Actually, I read the WSJ editorial page every day (a habit from the days when they were rational and got their facts right), so I already read several of those articles. Mostly, I get my information from the New England Journal of Medicine, which is what you have to read if you want to understand these issues. (They print lots of articles by Republican policy-makers.)
Are you insinuating that I'm not able to understand it and you somehow are? Fuck dude, it seems to be you who is completely unable to understand anything, All I have said is that the claims of death panels had a lot to do with a lot more then just End Of Life counseling. I provided links where conservatives were making death panel claims about a whole of other shit and here you are attempting to argue the points in the fucking articles while ingoring portions of it in the process.
Yawn, And I don't understand why you can't understand a simple post or thread.
I don't know why conservatives can't understand a simple news story. Avastin does *not* cure breast cancer, and it does *not* even extend the life of anyone with breast cancer. It extends life in *colorectal* cancer. In breast cancer, all it does is improve the appearance of spots in an x-ray, which is technically called "progression" but in this case is not correlated with survival. In fact, because of the side effects, breast cancer patients with Avastin do worse than people without it. The Telegraph actually explains most of this if you read it carefully.
Actually, according to the article, it says the drug slows the spread of breast cancer by about 5 months. Does this look familiar? "The drug was initially approved after a study found that, by preventing blood flow to tumours, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months."? So what if it doesn't extend the life of the patent, it slows the spread so other treatments can be more effective which might extend the life of the patient. And as the article said, The Avastin recommendation led to revived allegations that President Barack Obama's overhaul of the US health care system would mean many would be denied treatments currently available. " and David Vitter, the Republican Senator for Louisiana, said the FDA decision amounted to rationing health care.
"I shudder at the thought of a government panel assigning a value to a day of a person's life," he said. "It is sickening to think that care would be withheld from a patient simply because their life is not deemed valuable enough. "
But hey, lets not let the actual words in my post or the article get into your way, please by all means continue on a rant about something not even brought up.
So here's another example of Republicans shouting "death panels" for political advantage where it's clearly not true, and where they're causing people actual harm as a result.
And that was the entire point of my post, to show that the death panel line wasn't just about EOL counseling. It's awfully bright of you to point my point out. However, I see that you have skipped over the parts of the statements and links that point to Obama and his own staff as well as people close to him and his staff making the claim that rationing is already in play so it doesn't make any difference if the government does it. And yes, no matter how you want to spin that, a government panel rationing health care is a death panel as it will determine what care people get and in some cases, it will determine if they live or die by approving or disproving treatments.
The NYT is correct. I read the conservative attacks on Obama's health care plan in the WSJ, including Betsy McCaughey. I also read about the health plan in the New England Journal of Medicine.
For McCaughey, or anyone else, to claim that these were or would be anything like "death panels" to decide when to let someone die for cost-control purpose, is a lie. The conservatives lied. You can go to places like Factcheck.org to confirm that.
I guess when you close your eyes to everything that doesn't fit your own reality, your reality is only what you make it instead of anything real. I'm not going to go through the trouble of actually linking to these articles, but if you are interested in anything more then conformation bias, I suggest you copy and past these links out and read them. You should also note the dates of the articles and maybe send a copy to fact check dot org too. as you have already mentioned that you have read some of these, I have to ask why you are arguing that the death panels definition must be limited to a narrowly defined concept delivered by the democrats who are also in opposition to the republicans? I mean it's the conservatives making the charge, their attack, it's them who define what death panels are, not your biased opposition sites.
and before you start clamoring those are biased sites, I suggest you stop looking only at sites that you agree with and pay attention to the links as the one is from another country altogether with absolutely no vested interest in the US health care system. A few others are what most would consider a left leaning site which admits that the death panels were more then end of life counseling stating that they would ration health care which Obama already has said it's done already, why not do it in the open.
You don't think Al Franken's libel lawyers would have let him print a book like "Lies: and the Lying Liars who Tell them" if he couldn't actually prove that Republicans lied, do you? Actually, all Franken did was assign a bunch of summer interns to fact-check statements by right-wing crackpots like Limbaugh.
This is hilarious. Are you actually arguing that Al Franken's lawyers are so smart that they wouldn't let him publish a book with falsehoods in it but so stupid that they can't go after the people he claims is spouting falsehoods? I mean seriously, do you think it's anything like that at all? Did you even think that out before making your statement or is that something you saw on one of your conformational bias sites and liked it enough to repost?
Here is a hint, Franken's lawyers said to him- if anything, it's political speech, the most protected speech by the first amendment. And no, the so called fact checkers didn't check the facts or he ignored them completely just as you are in order to impress your views right now.
All I asked for when I made that post was that there was some honesty in this discussion. You have proved to me that it is impossible to expect that from you or perhaps your side. The death panels charge was more then end of life counseling and you seem to know it. You can find more about it simply by searching for obamacare death panels. And of course, there is no shortage of people connected to Obama who reinforce this concept by public policy positions publicly held in the present or somewhat recent past.
SO you think intercourse should be buried/stifled for your amusement rather then having open discussion and free speech?
He wasn't exactly making shit up. I have personally been mass down modded for little more then linking to the actual text of a speech located on a university website that contradicted someone's wrong interpretation of what was said. Just recently, I had about 12 posts modded down over a comment stating the differences between games concerning current wars and previous wars is that the people who lost loved ones and had to pick up the pieces and move on have had as much opportunity to make a new life as someone who was born and is expected to be a capable adult when they turn 18-20. Of course not all 12 posts were concerning that but they were down modded anyways. and those are just two of the recent spats.
I'm probably someone you would call one of the "righties" as I supported both wars for reasons other then the stated reasons and recently fear the democrat candidates more then I do the republican candidates (and lets face it, a vote for independent candidates is a vote for the opposition party as the real way to limit the damage is to pick the least of two evils). I also think this story is little more then staging for the elections coming in November and might be a bit premature. All parties do things like this, it's nothing new and it's why you go into something that appears biased with the understanding that it's biased.
There is much more to it then that. I know the video in the link is cut, but it isn't out of context. They wanted to create a panel that basically rationed care based on fiscal criteria and not doctor patient criteria.
I know it fun to bash the parts you don't like, but please keep things in context so you don't end up creating a situation that never existed. Sure, those conservative media icons probably did cause the EOL counseling to get removed, but it was much more then that they were railing on as death panels.
Not arguing for either side, but did you know that England controlled Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey for a while and was instramental in the formation of their modern governments?
It was right after WWI and the fall of the ottoman empire which is also why we/they were/are entrenched in Israel and the Palestine territory. The majority of newly formed territories formed their own functioning governments and moved on, some dicked around and the mess is still there. Then of course, there are those in which internal revolution changes the scene greatly but it's part of their past.
What does thinking for yourself have to do with anything? People do that already and it doesn't change much unless you are talking about people who think for one-self's own interests, then I should refer the mess already made.
Different societies throughout history have failed and showed others how things did work. The problem is you end up trading one so called evil for another. And one thing that has been consistent throughout any society that lasted long enough to be recorded by history or grew past a small village is that the work sucked and people found ways to get around it. These ways consisted of using slaves, creating and maintaining a poor or working class of people who are more or less forced into doing it, creating tractors or other inventions that did the work for them, and so on. Currently, we are teetering between class warfare and invention which is about where all notable societies end up.
As I stated before, there would be no need to sabotage it, It will more likely just fail on it's own merits as nations do not run on dreams and what should be's.
That means your models would be incorrect to a degree as a factual base.
I'm not arguing any side of the coin here, but it seems that all to often "God says so" is dismissed for just as shaky grounds then picked up by people wanting to proclaim it somehow disproves any religion. Science is especially prone to finding new ways things can happen that do not automagically invalidate the old way, but seems more efficient or preferable to keep the new way around.
You are right that science doesn't care about God as science is the natural understand of our environment and the world around us whether created by God or not. Even if God did say so, there will be natural properties and natural processes inherent in maintaining the world as we know it that man can use to his advantage which is sort of what/why religion says man will have dominion over the earth. IF the understanding outside of "God willed it into existence" helps man along that path, then it a rational interpretation of the intent of God as exposed by the judeo-christian-muslim religions.
I'm surprised that you haven't been modded a troll or flamebait by now.
I have often stated that there is no reason for a mass conflict between religious beliefs and scientific beliefs as if there is a conflict, you can shelve the one in order to apply the other in much the same way as you would use the controls differently in different video games. What it boils down to is that there is a set of information for science and religion and if you are doing one, you simply refer to the contextual information for it. It seems that the biggest people with problems involving this are the self proclaimed atheists who seem intent on evangelizing their beliefs.
Generally, when a statement like that is made, someone trolls it for a while, then you end up with a mass down mod on all your posts even if they aren't connected to the statement. It's as if some refuse to allow any middle ground. I agree with your post, but beware, it's probably too sensible for/..
The problems with trailers are that they generally decrease in value as they age as moving them becomes more difficult and expensive.
The reasons government refuse to allow their use by regular people (yes, the government is allowed to install them in most areas) is because it reduces property values and decreases the tax base. I was front line when our township banned mobile home trailers and that was the main reasoning- property taxes couldn't be relied on with them. They eventually slipped in some some minimum building requirements (like square footage and types of roofs that will inflate the footage) too in order to maintain the tax base. It really is about greed by the government. Insanity is just a given.
Golly gosh it is so awful when the owners of a corporation have to actually keep their contractual promises to their employees.
Well, it is so awful when normal accounting and bankruptcy laws are negated in order to favor a specific entity.
Or do you think it is perfectly reasonable for you to lend me $2000 and I cite that you will only be repaid $400 because I hired someone to mow the lawn, clean the pool, fix the porch and so on. I mean you wouldn't care at all would you? Because I would have been keeping my contractual promises to my employees, right?
the Robber Barons were going to lose their shirts had nothing to do with it.
They had little to do with it. That's why the government took the bonds and gave them to the union. Check out the GM bail out a little better, it totally screwed investors and benefited the union.
t's not a difficult concept, and I do understand it. It's just that one of the major hooks for the anti-abortion crowd is the sanctity of life, abortion is murder, etc. Capital punishment in murder, too.
Well, then you also must understand that murder and killing are two separate things. Killing is the justifiable homicide of a person or thing, murder is the unjustifiable of the same. Society has determined that certain acts warrant the justifiable killing by the state and that in the art of self preservation against someone posing eminent harm is justifiable. Of course both of these acts require someone to do some independent act of their own which simply isn't present in an abortion. The sanctity of life argument is not in any way contradictory or confusing to anyone who can understand it.
Frankly I don't think a fetus is a life anymore than a seed is a tree. It's the potential for life, nothing more, until it's popped out of mama.
Well, what you think and don't think is somewhat of a interpreted point now isn't it. We assumed that a fetus was a life as you happened to jump into a thread already stating it as so "They only believe in killing people after they've been born.".
In any way, I find your comparison of a fetus being little more then a seed a bit lacking. You see, a seed is dormant until it's in the right conditions to grow. A fetus is already in that condition and already growing. To make your analogy or comparison more accurate, it might be better to say "Frankly I don't think a fetus is a life anymore than a sprouting oak tree seedling is a tree".
Well, where are the rules for net Neutrality and what are the official definitions of Net Neutrality?
I mean from my stand point, all that needs to be done is ensure that the consumers whether it's the average joe enjoying online gaming, the average sally chatting with her friends, or the average company they want to talk to, gets what they paid for. If they offer this service in a way that doesn't degrade or hamper the services sold to others, then there is no reason for NN to get involved is there?
Whether Cheney was in office or not, that company would have seen the same benefits from the wars. Claiming that he steered benefits to them is a bit crazy as it has been pointed out time and time again that the infrastructure involved was already in place under different presidents including Clinton and Haliburton also carried the best bid once the bidding was opened.
You are being fooled by your own ignorance and will to remain under that spell.
So you think that allowing a nation to harbor known terrorist who attacked your own country and killed 3000 some innocent civilians not to mention a track record other terrorist attacks against other nations to remain in power and doing the same is somehow more legitimate then going to war to stop them?
Please, by all means, expand on your logic here. I hope you have some real answers and not some partisan bullshit you read off an anti war website with no original thought of your own. Getting rid of those that wish to do you harm is in the very definition of protection. It's a main component of why any nation exists.
I guess this goes back to my original question, maybe I should expand it a little.
Can you see no difference between killing someone before they do something wrong or even had a chance at attempting to do it and killing them after they have?
The only thing I see as funny is the lack of dissection between innocent life and guilty life. It's like evil verses nothing as abortions don't even allow the life to present a good or evil side. I'm surprised that this is such a difficult concept for you and others.
Don't want to claim I know for sure as I'm not a girl or a doctor. I do however know a little about a female's anatomy and I will take a guess that it has something to do with the way the hips spread out to prepare for child birth at Puberty.
While they might be missing a piece compares to men (well most of them anyways), the angle of approach will be slightly different. This should translate to one of those things where something needs to be different when accommodating different genders.
Now there are probably people who this doesn't effect and there are probably men who have a similar issue too. This is because our bodies simply aren't identical even if in function.
Damn son, settle down before you give all the self proclaimed liberals a heart attack with the facts. When I read your post, it was as if I heard a million idiots go silent then start to cry as their world had been shattered with the hammer of reality. Have some compassion for these poor souls..
And you think that killing people before they have demonstrated they are a blight on society is somehow better? I mean forget morals and family values as it's typically tossed around to make some people feel good, but can you seriously sit there and say that killing people before the do something wrong is preferred?
Your right, I missed the "In Texas part". Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for the link- it showed me some things I attempted to google but didn't spend enough time to find.
62% is still a large enough number to negate all the farmers in some random area being directly subsidized by government. Further more, you're link states that 80% of farms averaged $579 per year over the 9 years between 1995-2009 in subsidies with the top 10% averaging less then $30k. That's hardly a reason or cause to claim farmers do well because the government subsidizes them as the parent attempted to claim. And I think the benefit to all citizens makes it more then worthwhile.
Why don't you try reading the link you posted. Or did you but are having problems understanding it?
72% of the farms in the US do not get subsidies one way or another. To claim that those farms around him are all the remaining 28% is a bit naive. Anyways, you can claim the subsidies indirectly benefit them because it stabilizes prices but it benefits you just as much because without them, you could be seeing $10 loafs of bread and $20 per pound choices of basic meats. the subsidies create an over stimulation of food which provides security against natural disasters wiping the food supply out. Currently, the US is divided into 5 separate economical growth zones in which two can be wiped out by natural disaster (IE, the Mississippi flooding and drought on the south east which happened not to long ago), and there won't be a run on food or supplies and prices remain relativity stable to avoid sticker shock after these common events occur. What happens simply is exports get limited in the forms of US foreign aid.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you insinuating that I'm not able to understand it and you somehow are? Fuck dude, it seems to be you who is completely unable to understand anything, All I have said is that the claims of death panels had a lot to do with a lot more then just End Of Life counseling. I provided links where conservatives were making death panel claims about a whole of other shit and here you are attempting to argue the points in the fucking articles while ingoring portions of it in the process.
Yawn, And I don't understand why you can't understand a simple post or thread.
Actually, according to the article, it says the drug slows the spread of breast cancer by about 5 months. Does this look familiar? "The drug was initially approved after a study found that, by preventing blood flow to tumours, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months."? So what if it doesn't extend the life of the patent, it slows the spread so other treatments can be more effective which might extend the life of the patient. And as the article said, The Avastin recommendation led to revived allegations that President Barack Obama's overhaul of the US health care system would mean many would be denied treatments currently available. " and David Vitter, the Republican Senator for Louisiana, said the FDA decision amounted to rationing health care.
"I shudder at the thought of a government panel assigning a value to a day of a person's life," he said. "It is sickening to think that care would be withheld from a patient simply because their life is not deemed valuable enough. "
But hey, lets not let the actual words in my post or the article get into your way, please by all means continue on a rant about something not even brought up.
And that was the entire point of my post, to show that the death panel line wasn't just about EOL counseling. It's awfully bright of you to point my point out. However, I see that you have skipped over the parts of the statements and links that point to Obama and his own staff as well as people close to him and his staff making the claim that rationing is already in play so it doesn't make any difference if the government does it. And yes, no matter how you want to spin that, a government panel rationing health care is a death panel as it will determine what care people get and in some cases, it will determine if they live or die by approving or disproving treatments.
I guess when you close your eyes to everything that doesn't fit your own reality, your reality is only what you make it instead of anything real. I'm not going to go through the trouble of actually linking to these articles, but if you are interested in anything more then conformation bias, I suggest you copy and past these links out and read them. You should also note the dates of the articles and maybe send a copy to fact check dot org too. as you have already mentioned that you have read some of these, I have to ask why you are arguing that the death panels definition must be limited to a narrowly defined concept delivered by the democrats who are also in opposition to the republicans? I mean it's the conservatives making the charge, their attack, it's them who define what death panels are, not your biased opposition sites.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107403
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7948878/US-breast-cancer-drug-decision-marks-start-of-death-panels.html
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3084.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2224790
and before you start clamoring those are biased sites, I suggest you stop looking only at sites that you agree with and pay attention to the links as the one is from another country altogether with absolutely no vested interest in the US health care system. A few others are what most would consider a left leaning site which admits that the death panels were more then end of life counseling stating that they would ration health care which Obama already has said it's done already, why not do it in the open.
This is hilarious. Are you actually arguing that Al Franken's lawyers are so smart that they wouldn't let him publish a book with falsehoods in it but so stupid that they can't go after the people he claims is spouting falsehoods? I mean seriously, do you think it's anything like that at all? Did you even think that out before making your statement or is that something you saw on one of your conformational bias sites and liked it enough to repost?
Here is a hint, Franken's lawyers said to him- if anything, it's political speech, the most protected speech by the first amendment. And no, the so called fact checkers didn't check the facts or he ignored them completely just as you are in order to impress your views right now.
All I asked for when I made that post was that there was some honesty in this discussion. You have proved to me that it is impossible to expect that from you or perhaps your side. The death panels charge was more then end of life counseling and you seem to know it. You can find more about it simply by searching for obamacare death panels. And of course, there is no shortage of people connected to Obama who reinforce this concept by public policy positions publicly held in the present or somewhat recent past.
SO you think intercourse should be buried/stifled for your amusement rather then having open discussion and free speech?
He wasn't exactly making shit up. I have personally been mass down modded for little more then linking to the actual text of a speech located on a university website that contradicted someone's wrong interpretation of what was said. Just recently, I had about 12 posts modded down over a comment stating the differences between games concerning current wars and previous wars is that the people who lost loved ones and had to pick up the pieces and move on have had as much opportunity to make a new life as someone who was born and is expected to be a capable adult when they turn 18-20. Of course not all 12 posts were concerning that but they were down modded anyways. and those are just two of the recent spats.
I'm probably someone you would call one of the "righties" as I supported both wars for reasons other then the stated reasons and recently fear the democrat candidates more then I do the republican candidates (and lets face it, a vote for independent candidates is a vote for the opposition party as the real way to limit the damage is to pick the least of two evils). I also think this story is little more then staging for the elections coming in November and might be a bit premature. All parties do things like this, it's nothing new and it's why you go into something that appears biased with the understanding that it's biased.
Um.. The end of life counseling was only part of the death panels claim.
There is much more to it then that. I know the video in the link is cut, but it isn't out of context. They wanted to create a panel that basically rationed care based on fiscal criteria and not doctor patient criteria.
I know it fun to bash the parts you don't like, but please keep things in context so you don't end up creating a situation that never existed. Sure, those conservative media icons probably did cause the EOL counseling to get removed, but it was much more then that they were railing on as death panels.
Not arguing for either side, but did you know that England controlled Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey for a while and was instramental in the formation of their modern governments?
It was right after WWI and the fall of the ottoman empire which is also why we/they were/are entrenched in Israel and the Palestine territory. The majority of newly formed territories formed their own functioning governments and moved on, some dicked around and the mess is still there. Then of course, there are those in which internal revolution changes the scene greatly but it's part of their past.
What does thinking for yourself have to do with anything? People do that already and it doesn't change much unless you are talking about people who think for one-self's own interests, then I should refer the mess already made.
Different societies throughout history have failed and showed others how things did work. The problem is you end up trading one so called evil for another. And one thing that has been consistent throughout any society that lasted long enough to be recorded by history or grew past a small village is that the work sucked and people found ways to get around it. These ways consisted of using slaves, creating and maintaining a poor or working class of people who are more or less forced into doing it, creating tractors or other inventions that did the work for them, and so on. Currently, we are teetering between class warfare and invention which is about where all notable societies end up.
As I stated before, there would be no need to sabotage it, It will more likely just fail on it's own merits as nations do not run on dreams and what should be's.
The problem is, what if God did say so?
That means your models would be incorrect to a degree as a factual base.
I'm not arguing any side of the coin here, but it seems that all to often "God says so" is dismissed for just as shaky grounds then picked up by people wanting to proclaim it somehow disproves any religion. Science is especially prone to finding new ways things can happen that do not automagically invalidate the old way, but seems more efficient or preferable to keep the new way around.
You are right that science doesn't care about God as science is the natural understand of our environment and the world around us whether created by God or not. Even if God did say so, there will be natural properties and natural processes inherent in maintaining the world as we know it that man can use to his advantage which is sort of what/why religion says man will have dominion over the earth. IF the understanding outside of "God willed it into existence" helps man along that path, then it a rational interpretation of the intent of God as exposed by the judeo-christian-muslim religions.
I'm surprised that you haven't been modded a troll or flamebait by now.
I have often stated that there is no reason for a mass conflict between religious beliefs and scientific beliefs as if there is a conflict, you can shelve the one in order to apply the other in much the same way as you would use the controls differently in different video games. What it boils down to is that there is a set of information for science and religion and if you are doing one, you simply refer to the contextual information for it. It seems that the biggest people with problems involving this are the self proclaimed atheists who seem intent on evangelizing their beliefs.
Generally, when a statement like that is made, someone trolls it for a while, then you end up with a mass down mod on all your posts even if they aren't connected to the statement. It's as if some refuse to allow any middle ground. I agree with your post, but beware, it's probably too sensible for /..
The problems with trailers are that they generally decrease in value as they age as moving them becomes more difficult and expensive.
The reasons government refuse to allow their use by regular people (yes, the government is allowed to install them in most areas) is because it reduces property values and decreases the tax base. I was front line when our township banned mobile home trailers and that was the main reasoning- property taxes couldn't be relied on with them. They eventually slipped in some some minimum building requirements (like square footage and types of roofs that will inflate the footage) too in order to maintain the tax base. It really is about greed by the government. Insanity is just a given.
Why do you think that? It will more likely just fail on it's own merits as nations do not run on dreams and what should be's.
Well, it is so awful when normal accounting and bankruptcy laws are negated in order to favor a specific entity.
Or do you think it is perfectly reasonable for you to lend me $2000 and I cite that you will only be repaid $400 because I hired someone to mow the lawn, clean the pool, fix the porch and so on. I mean you wouldn't care at all would you? Because I would have been keeping my contractual promises to my employees, right?
They had little to do with it. That's why the government took the bonds and gave them to the union. Check out the GM bail out a little better, it totally screwed investors and benefited the union.
Well, then you also must understand that murder and killing are two separate things. Killing is the justifiable homicide of a person or thing, murder is the unjustifiable of the same. Society has determined that certain acts warrant the justifiable killing by the state and that in the art of self preservation against someone posing eminent harm is justifiable. Of course both of these acts require someone to do some independent act of their own which simply isn't present in an abortion. The sanctity of life argument is not in any way contradictory or confusing to anyone who can understand it.
Well, what you think and don't think is somewhat of a interpreted point now isn't it. We assumed that a fetus was a life as you happened to jump into a thread already stating it as so "They only believe in killing people after they've been born.".
In any way, I find your comparison of a fetus being little more then a seed a bit lacking. You see, a seed is dormant until it's in the right conditions to grow. A fetus is already in that condition and already growing. To make your analogy or comparison more accurate, it might be better to say "Frankly I don't think a fetus is a life anymore than a sprouting oak tree seedling is a tree".
You mean like HOV lanes and allowing them to open up to Hybrids?
Well, where are the rules for net Neutrality and what are the official definitions of Net Neutrality?
I mean from my stand point, all that needs to be done is ensure that the consumers whether it's the average joe enjoying online gaming, the average sally chatting with her friends, or the average company they want to talk to, gets what they paid for. If they offer this service in a way that doesn't degrade or hamper the services sold to others, then there is no reason for NN to get involved is there?
Whether Cheney was in office or not, that company would have seen the same benefits from the wars. Claiming that he steered benefits to them is a bit crazy as it has been pointed out time and time again that the infrastructure involved was already in place under different presidents including Clinton and Haliburton also carried the best bid once the bidding was opened.
You are being fooled by your own ignorance and will to remain under that spell.
So you think that allowing a nation to harbor known terrorist who attacked your own country and killed 3000 some innocent civilians not to mention a track record other terrorist attacks against other nations to remain in power and doing the same is somehow more legitimate then going to war to stop them?
Please, by all means, expand on your logic here. I hope you have some real answers and not some partisan bullshit you read off an anti war website with no original thought of your own. Getting rid of those that wish to do you harm is in the very definition of protection. It's a main component of why any nation exists.
I guess this goes back to my original question, maybe I should expand it a little.
Can you see no difference between killing someone before they do something wrong or even had a chance at attempting to do it and killing them after they have?
The only thing I see as funny is the lack of dissection between innocent life and guilty life. It's like evil verses nothing as abortions don't even allow the life to present a good or evil side. I'm surprised that this is such a difficult concept for you and others.
Don't want to claim I know for sure as I'm not a girl or a doctor. I do however know a little about a female's anatomy and I will take a guess that it has something to do with the way the hips spread out to prepare for child birth at Puberty.
While they might be missing a piece compares to men (well most of them anyways), the angle of approach will be slightly different. This should translate to one of those things where something needs to be different when accommodating different genders.
Now there are probably people who this doesn't effect and there are probably men who have a similar issue too. This is because our bodies simply aren't identical even if in function.
Most people who say that wouldn't be around to say it if it was allowed when they were born.
Damn son, settle down before you give all the self proclaimed liberals a heart attack with the facts. When I read your post, it was as if I heard a million idiots go silent then start to cry as their world had been shattered with the hammer of reality. Have some compassion for these poor souls..
And you think that killing people before they have demonstrated they are a blight on society is somehow better? I mean forget morals and family values as it's typically tossed around to make some people feel good, but can you seriously sit there and say that killing people before the do something wrong is preferred?
Or were you just making a joke and I missed it?
Your right, I missed the "In Texas part". Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for the link- it showed me some things I attempted to google but didn't spend enough time to find.
62% is still a large enough number to negate all the farmers in some random area being directly subsidized by government. Further more, you're link states that 80% of farms averaged $579 per year over the 9 years between 1995-2009 in subsidies with the top 10% averaging less then $30k. That's hardly a reason or cause to claim farmers do well because the government subsidizes them as the parent attempted to claim. And I think the benefit to all citizens makes it more then worthwhile.
Why don't you try reading the link you posted. Or did you but are having problems understanding it?
72% of the farms in the US do not get subsidies one way or another. To claim that those farms around him are all the remaining 28% is a bit naive. Anyways, you can claim the subsidies indirectly benefit them because it stabilizes prices but it benefits you just as much because without them, you could be seeing $10 loafs of bread and $20 per pound choices of basic meats. the subsidies create an over stimulation of food which provides security against natural disasters wiping the food supply out. Currently, the US is divided into 5 separate economical growth zones in which two can be wiped out by natural disaster (IE, the Mississippi flooding and drought on the south east which happened not to long ago), and there won't be a run on food or supplies and prices remain relativity stable to avoid sticker shock after these common events occur. What happens simply is exports get limited in the forms of US foreign aid.