And as I said, it's more then what you are claiming which is supported by Obama's own words, the state of government health care in other countries and logic. You can ignore the obvious but it will not go away.
I'm assuming you have a comprehension problem. This wasn't about someone who was terminally ill, this is about someone who needed a pacemaker, got one and is living a quality life 5 years later. Obama said she should have taken a pain pill instead of the surgery.
You can coat it however you want, you can kill your family off when they become a burden to you, but you can't change that facts in this case. He said what he said to who he said it to. He has in turn reverses an order to halt distribution of the you should kill yourself GI pamphlet. The problem isn't that people are terminally ill, it's that they are being told they are when they aren't as is the case with this 105 year old mother who is living happily living for 5 years after receiving a pacemaker.
I think maybe they did it to themselves by getting carried away and acting like lunatics just when momentum starts building. The government conspiracy isn't really needed.
But, no, you can't understand that, can you? You're too busy listening to Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Palin and screaming about how government paying for vital services is "Socialism! Eek! Get your gun and run for the hills!"
Listen, the government paying for services is not the problem. Paying for them for people who could otherwise afford them and forcing me to participate is.
Now you may be perfectly happy with your grandma killing herself or your mom helping her. You can even donate her organs to science or the needy or something to feel good about the decision. The thing is, that's a decision your grandma made on her own with the consultation of her family. Not one the government makes for you.
Obama specifically told a woman who said her then 100 year old mother got a pacemaker and is now 105 years old, ""I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's 'spirit.' Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people." then going on to say "At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller." in the same paragraph. You have to be willfully stupid to not see that for what it is. That's Obama telling this woman that you can't take someone's attitude about life into consideration, you got to tell them it probably won't work, and it's better to take the pain pill and die then to have the surgery. You can close your eyes to it all you want but you will not be getting the reality you think you are. Combine this with the death/survival rates of foreign government health systems, and you can see it is by design.
Obama even ordered a VA pamphlet to be released that encourages veterans to kill themselves instead of living.
Now you can look at all this encouragement to cause people to kill themselves like your grandma did with your mom's help, and say "it's natural and acceptable". In the Europe, they are denying treatment to seniors because they already lived their life and if they go outside the system to get the health care, they are banned from being treated by the government care again. Sure, that isn't exactly someone saying run off an die, but it sure as hell is the same effect. IS that what you want? The governmet pressuring your mom to kill your grandma? How about when they pressure you to kill off your mom? Are you going to be perfectly fine with that when a new treatment might have a 20-40 percent change of saving her life with a full recovery but it isn't included in the government plan and their solution is to kill her off?
I think you need to consult out founding fathers. They thought it was so reasonable to search things comming through the borders that they instituted the very first warrant-less search at the border law in the very first session of congress. This law was later held up by the US supreme court as being necessary for our sovereignty that the very right of sovereignty would be jeopardized without it.
There is a history of this going back to many of the people who drafted the people and who even signed it.
They're making those decisions themselves? Are you sure, you just got done saying that society shouldn't have to pay for their government health option.
We are talking about a human life here. No about whether or not to renew your netflix subscription. The cost is negligent. And if it's an unlimited resource, then why does government need to get involved in taking health care over? The battle cry right now is that people are being denied coverage because it's not an unlimited resource. So basically you are arguing that the government can make these decisions better then private insurance companies. Well, here is some evidence on how that isn't reality in places with government health care.
And yes, I expect you to actually read that where foreign governments have a lower survival rate then the private health care in the US for the same diseases. I expect you to see and understand how some bean counter decided that withholding effective treatment to thousands of patients would save millions of dollar so it was necessary. These people do not make those decisions, they are made for them.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? DO you have a problem watching video and following along?
First of all, she got the pace maker at age 100, is said to be thriving at age 105 and a doctor did giver her the pacemaker which means your competent comment is fallacious at best.
and yes, that would be death panels. Here you are condemning this woman who has received the surgery and lived an additional 5 years and counting of quality life with her daughter who was proud of that fact and you say the doctor was incompetent and never should have done the surgery without remotely learning the facts. Fuck, it's in the link, you didn't even have to read it, just watch the video and you couldn't even do that. Not to mention that the fact this happened at age 100 (5 years ago) was in the message that you quoted right after the part you quoted. You have no credibility here. You are not even capable of following a complete sentence and are attempting to pass judgment on someone you have invested nothing into knowing about when it has been presented to you several times now.
God you're full of shit. Just take words completely out of context and twist them to mean something they don't. Talk about ignoring his words, you actually put words in his mouth. He doesn't say anything about "instead of a life-saving treatment" - you just made that up.
In any case, policy is not based on Obama's comments, it is based on legislation, and the proposed legislation has nothing like "death panels" or this other bullshit you propagandist liars go on about.
Actually, policy is shaped by Obama. He is taking credit for the bills in congress and he is telling them what to put in it. And inside the bills, there is a a part about end of life counseling and giving the president's statement along with the re-release of the go and kill yourself GI pamplet put out by the VA, as well as the alarming statistics of UK and Canada systems, you can't be sure they will not be death panels. In fact, I have already had people here claiming that society shouldn't have to pay for your treatment when talking about this same fucking scenario. And these are idiots supporting Obamacare.
They aren't? It's strange because it sure as hell seems that way in other countries. And when Obama says take the pain pill instead of the life saving pacemaker, it definitely sounds like it's happening here in the future too.
Actually, no. The only thing he got from the US was trucks. And that was at the request of Kuwait. We did lift arms embargo on Iraq but they paid for their shit.
Many of the Al-Qaida operatives were Mujahediin veterans. Taliban was also built on Mujahediin as well. USA had no problems supporting militant Islam as long as they were fighting against commies.
Actually no. Many of the Taliban were ex-Mujahedin but the connections to al qaeda is less. The Mujahedin shunned Al Qaeda as outsiders serving self interest. Now if a few Mujahedin members ended up in Al Qaeda, it's still pointless because Al Qaeda didn't even exist until after our involvement in the area was over. Your attempting to say the US sponsored 9/11 because two of the hijackers went to American schools. It's just wrong.
Why? I mean when the government is forcing me to participate in the event I get sick, then they should pay shouldn't they? Not paying would be like pulling a senior off social security after 10 years because they have to die sometime.
Neither you, the government, not anyone of your self righteous idiot idols should be making decisions about who lives and dies. And they definitely shouldn't be doing it based on how much money they want to spend this year. If you do not want to fund it, then do not pretend to do government health or force that bullshit on the rest of us.
(assuming the entire statement isn't another total lie)
You couldn't even follow the fucking link and watch the video? Jesus Christ, are you trying to remain willfully ignorant? Intellectually lazy? Fuck, I just checked, it's still there, a little slow but you can see him speak the damn words, you can hear the old lady talk about her mom. Damn, people like you piss me off. Assuming it's not a lie when the fucking proof is right in front of you and you are too lazy to follow a god damned link.
As for as seeing this person's medical history, that's the entire fucking point, you should not be telling people to live or die. Not you, not the government, and definitely not some government program which will no doubtfully run short on cash. What the hell is wrong with you?
If I had a clue bat, I would come over and beat you with it. I don't so follow the fucking link.
The problem is that without the freedom to fail, you do not have the freedom to succeed.
As for me, I have catastrophic insurance that will cover cancer, broken bones and so on. Under the new legislation, this is not enough. If I decide I want to turn my health insurance into a boat payment or a better car payment, I currently have that freedom. With the new legislation, I do not. The problem isn't affordable health care, it's being forced to participate. Right now I have freedoms that will not exist once this legislation as it stands passes. There is also the problem of sub par care that will exist afterwords.
I'm either free or I am not free. Forcing something on me simply because I am alive is not freedom. It's a lack of freedom I'm not willing to stand for.
First, this is one of those bills that passed the house on a party line vote without reading it and a democrat representative making fun of the calls to read it because it would take two days and two lawyers to figure it out. It's not something that will be rehashed over and over again in comity.
Secondly, you are completely ignoring Obama's own words when he said skip the live saving treatment and just take a pain pill. I linked to the video, are you going to deny him saying it? He is pushing the legislation, he is the one who said take a pain pill and die instead of wasting money with a life saving surgery. How exactly am I supposed to take that? You can close your eyes, I will be smiling when it's you getting a pain pill instead of a pacemaker. Saying I told you so will likely be overboard, just know that I will be thinking it.
I guess you conveniently missed Obama saying take the pain pill instead of the life saving treatment. It's ok, some people think he walks on water. Others think he just floats. You ignoring his own words is irresponsible.
I wish everyone in congress would grow a pair of balls, decide to use some critical thinking skills for once, and follow his lead. They are going overboard with is in the current bills, you have senators and administration officials blatantly lying and saying the legislation doesn't do what is written down in it and the worse part about it is that they are getting a free pass.
There is so much that can be done to competently fix the current system that it's pretty much negligent of congress not to address it first. I'm probably starting to rant a little too. But ending ineligibility over preexisting conditions, following the medicare/Medicaid diagnostic rules and treatment allowances with both of those programs taking the lead on new treatment evaluation and a semi yearly update for new and promising treatment, and an automatic buy-in with a contract term of 5 or 10 years for catastrophic illnesses with the uninsured could most likely cure most of the so called issues.
The only way you got trolled is if you were troling yourself and I took the bait. I didn't see it that way but you complained about the mere facts and I pointed to how loosely you were using them yourself.
The old system was replaced because it wasn't serving their needs. The new system isn't either but they are 4.1 million into it. There are end of life counselors in the obamacare plans and he has stated publicly that sometimes people should not get the most advanced treatment on a whim of a chance and except their live is over. I believe his exact quote is "Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."
Now I couldn't find a readily availible transcript without Rush Limbaugh's comments mixed in. But you can listen to the audio itself, he said this woman's 105 year old mother should have taken the pain pill instead of the pace maker at age 100 instead of living 4 or 5 more years and counting. And as painful as it may be to hear the truth, the truth is never a troll.
One way of doing it with one router would be to set a proxy up as a gateway with an automatic script that redirects all port 80 traffic to an ssl connection. I believe the dd-rt can do this (maybe tomato I don't remember which I messes with last).
Anyways, when your browser finds the proxy, it redirect your connection to a ssl connection which encrypts your traffic while allowing auto detect. It would suck for FTP (doesn't play well with proxies) and some other traffic. but it would essentially get your a secure open connection to some degree.
The government system was likely by hand computer combination and departmentalized to the local schools. In other words, it was getting too old and outdated as well as labor intensive. The district wanted something different.
As for your Obama comment, do you deny end of life counseling in the two health bills floating around Washington? Or are you just another fanboy who takes a politician at their words instead of reading the legislation for themselves?
Your probably forgetting about the large amount of people here who barely know who Johnny Cash is let alone what songs he wrote. Not everyone listens to hip hop or country or whatever he sings.
Because, see, here's the problem: you might choose not to pay for any sort of insurance. But, when you're dying, you'll probably still go to the hospital. You may rack up more medical bills than your house is worth. You may or may not be employed at the time, or have assets sufficient to cover what you owe. Guess who pays, then?
Might does not equal will. You are acting as if the act already happened in which it didn't and isn't likely to.
It's like car insurance. If there was some way to prove that you had the means to cover up to, say, $1 million in expenses, then it'd make sense to let people completely forgo coverage. But very few people fall into that category, and most of *them* will have private insurance anyway. So, we require people to be insured to drive. You can choose not to drive, and you can choose not to go to the hospital when you're bleeding to death or can't breathe or whatever. But if you're going to go to the hospital, then yeah, I think it's fair to insist you have coverage.
Actually, in my state, you only need a $30,000 bond on file with the state to avoid the car insurance law. However, that moot because driving a car, while not very practice not to, is and privileged elective that people choose to do. However, living and being a citizen of the US is absolutely not an elective people choose to do. You cannot equat making a choice about a car with the right to live unmolested by idiots. I'm actually surprised your even dumb enough to make the comparison. I mean how is requiring people to have insurance to drive a 2000 plus pound vehicle even remotely similar to requiring people to buy insurance just to fucking live? Damn that's foolish of you to even suggest. But here is the kicker, the people who do not purchase the insurance end up in jail on guess what, your damn dime anyways.
I have no problem with it being catastrophic coverage, either. I haven't read the current proposals, so I don't know for sure that that's not an option. Care to apply a citation?
How in the hell can you be supporting the current health plans when you don't even know what is in the bills? Shouldn't you remotely be educated on this before even commenting? Both the current bills prescribe a minimum set of coverage that will preclude catastrophic insurance. In other words, you have to get more then catastrophic coverage in order not to be fined by the government or imprisoned.
Laughable. Simply laughable. His policies may be influenced by socialism, but they are also influenced by conservatism, liberalism, and everything else in the moderate political spectrum. Have you not noticed him reaching out to the political right? Have you not also noticed their childish rejection of his efforts? But that isn't what we're talking about here.
You can laugh all you want. What you can't do is deny his objectives and attempted policies. His reaching across the isle consists of your either with me or against me. He seeks no input from anyone not supporting his policy. That is obvious with legislation passed with no input from republicans, with no reading of the bills before voting, with Democrats laughing at the calls to at least reading the bills saying you need two days and two attorneys to understand them and using that as justification for not knowing what they were voting on. Now that is fact and on the record and you can't deny it.
We're talking about your confusion over what is offensive and what is not: particularly wrt racism; particularly wrt coloring a black person's skin white.
It was a criticism of his policies. Nothing more and because he is black doesn't exempt him from criticism. Your attempts to make it so only makes you look silly and without a grasp on reality.
In this image, we have the assertion that Obama is like the Joker, a criminal, or he is simply a clown. Why? Because he is a black man doing a job only a white man can do. It's right there. What part of that "incapacity" criticism do you not get?
how about the obvious, it portrays him as a villain in a popular culture and the crime is his socialism and socialist agenda he is attempting to perpetrate against the citizens. Race doesn't come into the picture until you spend too much time ignoring the obvious.
Now, in his own words, the original artist did not set out to imply such a thing. But the way it is seized upon by political groups -- right from the addition of the word "Socialist" -- makes those people responsible for infusing the image with every potential interpretation; some of which are as lighthearted as the artist's, but others too which are more sinister.
And as I said, race does not come anywhere close to the image. It was always about his policy and agendas. The only way you can bring race into the mix is by ignoring that and injecting it yourself in some vain attempt to make the subject off limits. Of course reality isn't that way and people will not be guilt-ed into abandoning a position because you think injecting racism is a legitimate way of squelching negative debate on his policies.
It perplexes me how, in the light of this information, people such as you persist in defending its continued use as if it were just the addition of the word "Socialist" to a straight photograph of Obama.
The first thing that you should correct in order not to be perplexed is to stop making crap up and ignoring real life. I can understand why you are confused, it's because you are the only one attempting to push your idea.
Where is the choice of not spending the money in the first place? Or just getting catastrophic insurance with a high deductible? Do I need to go broke and live like a pauper in order to have that choice? It's pretty sad when I have to ruin my life just to be free to make my own choices.
Anyways, the point wasn't about choices, it was about whether or not it is voluntary. It isn't by any reasonable definition of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
And as I said, it's more then what you are claiming which is supported by Obama's own words, the state of government health care in other countries and logic. You can ignore the obvious but it will not go away.
I'm assuming you have a comprehension problem. This wasn't about someone who was terminally ill, this is about someone who needed a pacemaker, got one and is living a quality life 5 years later. Obama said she should have taken a pain pill instead of the surgery.
You can coat it however you want, you can kill your family off when they become a burden to you, but you can't change that facts in this case. He said what he said to who he said it to. He has in turn reverses an order to halt distribution of the you should kill yourself GI pamphlet. The problem isn't that people are terminally ill, it's that they are being told they are when they aren't as is the case with this 105 year old mother who is living happily living for 5 years after receiving a pacemaker.
..looks like your right. Ever heard of ghosts?
I think maybe they did it to themselves by getting carried away and acting like lunatics just when momentum starts building. The government conspiracy isn't really needed.
We is plural, it implies him and at least someone else.
Listen, the government paying for services is not the problem. Paying for them for people who could otherwise afford them and forcing me to participate is.
Now you may be perfectly happy with your grandma killing herself or your mom helping her. You can even donate her organs to science or the needy or something to feel good about the decision. The thing is, that's a decision your grandma made on her own with the consultation of her family. Not one the government makes for you.
Obama specifically told a woman who said her then 100 year old mother got a pacemaker and is now 105 years old, ""I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's 'spirit.' Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people." then going on to say "At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller." in the same paragraph. You have to be willfully stupid to not see that for what it is. That's Obama telling this woman that you can't take someone's attitude about life into consideration, you got to tell them it probably won't work, and it's better to take the pain pill and die then to have the surgery. You can close your eyes to it all you want but you will not be getting the reality you think you are. Combine this with the death/survival rates of foreign government health systems, and you can see it is by design.
Obama even ordered a VA pamphlet to be released that encourages veterans to kill themselves instead of living.
Now you can look at all this encouragement to cause people to kill themselves like your grandma did with your mom's help, and say "it's natural and acceptable". In the Europe, they are denying treatment to seniors because they already lived their life and if they go outside the system to get the health care, they are banned from being treated by the government care again. Sure, that isn't exactly someone saying run off an die, but it sure as hell is the same effect. IS that what you want? The governmet pressuring your mom to kill your grandma? How about when they pressure you to kill off your mom? Are you going to be perfectly fine with that when a new treatment might have a 20-40 percent change of saving her life with a full recovery but it isn't included in the government plan and their solution is to kill her off?
I think you need to consult out founding fathers. They thought it was so reasonable to search things comming through the borders that they instituted the very first warrant-less search at the border law in the very first session of congress. This law was later held up by the US supreme court as being necessary for our sovereignty that the very right of sovereignty would be jeopardized without it.
There is a history of this going back to many of the people who drafted the people and who even signed it.
They're making those decisions themselves? Are you sure, you just got done saying that society shouldn't have to pay for their government health option.
We are talking about a human life here. No about whether or not to renew your netflix subscription. The cost is negligent. And if it's an unlimited resource, then why does government need to get involved in taking health care over? The battle cry right now is that people are being denied coverage because it's not an unlimited resource. So basically you are arguing that the government can make these decisions better then private insurance companies. Well, here is some evidence on how that isn't reality in places with government health care.
And yes, I expect you to actually read that where foreign governments have a lower survival rate then the private health care in the US for the same diseases. I expect you to see and understand how some bean counter decided that withholding effective treatment to thousands of patients would save millions of dollar so it was necessary. These people do not make those decisions, they are made for them.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? DO you have a problem watching video and following along?
First of all, she got the pace maker at age 100, is said to be thriving at age 105 and a doctor did giver her the pacemaker which means your competent comment is fallacious at best.
and yes, that would be death panels. Here you are condemning this woman who has received the surgery and lived an additional 5 years and counting of quality life with her daughter who was proud of that fact and you say the doctor was incompetent and never should have done the surgery without remotely learning the facts. Fuck, it's in the link, you didn't even have to read it, just watch the video and you couldn't even do that. Not to mention that the fact this happened at age 100 (5 years ago) was in the message that you quoted right after the part you quoted. You have no credibility here. You are not even capable of following a complete sentence and are attempting to pass judgment on someone you have invested nothing into knowing about when it has been presented to you several times now.
Oh god, I paraphased and everything I said is wrong now. Great rebuttle there idiot. Obama's exact words was "Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller." Now tell me how much different what I said and what he told a woman talking about her 105 year old mother getting a fucking pacemaker 5 years ago.
Actually, policy is shaped by Obama. He is taking credit for the bills in congress and he is telling them what to put in it. And inside the bills, there is a a part about end of life counseling and giving the president's statement along with the re-release of the go and kill yourself GI pamplet put out by the VA, as well as the alarming statistics of UK and Canada systems, you can't be sure they will not be death panels. In fact, I have already had people here claiming that society shouldn't have to pay for your treatment when talking about this same fucking scenario. And these are idiots supporting Obamacare.
They aren't? It's strange because it sure as hell seems that way in other countries. And when Obama says take the pain pill instead of the life saving pacemaker, it definitely sounds like it's happening here in the future too.
Actually, no. The only thing he got from the US was trucks. And that was at the request of Kuwait. We did lift arms embargo on Iraq but they paid for their shit.
Actually no. Many of the Taliban were ex-Mujahedin but the connections to al qaeda is less. The Mujahedin shunned Al Qaeda as outsiders serving self interest. Now if a few Mujahedin members ended up in Al Qaeda, it's still pointless because Al Qaeda didn't even exist until after our involvement in the area was over. Your attempting to say the US sponsored 9/11 because two of the hijackers went to American schools. It's just wrong.
Why? I mean when the government is forcing me to participate in the event I get sick, then they should pay shouldn't they? Not paying would be like pulling a senior off social security after 10 years because they have to die sometime.
Neither you, the government, not anyone of your self righteous idiot idols should be making decisions about who lives and dies. And they definitely shouldn't be doing it based on how much money they want to spend this year. If you do not want to fund it, then do not pretend to do government health or force that bullshit on the rest of us.
You couldn't even follow the fucking link and watch the video? Jesus Christ, are you trying to remain willfully ignorant? Intellectually lazy? Fuck, I just checked, it's still there, a little slow but you can see him speak the damn words, you can hear the old lady talk about her mom. Damn, people like you piss me off. Assuming it's not a lie when the fucking proof is right in front of you and you are too lazy to follow a god damned link.
As for as seeing this person's medical history, that's the entire fucking point, you should not be telling people to live or die. Not you, not the government, and definitely not some government program which will no doubtfully run short on cash. What the hell is wrong with you?
If I had a clue bat, I would come over and beat you with it. I don't so follow the fucking link.
The problem is that without the freedom to fail, you do not have the freedom to succeed.
As for me, I have catastrophic insurance that will cover cancer, broken bones and so on. Under the new legislation, this is not enough. If I decide I want to turn my health insurance into a boat payment or a better car payment, I currently have that freedom. With the new legislation, I do not. The problem isn't affordable health care, it's being forced to participate. Right now I have freedoms that will not exist once this legislation as it stands passes. There is also the problem of sub par care that will exist afterwords.
I'm either free or I am not free. Forcing something on me simply because I am alive is not freedom. It's a lack of freedom I'm not willing to stand for.
First, this is one of those bills that passed the house on a party line vote without reading it and a democrat representative making fun of the calls to read it because it would take two days and two lawyers to figure it out. It's not something that will be rehashed over and over again in comity.
Secondly, you are completely ignoring Obama's own words when he said skip the live saving treatment and just take a pain pill. I linked to the video, are you going to deny him saying it? He is pushing the legislation, he is the one who said take a pain pill and die instead of wasting money with a life saving surgery. How exactly am I supposed to take that? You can close your eyes, I will be smiling when it's you getting a pain pill instead of a pacemaker. Saying I told you so will likely be overboard, just know that I will be thinking it.
I guess you conveniently missed Obama saying take the pain pill instead of the life saving treatment. It's ok, some people think he walks on water. Others think he just floats. You ignoring his own words is irresponsible.
I wish everyone in congress would grow a pair of balls, decide to use some critical thinking skills for once, and follow his lead. They are going overboard with is in the current bills, you have senators and administration officials blatantly lying and saying the legislation doesn't do what is written down in it and the worse part about it is that they are getting a free pass.
There is so much that can be done to competently fix the current system that it's pretty much negligent of congress not to address it first. I'm probably starting to rant a little too. But ending ineligibility over preexisting conditions, following the medicare/Medicaid diagnostic rules and treatment allowances with both of those programs taking the lead on new treatment evaluation and a semi yearly update for new and promising treatment, and an automatic buy-in with a contract term of 5 or 10 years for catastrophic illnesses with the uninsured could most likely cure most of the so called issues.
The only way you got trolled is if you were troling yourself and I took the bait. I didn't see it that way but you complained about the mere facts and I pointed to how loosely you were using them yourself.
The old system was replaced because it wasn't serving their needs. The new system isn't either but they are 4.1 million into it. There are end of life counselors in the obamacare plans and he has stated publicly that sometimes people should not get the most advanced treatment on a whim of a chance and except their live is over. I believe his exact quote is "Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."
Now I couldn't find a readily availible transcript without Rush Limbaugh's comments mixed in. But you can listen to the audio itself, he said this woman's 105 year old mother should have taken the pain pill instead of the pace maker at age 100 instead of living 4 or 5 more years and counting. And as painful as it may be to hear the truth, the truth is never a troll.
One way of doing it with one router would be to set a proxy up as a gateway with an automatic script that redirects all port 80 traffic to an ssl connection. I believe the dd-rt can do this (maybe tomato I don't remember which I messes with last).
Anyways, when your browser finds the proxy, it redirect your connection to a ssl connection which encrypts your traffic while allowing auto detect. It would suck for FTP (doesn't play well with proxies) and some other traffic. but it would essentially get your a secure open connection to some degree.
The government system was likely by hand computer combination and departmentalized to the local schools. In other words, it was getting too old and outdated as well as labor intensive. The district wanted something different.
As for your Obama comment, do you deny end of life counseling in the two health bills floating around Washington? Or are you just another fanboy who takes a politician at their words instead of reading the legislation for themselves?
Your probably forgetting about the large amount of people here who barely know who Johnny Cash is let alone what songs he wrote. Not everyone listens to hip hop or country or whatever he sings.
Might does not equal will. You are acting as if the act already happened in which it didn't and isn't likely to.
Actually, in my state, you only need a $30,000 bond on file with the state to avoid the car insurance law. However, that moot because driving a car, while not very practice not to, is and privileged elective that people choose to do. However, living and being a citizen of the US is absolutely not an elective people choose to do. You cannot equat making a choice about a car with the right to live unmolested by idiots. I'm actually surprised your even dumb enough to make the comparison. I mean how is requiring people to have insurance to drive a 2000 plus pound vehicle even remotely similar to requiring people to buy insurance just to fucking live? Damn that's foolish of you to even suggest. But here is the kicker, the people who do not purchase the insurance end up in jail on guess what, your damn dime anyways.
How in the hell can you be supporting the current health plans when you don't even know what is in the bills? Shouldn't you remotely be educated on this before even commenting? Both the current bills prescribe a minimum set of coverage that will preclude catastrophic insurance. In other words, you have to get more then catastrophic coverage in order not to be fined by the government or imprisoned.
You can laugh all you want. What you can't do is deny his objectives and attempted policies. His reaching across the isle consists of your either with me or against me. He seeks no input from anyone not supporting his policy. That is obvious with legislation passed with no input from republicans, with no reading of the bills before voting, with Democrats laughing at the calls to at least reading the bills saying you need two days and two attorneys to understand them and using that as justification for not knowing what they were voting on. Now that is fact and on the record and you can't deny it.
It was a criticism of his policies. Nothing more and because he is black doesn't exempt him from criticism. Your attempts to make it so only makes you look silly and without a grasp on reality.
how about the obvious, it portrays him as a villain in a popular culture and the crime is his socialism and socialist agenda he is attempting to perpetrate against the citizens. Race doesn't come into the picture until you spend too much time ignoring the obvious.
And as I said, race does not come anywhere close to the image. It was always about his policy and agendas. The only way you can bring race into the mix is by ignoring that and injecting it yourself in some vain attempt to make the subject off limits. Of course reality isn't that way and people will not be guilt-ed into abandoning a position because you think injecting racism is a legitimate way of squelching negative debate on his policies.
The first thing that you should correct in order not to be perplexed is to stop making crap up and ignoring real life. I can understand why you are confused, it's because you are the only one attempting to push your idea.
Where is the choice of not spending the money in the first place? Or just getting catastrophic insurance with a high deductible? Do I need to go broke and live like a pauper in order to have that choice? It's pretty sad when I have to ruin my life just to be free to make my own choices.
Anyways, the point wasn't about choices, it was about whether or not it is voluntary. It isn't by any reasonable definition of the word.