current.
Both the sound and network add on cards will likely only improve performance if your system is a little low or mid level for the games you are playing. A top of the line processor likely will show no difference but if your computer has some age to it, it might help. The Gaming Network cards seem to be a gimmick so don't bother spending too much money on them. Just make sure the card doesn't offload the processing to the system and used is generally just fine if your main board and OS supports the card. Find a friend and borrow theirs to test if you don't want to shell cash out trying things. Mom and Pop computer shops sometimes are good sources of cheap used cards.
Evidently, it's easy to get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRm1yqSmsGY
Yes, because the common ideal that Al Qaeda is a bunch of impoverished religious extremist is so inaccurate.
I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but it is true that a lot of terrorist are well educated.
First, McDonald's is getting special treatment. they have received on the first waivers to the mandate that had been given out. I know that isn't what you tried to present but it is reality and not ad hoc bullshit.
No one is stopping them from making market wages. They can get raises or even go somewhere else and make more. The difference is that just like the rest of Americans who now have this huge expense they previously didn't, with a raise in pay, they are using after tax dollars and can only deduct what is in excess of 7.5% of their income just like every other American who goes through the exchanges. With the special subsidy, it is all pretax and doesn't count as income which again defeats the entire purpose of making congress and the staffers subject to the same rules the rest of America who was forced into this are subject to.
Bullshit. Everything I do that is dangerous is already covered by insurance either through motor vehicle insurance or workers compensation or homeowners insurance. Outside of those, I do nothing that would create a catastrophe and many others are quite the same. Everyone had played that way and the system did not collapse before Obamacare became law. The difference is the people who got treated and couldn't pay ended up losing their homes and other things to pay the bills or were legitimately bankrupt from the lack of income due to the illness or injury. That is hardly secure in knowledge that everything will be honky dory.
It would be no different then if someone had purchased health insurance the week before having the injury or illness except they would actually pay more with a pre-existing injury penalty. The system had never collapsed before.
I like how you believe nothing would work except this one specific way and anything else will cause your car to stop, your wife to leave you, and your dog to stop waiting to go outside to poop.
That is not true. All you have to do is make the penalty for not being able to pay for your medical costs more. Most of the people who could not pay for their healthcare before Obamacare will now fall under one of the government programs anyways.
You are also missing the fact that even without the ACA, the vast majority of Americans were already enrolled in health insurance or had some sort of coverage. less then 20% of Americans are not covered in some way and of those
Defaulting on the debt is only a scare job. The US government takes in roughly 200 billion a month in tax revenue and serving the debt only take about 20 billion. The problem with not raising the debt limit is that we spend roughly 1/3 more then we take in so spending over that limit would be absolutely required to stop. This is easy to do but it would mean that entitlements stop and other things until either the debt can get under control or the limit is raised.
So a default for not raising the debt limit is only a default if the president insists on not servicing our debt and keeping entitlements and/or other government not subject to a shutdown active.
There were economic activities during the Clinton year that made a balanced budget more probable that simply won't be recreated. We had Y2k fears which spurred an entire industry trying to avoid a computer meltdown that would send us back to the stone age, there was the creation and conversions of the IRAs to ROTH IRAs in which retirement income that was saved before tax had the option to pay the taxes and then become tax free at withdraw. We also saved a load on government spending by modernizing a lot of the departments and automating some systems. But Clinton actually negotiated with congress when the government was shut down which got welfare reform and a few other footholds in entitlement reform that allowed the budget to be balanced.
President G.W Bush had actually produced and passed a balanced budget in 2001 which projected to be balanced his entire first term as president. The problem is that those other activities didn't follow into his term and economic activity collapsed greatly after 9/11. Something else that Clinton had was cheap energy. This is something we found to be missing during Bush's terms in office, somewhat present today but is unlikely to happen on the same scale because of the threat of global warming. Energy is something the impacts everything from the production of food and products to the enjoyment of either as well as the costs just to get to work. If you look back at almost every booming economy in history (in the US) we have had cheap energy and when that energy became too expensive, the boom was over. But note, a booming economy doesn't mean a balanced budget or debt reduction. It just makes it more plausible if someone where to attempt to do it.
It would depend on your meaning of liberal. There are Tea Party politicians who appose the federal government doing a lot of th
It was the law that was passed. It said that congress and it's staffers were to use the exchanges like everyone else without insurance. Of course we are talking about people without insurance already and the law specifically puts congress and it's staffers into that category so including them is more then appropriate.
Wrong. You have people who can't afford it, or do not incur medical costs and do not purchase insurance, and you have some who might be mooching off the rest of us by making us bear their medical cost. What you are missing is that the vast majority of uninsured either pay their own health care bills when needed or simply do not rack them up. No sound evidence has ever surfaced that shows 48 million people get medical treatment and do not pay for it. It is all inuendo and assumptions you people trot out. Well, here is a constructive alternative, instead of forcing everyone to get insurance, how about forcing people who don't pay their medical bills to get insurance. Most insurance requires a year waiting period before they will cover preexisting conditions so even tack on a year or two cost of the insurance as a penalty for not having it before hand. At least that would be more consistent with the American ideal of due process and being free to determine their own life.
The law blocks the government from playing a normal employer. FFS, the law was amended and passed for a reason, to subject congress and the staffers to the same process that they are subjecting the citizens without insurance to. If the intent was to subject them to the same process that large employers are subjected to, they would have kept their original government coverage.
What you are arguing here is the effect of making the amendment meaningless. It completely ignores the purpose and scope of the amendment which congress made into law.
I see it clear enough. The law uprooted what you would consider normal and purposely subjected these people to something else. The reason for doing so was to ensure all those people were subject to the same failings or successes the rest of the populace would be subjected to as a result
Actually, the ADA does not mandate that you modify your house or car and even provides exemptions to historical sites as well as businesses with under a certain level of income. The civil rights act does nothing to stop anyone from killing black people. The law already made that illegal. It is also note worthy that the Civil Rights legislation does not require ever single American to purchase something from a third party.
So your examples so far just miss the point. I can understand your confusion though, I was told long ago that if someone cannot argue on principle and facts, they will skip logic and go with emotion.
No Republican voted for the ACA (Obamacare). This notion that rejected republican plans of the past somehow makes it legitimate ignores not only this fact of no republicans voted for the legislation, but the fact that those plans received no traction and got nowhere when the republicans considered them.
You certainly are delusional on this entire subject. First, you equate requiring businesses to do something or behave in a certain way as the same as requiring every individual to pay a third party or get fined, then you attempt to pretend that the ACA was bipartisan and only passed because of that. Neither of those positions are factually correct.
One of the biggest reasons the libertarian and Green Parties get glossed over is that about 80% of their platforms are functionally identical or compatible to existing platforms of other parties. The problem for them is that the differences that do remain are showstoppers for them to be in those other platforms. The tea party movement realized that infiltrating one of those parties would allow changes like when the Christian Coalition took over the republicans at one point in time.
That might be more believable if the Tea Party had not challenged republicans who held safe seats in government during the primaries just to lose the general election to political adversaries. What you are claiming would require the republicans to actually defeat themselves in an attempt to make themselves win under a false pretense. That's a little like a bank robber asking the cops to drive the get away car at his next heist.
I think the recent government shut down proves you wrong on this. It was ineffective action but if you paid attention to the contents of Ted Cruze's speeches or the speeches of the Tea Party members who were behind it, you would understand that they did it specifically because the people asked them too do something.
Just watch cruze's concession speech before the vote to end the shutdown and pay attention to what is being said before injecting your ideological opinions of the content.
So you suggest that the republican party put on masks and pretended to be tea part members for some sort of gain. What type of gain have they received? what gain has the republicans received when it only divided the party showing the difference between the establishment and the tea party conservatives? Your own president marks a clear distinction between the two, so which is it? One in the same or two separate movements?
Once the self driving cars become common, the skies and roads should be able to handle it well. We are still a ways away before that happens but it wouldn't be technically too much different in approaches from a technical and safety standpoint.
Right now, from a safety standpoint, we give aircraft a large space between each other. A computer driving them and calculating the risks can close this gap quite a bit but more appropriately, a computer can do systems checks that could prevent most if not all mid air accidents or malfunctions before allowing the car to take to the air. That already happens on large and expensive aircraft. When self driving cars become a reality, most of it will be happening on cars before they drive themselves too.
Just to add a bit to this, most of our perception of political entities we are not directly involved with are largely shaped by the wording others use to define and deal with them. In the recent shutdown episode, some of the conservative commentators have compared tactics by the president and democrats with Saul D. Alinsky's rules for radicals and found most of them to be in use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
I will highlight a few that specifically intend to instil a picture of a group that is not consistent with reality.
âoeRidicule is manâ(TM)s most potent weapon.â
âoeThe threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.â
âoeIf you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.â
âoePick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.â
If in fact these tactics are in use, it is no wonder people find out what they think about the other guy is often wrong or vastly over inflated.
There are racists on the extremes of all political parties in the US. Most of the parties ignore them and go on. Only the democrat party embraced them that I know of. David Duke failed at getting elected but Robbert Bird held office longer then most people reading this have been alive. Both Duke and Bird were not only practicing members of the KKK but held high offices within the KKK.
That being said, there are a lot of assumptions flying around that because the tea party popped up at the end of Bush's term and grew popular during Obama's first term, it has to be racist. But this ignores the reasons why the tea party formed and why it is even called the tea party- the bailouts and excessive slush funds called the stimulus. They were a bunch of concerned citizens upset over that and staged a symbolic Boston tea party where they gathered to protest holding tea bags symbolizing the Boston Tea Party that ended up with tea being thrown into the harbor of Boston from ships in order to protest a tax.
Of course those in power mocked them, some even resorted to calling them tea baggers in an attempt to associate a slang term with the movement while laughing behind their backs because those good citizens had no clue what they were talking about. Then Obama gets elected and not only continues the bailouts and slush funds, but goes and enslaves the entire populous with the ACA that mandates everyone purchase something from a third party or get fined.
What he means is what he finds out from international journalism reporting on the subjects.
I don't think his bias is showing, I think the media's bias is showing. His opinions are subjected to those biases. Or in other words, his opinions are limited to the exposure he receives which being an outsider, it limited to a few sources. I doubt he has enough interest to actually have a bias.
Another problem is that disagreement on what to do about climate change if anything is mostly lumped into the denier category. This translates directly into more scientifically informed climate deniers by default as some people, the more they know about it, the less alarmed they become.
You are almost right. The association with republicans leans from the fact that most of the tea party objections to the parties line up with the facade the republicans would put forward to get elected but forget about once in office. This was highlighted enormously with the bank bailouts, the GM bailouts, and the slush fund created under the guise of the stimulus in which the tea party movement more or less was created.
In short, it was easier to hijack the republican party then to create a new party and complain that they don't get any respect like the libertarians and the greens party do. (note, that isn't a jolt on the libertarians or the greens, it is just an explanation of what was happening). This is what Obama is so pissed at, it is what McCain the maverick who lost against Obama was pissed at, and what the talking heads in the MMS echoed but failed to grasp. A group of people outside the system are successfully using the system to demand change and they call themselves the tea party.
They can't change the law illegally either. But none of that bars them from attempting to change the law does it? There is only a few ways to change a law, all of them are legal so adding legally suggests something illegal which isn't the case. Even if something is voted down in the house of representatives, it is still not illegal to bring it back up for a vote. Of course the house has rules to how often failed legislation can be brought to the floor but even those rules are somewhat flexible.
But it is still a pay cut directly due to a law passed by congress and signed into law by the president. Either a penalty or the costs of insurance will have to come from earnings by law every year. Every single citizen in the US who did not have insurance had their market wage reduced by the requirement by law to spend part of those wages or have them removed by the federal government.
You cannot say it is not a pay cut for millions of citizens. I would say it is an even larger cut then what congress and their staffers would endue due to the fact that most of those effected make less money so the amounts now taken will have be a larger percentage of their income.
The law specifically said they had to go onto the exchanges. Any rational person not believing that there is one set of rules for the subjects of the crown and another for the crown's court would understand this to mean they had to participate in the exchanges just like the millions of other people who fall under the law. It's entire premise was to make congress be subjected to the same rules the public is in order to ensure they didn't fuck it up or create special provisions to better their positions while ignoring the rest of the country like what had happened since 1973.
First, why are you surprised that I hold a position I have stated several times now and the only person who has missed it was you? The entire idea of taking the luxury health care away from congress and putting them onto the exchanges is so that their medical care is directly impacted by their own works or the works of the DHHS. This means they won't ignore changes for the worse and for once in American history, if congress decides to make something better for themselves, it will automatically make it better for the rest of the country.
Second,what republican has ever said staffers couldn't get a raise? All of the ones I have seen have said that they didn't want the special subsidy because it defeated the purpose of placing them into the exchanges. I'm willing to bet that congress will listen to it's staffers a lot sooner then the people and if they fuck something around, we won't have to wait ten elections for someone to finally notice the peasants are rebelling. The only other republican wording I have seen on the issue if that they want the administration and top level advisers on the exchanges and subject to the same shit they forced on the rest of the country.
You put that in quotes like it was actually said, but a google search brings up nothing of the sort concerning health care or the exchanges. Perhaps you are being mislead by someone or your own desire to hate.
Perhaps we do not want the same thing. Perhaps some people think the same thing would just ignore the populous and do whatever their ideological leaders decided the night before in a smoked filled back room surrounded by lobbyist.
Sort of. It it largely a different government that does it though.
BTW, the government that is by and large argued against is usually the federal government. Most policies people reject or object to government doing would be acceptable on a state or local level. This is something more unique to the US but can be compared to the EU verses the states that make it up.
Yes, i am saying the government went and said everyone who doesn't have insurance has to get it or pay a fine and those with insurance who lose it because the laws add on made it to expensive or for whatever reason has to do the same.
I have also said that if you want to raise their wages, then fucking raise them instead of sneaking subsidies in to bypass the intent and spirit of the law. Why is it so damn dificult to follow the law without creating special exception and quasi coverages due to executive decree that violates the spirit of the law. I mean fuck, the provision was put into the law specifically to make the law makers subject to the same rules and processes the citizens they work for are subjected to.
As i said before, STOP making shit up to support your preconcieved notion and pay attention to ehat was said. I never said don't address the issue of lost pay which will not happen for the citizens who now have a huge expenditure, i said do it wiyhin the limits of the law. As you mentioned, labor is a market force and if congress and the staffers do not like the deal being handed to them by law, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Plenty of qualified people will be more than happy to replace them and be within the confines of law.
This idea that laws are only for common folk and not the people who make them has to stop. We need a world where ehen a drunken senator crashes his car snd kills the prostitute in it, he gets a dui and manslaughter charges instead of 20 more years fucking healthcare up then claiming it needs fixed again and his brand of fixing is the only fixing that will work.
If you want to increase their wages then do it. The wrangling was about a specific subsidy that was created outside the law to skirt the effects of the law which the rest of the country does not get.
Stop trying to attatch shit that doesn't exist in reality in order to maintain some preconcieved notion you hold. The republican specifically said, if we cannot stop it, they want it enforced as passed into law. If the law was going to force the citizens to do something, congress and the people behind it should be forced to do the same.
Now, as for a pay cut. Every single citizenwho doesn't already have insurance or who's employer dumped it has had to take a pay cut by either buying insurance themselves or being fined a tax penalty for not having it. Congress and their staffers can just as well suffer the same experiences the rest of the subjects are forced to by law they created.
Why is it that you think congress and staffers are so privileged that they deserve a srparate set of rules compared to the rest of the citizens? We have businesses cutting employee hours, dumping spouses from family plans if the spouse works, and businesses refusing to hire and expand because the cost of dealing with the ACA is a burden. Why is all that perfectly fine and subjecting congress to the same shit not?