Rob's House

Is he known to be a real a-hole or are you just referring to his game?

Any logic, reason, or data to support your belief or is it just how you feel?

This post paired with your screen name makes me question your character.

I missed this earlier. My sample is fairly small as well; my company has a presence in the UK and our workers are told to first go to the NHS if they get sick, and then once diagnosed to use the private system. I also had a Brit friend, who supported the Brit system because of the dual public/private aspect, who said if you had any real problem, like cancer or need for a knee replacement, to go private because otherwise you'll be waiting a while for treatment which, in the case of cancer, could be the difference between life and death. I'd definitely prefer the UK system to the Canadian system where you're not allowed to get private treatment because your survival is unfair to the poor.

My point is not that it isn't good enough, but rather that I don't buy the projection. They have no credibility and the bulk of that bill did little to nothing that would have a long-term stimulative effect. I conceded it's POSSIBLE that there MIGHT or might not have been some marginal short-term benefits, but that projection isn't a solid foundation on which to base your assertion.

This is kind of unrelated but I didn't want to start a new thread for it Krauthammer: 1 Whitehouse: 0 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/07/30/krauthammer_1_white_house_0 I like the way the author put it here: This guy should have known better. Krauthammer's one of the best there is. He's almost as smart as Tom. If you're going to go after him you better have a big breakfast.

Agreed

Big Cat beat you to it, but for some reason named the thread What's the buzz.

So your defense is that only 30% was bull ****. I haven't conceded giving 70% to local governments was a good idea; I've just given you the best defense for a bill I don't agree with.

The stimulus was idiotic. If you were to believe in a theory of creating artificial demand to prime the pump of the economy, despite a history of failure, you would still never enact such an abortion of a bill to achieve that end. Repaving freshly paved roads and building trails at national parks does dick **** to help the economy. Following that same logic would lead one to believe issuing food stamps helps the economy. You could reasonalby argue that some of the money given to municipalities softened the blow of their diminishing tax revenues resulting from the downturn and it enabled them to trim more gradually thus averting a devestating shock; that may or may not be true, but the bulk of this bill was pure waste. You come back and making a statement that it was an undeniable success, and your supporting evidence is the fact that the same people who told us it would keep unemployment under 8% are now telling us the economy would have been that much worse. That's pretty weak, dude; honestly. These are the same people who have told us for the last 3 years that we were in the summer of recovery and now we're looking at a double dip recession. They don't have any idea what the economy is going to do or what it was going to do. To suggest otherwise is naive at best. Save some credibility and next time make a plausible comment like, "the stimulus might well have done some good in some areas." It's a debatable point, but at least it's not absurd. This is where modern day Democrats have really gone off the deep end. I really think it's an unthinking reaction to Republicans moving to the center. Sure there are loony right-wing separatists and Religious fanatics that want to force you to shut your business on Sunday, put super-tight restrictions on R-rated movies, ban porn, etc. But those guys are on the fringe extremes. The loony leftists that want to tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to think, not to smoke, and want to micromanage our lives and businesses are the mainstream of your party. If we were living with a bare-bones government under far-right leadership I might be sympathetic to some democrat causes, but we live in a very liberal society under an immensely bloated government that we can no longer afford, and all I ever hear you guys complain about is lack of funding for government projects. And your go to solution is that we trim $1.5 trillion out of a $600 billion defense budget. Yall have lost your damn minds.

Remember guys, it doesn't matter if your vote is negated by a fraudulent vote, what matters is only that you get to punch a card at the poll. That's what democracy is all about.

Everybody knows what he meant. Even you. That's why it's so devastating and why recent Romney adds show the entire quip. If you have another interpretation that is consistent and even remotely plausible I'd like to hear it. So far you've not offered one.

Sorry if I forgot to mention that I'm impressed. If that was your proessor's focus I'm sure you aced it. Too bad you didn't also learn Smith or study Austrian economics, but rather specialized in one highly controversial, largely discredited economic theory that primarily relates to economic down-turns. And for the record, Keynes wasn't even a Keynesian as it's understood today. Further, Keynes conceded the need for the kind of tinkering he proposed to be done correctly by wise men who thought "rightly", not by whatever (*^*&%^$^#was able to win a majority vote from a predominantly ignorant electorate. Ha Ha. The point I was making that the old hippy is too obtuse to see is merely that this luxurious access to top doctors at a reasonable price is not reserved to the upper class. The reality is that it is a relatively small minority that can't get it. But he wants to misrepresent the problem that he claims to know how to solve.

I'm sold. Let's replace the coal plants with nuclear ones.

If you're actually curious you can track the history of health care costs and how they react to government intrusion into the market, but somehow I don't think you're all that interested. I might recommend a book on basic economics as well.

Wow, sounds like you guys went all in. I hope that works out for you. One of my best friends decided to start a restaurant a few years back. All he had was a job waiting tables and no capital. He found his location, signed a lease and lived in a tool shed in the back for a year scraping together the funds to put the place together piece by piece and get his various licenses one at a time. He finally brought on a partner (gave him 49% for a $7k capital investment) and they spent the next six months in the restaurant 7 days a week staring at an empty window. It's 2 1/2 years later and heir profit for last month after taking their salaries was $27k. You'll get there, sometimes you just have to wade through a mountain of snow to get to the cabin. But man it's nice when you get there.

Does that mean tgregg just called today "!@#$"?

In whose reality (other than some bullsht story about taking 10 years to get a birth certificate) is a free ID card out of reach? As far as birth certificates go (and granted this anecdote comes from my reality so it's not comprehensive, just illustartive) I was in New Orleans just over 24 hours away from getting on a cruise ship and realized I needed a birth certificate to board, only I didn't have a birth certificate. I called my mom, who didn't have one for me either, so she went down to the vital records office, got a birth certificate, and FedExed it to me overnight and I had it in hand the next day. I realize some people can't afford the $15 fed ex charge, but then most people have more than 24 hours notice that the election is coming up. Some people can't drive to the polls either. That's their reality. Maybe we should just put ballot boxes with pencil and paper on street corners and everyone can just write down their choice and put it in the box. They'll be on the honor system. Sure, requiring registration and coming to polling locations would reduce fraud, by I guarantee you more people would be able to vote if we did it that way. Dude, Really? It's a !@#$ing ID requirement. It's not the Berlin Wall to the ballot you make it out to be.

I can't tell if you're joking. Edit: Nevermind, I get it. You're saying, but what if the person is already estabished as a misogynist and then calls her a "pain in the ass". But what if the only evidence of me being a misogynist is that I called her a pain in the ass? Regardless, the main point I'm making, not that I necessarily disagree with yours, is that right or wrong word choice matters even if they're grounded in the same general sentiment. I think it CAN be an indicator of the extent of harm you want to do (level of malice/hate). If you call a woman a c#nt you're clearly trying to inflict as much harm as possible; it's hateful and malicious. If you call her a pain in the ass you took a little something off that fastball; you're still conveying a negative outlook toward her and are aware that it will negatively impact her, but without the same level of malice or intent to harm.

So you'd prefer a net return of 90,000 disenfranchised voters. Interesting. It's not an ethical hang-up I have with your question, but rather the fact that it's based on a nonsensical premise. Those 100,000 hypothetical votes don't matter because the people had the option to vote but chose not to. Their right (or privilege, depending how you view it) has not been infringed. So, I think, yes, it is worth it, but I don't agree that unmotivated and disinterested people choosing not to exercise that right amounts to collateral damage. I'm not sure what part of this you don't get.

Sorry to intrude into your happly liberal fantasy land with a little reality. I know in the world of the hippy everyone gets unlimited access to the finest doctors and the most advanced medical technology known to man, but in reality those resources are scarce and need to be allocated some way. A system based on a free market model (which we've not had in this country in decades) with governmental and charitable subsidies for those who can't afford basic care would undoubtedly be the most efficient model to give the best care to the most people. That offends your liberal sensitvities because it irks you that the person who produces health care (i.e. he who pays) gets first dibs, because hey, in matters of life and death that shouldn't matter, right? The problem is that in your alternate world an unaccountable bureaucrat gets to decide for the market. This disrupts the economic forces that would otherwise be in play which stifles efficiency and leads to greater costs for less service, ultimately leading to the middle class and above getting lesser care rather than the poor getting better care. But let's look at the Brits. Sure their public health service sucks ass and anyone who can afford it gets private care, but hey, the Brits had kids in hospital beds as part of the Olympic ceremony, so that settles it; socialized medicine is the way.

I can't answer yes or no because I see no collateral damage. How about we flip the script. Let's say it prevents 100,000 fraudulent votes and eliminates only 10,000 irresponsible & disinterested votes. Is the collateral damage of not requiring ID worth it?

First off, you're pulling numbers out of your ass. Secondly, if those people chose not to get an ID they haven't been disenfranchised, they made a choice. If it was prohibitively expensive or required excessive effort to get an ID you'd have a point, but it doesn't so you don't. I don't understand the drive to make sure as many disinterested & uninformed people as possible vote. Oh yeah, because anyone who's too pathetic to have a photo ID is probably going to vote Democrat, and that's really what this is all about for you guys, isn't it?

His point was that Germans can chose their doctors & we can't. I was pointing out that this hasn't been my experience. And I'm middle class & most jobs I've had can be obtained within a couple of years by anyone of at least average intelligence who's responsible enough to show up for work. I've been one of the people that your disconnected & out of touch theories are based on.

There's a big difference between calling my wife a c#nt and calling her a pain in the ass, even if I'm conveying the same sentiment. Just sayin