birdog1960

absolutely. publicize a plausible threat, make it seem unpatriotic to question the means to an end ("patriot act"), citizenry readily gives up freedom. hmmm, where have i seen that strategy conveyed before?

no one is always correct. even warren gets it wrong sometimes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-watchdog-warns-economic-cost-rising-inequality-090224569.html

amazingly insightful comment.... less is sometimes more

actually proatate ca is a great example of where research money is often misapplied. wanna know why? Isn't it better to find and treat prostate cancer early? continued... Otis Brawley, MD, chief science officer of the American Cancer Society: "It is very well accepted that 40% to 60% of localized prostate cancers that we cure are in men who did not need to be cured." Barnett S. Kramer, MD, MPH, director of the office of disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health: "Unfortunately right now we are left with diagnosing a large number of people without precise enough knowledge to spare those who don't need to be treated from treatment." But a healthy man who is told he has cancer no longer feels like a healthy man. In the U.S., most such men will seek treatment. from webmd (i can cite many more academic sources but this makes the point). in my opinion and in many public health experts as, the greatest research priority in this area should be identifying pts that will benefit from treatment and those that won't. but that's not where most of the research is aimed. it's aimed at treatment overall. there's big money at risk in less treatment. there's big money to be gained by more and newer treatments. this isn't a universal truth but as evidence of it's existence check out the uproar that develops every time a medical organization proposes less testing and treatment for any disease. anybody wanna bet me that we won't see papers addressing the above question coming out of this new funding?

i don't care what they say. you're not so dumb at all.

most of us would be better off without for profit medicine, yes. a few would be worse off.

i'm saying charitable donations are no way to fund something as vital and complex as medical research or cancer care.

hey dipsh^&, any idea what the out of pocket cost for treating the benefactors pet illness, prostate ca, will be for the average pt at sloan kettering? and what about those on the exchanges or still without insurance? do their cancers deserve lesser care? are they not worthy of these great mens donations? the point is that the money could be much more impactfully utilized. but that was clearly not the priority, now was it?

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-Affordable-Care-Act-Sloan-Kettering-New-York-Presbyterian-Hospital-Langone-232772741.html. the money to sloan kettering will likely benefit a select few. the argument that newer buildings will promote better research outcomes is far from evidence based.

yes, the upper east side is in such need . there aren't any less well endowed hospitals withing 50 miles . and framed art collections? absolutely crucial to quality care. the bigger question is why we need individual donation to a sector that virtually every american will need at some time in their lives; healthcare. fund the essentials for everyone, then if the folks on the upper east side want rembrandt's hanging in the hallways, let them or their friends buy them but then don't pretend it's some noble, altruistic deed..

a swanky downtown apt? talk about a strawman. almost all would settle for a shared safe studio in queens or the bronx. and if none can afford that then who is going to be the doormen, change the sheets, do the laundry, pick up the garbage, maintain the sewers and clean the streets for all them rich folks on the upper east side? you think they'll do for themselves? they'll gladly pay $15 /hour then.

my point being that his previous performances have not been encouraging for those desiring to speculate on his future performances. isn't that how one usually calculates sports probabilities? perhaps the analytics dept will weigh in here.

did everybody miss the part about ultimate meritocracy? i'm guessing that means that where, when and by whom a qb was drafted , traded for or found on a desert island, the decision to start, sit or get cut will be based on performance. based on ej's previous performances, i can't see how that is cause for optimism in his camp.

perhaps many shouldn't be voting at all: "I predict that any readers over the age of 30 will absolutely love this fact about voters under the age of 29. Forty-two percent of Millennials think socialism is preferable to capitalism, but only 16 percent of Millennials could accurately define socialism in the survey." oops, did i actually write that? and from the same article (just below youe reproduced quote in fact) is this: "The youngest voting generation today is the most liberal bloc in a long, long time for three reasons. First, they're young and poor, and young, poor people are historically more liberal. Second, they're historically non-white. Non-white Americans are historically liberal, too. Third, their white demo is historically liberal compared to older white voters, as Jon Chait has pointed out. It all adds up to one cresting blue wave. For now."

a common theme on ppp: when all else fails, look at the data. http://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/IOPSpring15PollExecSumm.pdf http://www.latinpost.com/articles/52558/20150512/millennials-demographic-trends-democrats-preferred-political-party-win-2016-presidential.htm 64% self categorize as liberal or moderate.

which group do you believe to be more diverse? the exclusivity (old,white) of the current republican party is what the thread is about. it's not hard to prove the demographics. they are what they are.

i'm a cradle catholic. i've been educated in catholic schools and a protestant university. been taught by jesuits and dominicans, protestant theologians, even an archeologist involved in the finding of the dead sea scrolls. i'm an active member of my parish and in good standing with the church. im a godparent to multiple kids, several in foreign churches that required my pastor vouch for me. so forgive me if i don't give a hoot about your opinion on my suitability to be a Christian. perhaps you should question your own. Jesus was all about inclusivity not exclusivity.

the root for conservative is conserve... and for progressive (liberal) it's progress...do u find it a stretch to say that liberals generally are for change (ie against the status quo)?

sorry, i give a lot more weight to the writer fromn the BBC and many other historical writers. The jewish religious aristocracy was the status quo and they answered to the romans. there was a roman garrison directly overlooking the temple ready to quell riots. and sevral jewish uprising were dealt with by mass killings and unspeakable brutality (and ultimately, the temple's destruction).. ultimately, the romans ran jerusalem and palestine at the time and flexed there formidable muscles many times to illustrate that fact. Jesus threatened the ruling jews (and their wealth) and thus threatened the romans. from the bbc article: But, of course, the Sanhedrin only ruled because the Romans allowed them to and the way to keep the Romans happy was to maintain order in society. Caiaphas himself was a Roman appointment, so he needed to keep cosy with the governor, Pilate, if he wanted to stay in power and preserve his luxurious way of life. So if Jesus was making trouble, he was making trouble for both Caiaphas and Pilate - and trouble for Pilate was still trouble for Caiaphas. Jesus was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to Jesus than to the priests, and the public were listening to his condemnation of what he saw as wrong in the religious establishment.

stop waiting. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/jesus-money-changers-modern-banks.html there are many more references available on the reason Jesus was executed by the romans. Almost all agree it was for sedition which by definition is a threat to the status quo. another ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_1.shtml

should we move on to whether quakers and gay episcopalian bishops are Christians?

his ideas were novel to most of the ancient world. he was killed because he was a threat to the status quo and the establishment. much the same as many modern day liberals.

Jesus was a liberal. most would even say radical. most would call Francis positions on many social issues liberals. Many have labelled him such on balance. Do you feel his faith and politics are unreconcilable? i certainly don't.

so let me get this straight. you can't agree with your doctor and be healthy. and you can't be a liberal and be Christian. glad nobody informed before now. your points are completely baseless and illogical. so what you really mean by Christianity is established organized religion and not a belief system based on the teachings of Jesus. I fully reject that premise and definition. and it's no guarantee of a Christian lifestyle (even by your narrow definition) to be identified with any flavor of Christianity that you personally find acceptable.