Gene Frenkle

It's called a ticket, Einstein. Additionally, allowing drivers to talk on their cell phones while driving does affect you and every other motorist who shares the road with those cell phone users. It increases your chances of you and everyone else dying or getting injured because of the actions of said distracted drivers. At least it does if you choose to be a rational person and accept the results of this study.

The person on the other end of the phone is probably not in the car with you.

The (withheld) data seems to support your conclusion.

Don't let your facts interfere with an otherwise gratifying rant.

Oh, Jesus, I have a stalker. Thanks for your opinion.

Fair enough. No reason to judge the proposed system on anything other than it own merits, though. The more people who understand the proposed solution, the more holes will be poked in it, the better (theoretically) it should be in the end. Discussion based on analysis is a best-case scenario as far as I'm concerned. Get after it if you're worried. Most of the rest of us will be paying more attention to American Idol unfortunately.

It depends on your capacity/willingness to understand the details of what they're suggesting. This thread was started by a poster who probably glanced at a flowchart and rushed to post a link to show how fancy and "complicated" it looked at first glance, a subjective opinion to say the least. If you're going to make the effort to criticize, why not go the extra mile and actually reference details of the plan and possible alternatives instead of how many pictures, colors and arrows you see on the computer screen.

I'm not a proponent of unnecessary spending. If the numbers don't look good, cut the program and try something else. Rely on the facts. The country cannot continue to increase its debt as it has. We should be making every effort to decrease our national debt. I am not necessarily in favor of the spending that this administration is obviously doing, but realize that they have a plan they are trying to implement in an effort to turn this recession around. I don't think I can fairly judge this strategy, as I don't really understand the economics well enough to have an opinion on what the likely outcome of such a strategy might be.

So true!

Yes, that's exactly the same thing. I'm pretty sure we're not talking about additional taxes for those who can't take care of themselves. Those who would be affected by this proposed tax (like you apparently) will probably struggle, fight the good fight and eventually make it through somehow, some way. Oh, the drama. How will you ever survive this oppressive regime?!

Are you suggesting that the average American a-hole should be involved in the intricate details of trying to fix the health care system? This is one case where we're probably better off watching American Idol and letting the problem-solvers do their thing. But it's easy to sit back and criticize a complicated solution to a complex problem...

Gene Frenkle is not a fictional SNL character. Perhaps you've been licking your hypotoad?

Why would you expect the solution to a complicated problem to be simple?

More like...I can think of about 101 other issues to get all fired up about because they do affect me directly. That's the problem with you damned hippies and your pro-establishment sentiment.

Well it's all relative to how many clams you're starting with. Which begs the question - why are you railing against somthing that has no direct effect on you personally? Oh yeah, it's the allure of the "morality" of the Conservative movement...

Only according to nonsensical dogma.

Can't we all just get along and agree that Sarah Palin is a !@#$ing idiot?

DeMarcus Ware = JP Losman, right?

If there's any word he should spell correctly, it's hypocrisy. Spell checkers help too.

His account definately constitutes a hate crime.

No, no, you have it all wrong. Southerners corner the market on fat-assedness, not racism. Why Are Southerners So Fat?

Apparently not. The problem seems to be differentiating the ones who can from the ones who can't. Unfortunately, it's a rather subjective criteria. Thus, our general dilemma. This further illustrates the main problem with political extremism - no system is perfect, so only a blend of systems will do.

Pleased to meet you. If you believe, you believe...

I made no mention of the Pope or the Catholic Church in my statement.

Actually, I think these quotes attributed to Jesus stand on their own and are not improved by your paraphrasing. Particularly "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor", "forgive our debtors" and "give to every one who begs from you". These are not qualified anywhere in the Bible. They are direct commands and speak to the relative importance that should be placed on personal wealth and gain vs. helping others. If you have more than others, give directly to them. I never claimed that Jesus played at politics. He was above all that schitt. His principles, however were clearly Socialist and Liberal with regards to what those terms mean in American politics today. If the free market system is so perfect and adequately cares for the destitute and those who cannot take care of themselves, then why are we even having this debate? Why the need to even debate the necessity of individual entitlement programs? Shouldn't the free market take care of it for us? The answer is that the free market is not a perfect system. You cannot count on human beings to be generous enough to get rid of the need for at least some government redistribution of wealth. Conservatism is a selfish philosophy and is all about looking out for number one. That and throwing the occasional table scrap to the odd pleb here and there and then letting everyone know how generous you are.