OCinBuffalo

Sure as long as they live up to their agreements regarding settlements, which they have NEVER fully done. You don't get a license to be a lying, duplicitous douche when you get your "right to exist" license. Every time things get close to being reasonable, the far right Israelis show up with their Uzis, start settling land they aren't supposed to, and everything goes to hell. And, the the douches on the other side start launching rockets from the back of a pickup truck...and on and on.

Dammit! I knew there was I reason I like their apple butter so much. They have been lulling me into a false sense of security, and distracting me with cheap prices for good food while their carry out their dastardly plans.

Yeah, as x bendict pointed out, I got fooled by what appears to be just a regular site. My apologies. And you are right about one idiot doesn't mean everybody is an idiot. But, the real problem is: the non-idiots response to the idiot. I don't see many non-idiot Muslims condemning the idiots, with, for example, the same level of anger that I condemn the Catholic church for the sex abuse scandals.

If Iran gets nukes, we have no choice but to take them out. Iran is the #1 state supporter of terror, and has been for years. Am I supposed to believe that they won't give them to terrorists? They give everything else to terrorists, why not nukes? Am I supposed to trust you/them that they won't try to set off a nuke? what difference does it make where they set it off? IF we go in and "correct" them, then I don't want to hear any whining. The Iranians have had years to "correct" themselves. IF they choose to continue on this path, and that's exactly what they have done while Obama's "engagement" strategy has failed miserably, then they are also choosing the consequences of our response. There's no such thing as a "noncombatant" when we are talking nuclear war. If you choose that weapon then you choose all the terrible responses that come with it. The civilians that would be killed by an Iranian nuke remove the "noncombatant" status of those Iranian civilians that are killed by us taking that nuke away. Is that really "breathtaking"? More like, simple and straightforward.

Yeah, looks like they got me. I wonder who did this. Certainly a d-bag.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see us televise the state-sanctioned "justice" of running over of a little boy's arm with a car. Link here...but I suggest you don't bother watching it. It is disgusting. Look, we can only take the very end result and see similarities, but there is a GIANT difference between what, how, and why we do things here in comparison to these Muslim countries, and that is undeniable. We sure as hell don't drive trucks over little boy's arms. Go ahead and tell me that = one gang banger killing another. There is no moral equivalency for that, no matter how hard anyone tries. Driving over that boy's arm is pure evil, those people that support it are sick, with little or no chance of redemption, and therefore they need to be put down. I don't care who does it, and I would prefer the Iranians rise up and take these people out themselves. But, make no mistake, if they continue to tolerate this "justice" system, and the Ayatollah government in general, then they are responsible for it, and they will have accept the consequences of their in-actions. We learned our lessons from WWII and the Cold War. We are not going to sit by and let another Nazi/Stalin type regime rise, do nothing, and then be forced to fight it at the height of its power. Not when we could have stopped it years before, and before millions lose their lives. The Iranian people need to accept their responsibility for their government and act accordingly, or, others will accept the responsibility of removing their government, and they will have to accept how the rest of us do it. The choice is theirs.

Once and for all, I am not against anybody exercising their rights, nor do I deny that those rights exist. I am simply saying that having a right to be d-bag, doesn't mean that you should. Further, I don't see how this helps anybody with anything. I have the exact same questions about the "wisdom" of this decision as everybody else, including Obama. I am calling these Mosque builders idiots, because they are making an idiot's choices. It's as simple as that. As far as the "deliberate sabotage" goes, that's a hysterical way to put it. I would hardly describe my views as gleeful, more like based in reality. It's funny because it's true. I laugh at what goes on in NYC consistently, this is just one case where I can see the opportunity for even more humor than normal. So, no, there's nothing hypocritical about me laughing at the ridiculousness that is NYC, I do it all the time, and it usually starts immediately when I get off the train in Penn Station.

Kelsey has been the Rasputin of the Bills. Nothing kills that guy, nothing.

No, I got it the first time. The problem is: it's still irrelevant. This is not the central issue, not even close. This is about whether this will advance the cause of reasonable Muslims, both in this country and elsewhere, or not. I am still waiting for you to explain how this helps an already strained relationship. It doesn't, but go ahead And, like I said in another thread. None of this matters. Little turtle without a shell Bloomberg won't be able to stop what is coming for this "project". I spoke to a friend of mine who owns a large construction firm in Jersey. He won't touch it, and he says nobody down there will. He says the main reasons he is worried are safety, insurance, getting robbed blind, etc. You know, rational business concerns, not prejudice.

So your experience with Christians = what, exactly? Again, it's irrelevant. Atheists have no religion, by definition, they are not supportive of any religion. Since atheists are also opposed, this cannot be as you say. Your position is more about your prejudice against what I can only assume are annoying evangelical types. And besides, there are a whole lot of reasonable Muslims who oppose the building of this Mosque. Are you telling me they are prejudiced against themselves? that they oppose their own religion? Ridiculous.

There are lots of reasons for opposition. Are you telling me that the Jews that oppose it are doing so because they are Christian? How about the atheists? Yes, the atheists must have suddenly turned Christian when they heard that this mosque was getting built, since according to you, religion is the only reason this is being opposed. Logic is a B word, huh? The only religion that is relevant to this discussion is Islam, since a mosque is getting built. I would like to know how building this Mosque represents "tolerance", since we keep getting told that Islam is such a "tolerant" religion.

Ok Bill Clinton Obfuscation master...we are talking about Islam, because we are talking about building a Mosque, not a Cathedral. Christianity has nothing to do with this. Stay on topic, Mr. "I bring up the irrelevant as a way to defend the indefensible". Apparently it's impossible to talk about Islam by itself, because apparently Islam doesn't exist in stand-alone form, it only comes with the "Christianity module". The premise is that building the mosque will be a source of healing. I am asking you, or anyone, how the f that makes sense, and to show their work using the Koran, or any Muslim rationale.

1. Of course they have a right to build the Mosque, no rational person with an 11th grade understanding of the Constitution can deny that. 2. They have as much of a right as Rex Ryan has to take his shirt off at the beach, but, nobody wants to see either exercise their rights. 3. This will not help the cause of healing, or, inter-faith relations, or, increasing the understanding/tolerance of Islam, and it won't help Americans to see Muslims as rational, tolerant, or sensitive. 4. If "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance", and you are trying to convince me of that, why are we talking about the Constitution? The document has nothing to do with Islam, and was not based on it in any way. 5. If you are trying to convince me of something, show me where in your teachings the justification lies for building this Mosque. Show how this is an example of "tolerance".

Perhaps, but you can't hang with me, and you know it. Once again, I have brought the facts and the logic, and have given you a whipping with them, and once again, you call me names as you run away rubbing your ass. Now that's silly, but it is also accurate.

Great, another word that conner doesn't know. There is exactly 0 rationalization in that post, idiot. My stance? WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with my opinion. I am merely stating the facts: 1. The ACLU wants to criminalize terrorism instead of treat it as the war that it is....that's a fact. 2. Predator attacks directly contradict the notion of treating terrorists as criminals.....that's also a fact. 3. The ACLU has CONSISTENTLY called the Predator attacks ILLEGAL, and it is therefore on those grounds that they believe they can challenge the President....that is their thinking, that they can prove the President is doing something illegal, and therefore get a court to order him to stop. 4. Due to 1-3, the ACLU wants all Predator attacks to stop, in favor of us either doing nothing, or, going in and attempting to arrest terrorists, so they can be tried in court....that's the only rational conclusion. Perhaps you confused "being rational" or "drawing a rational conclusion" with the word "rationalization"? The ACLU cannot stop the Predator attacks, by going to court, if they know nothing about them. They can't make their case if they have no facts....a point that consistently eludes you. So, they MUST sue to get information, so, they can sue to stop the attacks. That is as simple as I can make it for you. If you can't understand and accept this simple explanation, then I am done with you in this thread. Only a f'ing moron can't see the basic reality here, and I am not wasting any more time on morons.

So, regardless of what happens, things can only get better for you, because you are looking at the very top, from the very bottom. No wonders you have this attitude. You literally have nothing to lose. And it's not the government's job to pick winners and losers in "commerce". Like it or not, that's the justification the government is using for it's intrusions...the "commerce clause". Well, they aren't supposed to be deciding which businesses win and which lose, that is for the market to decide. The last time we had bureaucrats picking winners and losers was Jimmy Carter...how well did that work out? Horeschit. I don't even have to look this up. I say again: Horseschit. Also Horseschit. The reason we don't have primary care docs is no mystery: you make more and have to put up with less crap if you are a specialist. When you are talking about single payer and reimbursement, how in the F is that not about "business"? This about EVERYTHING, all of it, and fixing ALL of it. Single payer does not solve 80% of the problems in this industry, and there are serious questions about the 20% it does address, and whether it causes more problems than it solves. My simple premise: We can't possibly know what is wrong, if we can't measure what we do consistently, and compare it to what we expect to do. We can't possibly know what things truly cost, if we can't measure the cost consistently, and compare it to what we expect it to cost. We can't possibly know if we are doing a quality job, if we don't measure what we do, all the time, consistently, and compare it to what we expect. If you look, you will find that this premise is undeniable, especially when it comes to Health Care. Nowhere, NOWHERE, is this addressed by Obama, or his people, or his supporters, or anybody that supports single payer. Obamacare does not measure costs properly, so it has no hope of containing them. Obamacare does not measure quality properly, so it has no hope of ensuring it. Obamacare does not demand accountability, on any side, so it has no hope of enforcing it.

Waiting for birdog's response on how many Medicare/Medicaid patients....tick...tick....tick....probably ain't going to get it, huh? "It's not about profit"...in general...as long as you aren't talking about cutting whoever says that's profits. There are lots of these in health care: "We are patient/resident centered"...but spend all of our time talking about staffing. "We need more staff"...but can't tell you how much, what kind, when, and where. "We know our patients/residents/facility"...while achieving the working encyclopedic knowledge required to actually make that statement truthful is far beyond human capability. "We need electronic medical records"...so we can have another system doctors/nurses won't use, because it is designed for accountants and bureaucrats, not doctors, nurses, or anybody that works with their hands in a mobile environment, can't be customized, and is so massive that "it takes 20 minutes just to enter a simple task, and 30 minutes to get the simple information I need right now". ...but believe me I don't blame you guys for any of it. The reason these "lies to self", and "myths about the organization" exist have far more to do with external influences, than the providers themselves. These are just the mantra that has been developed as the response to the no-win situation most providers find themselves in. Just add "We need single payer" to that list.

So, once again, instead of letting the customer make the decision, which is how this gets done properly, we have yet another fool deciding that "Beet Warming"TM is real with no data to support that. I wonder if there is a political organization at the UN that can collect "data", like undergraduate papers, and news pieces, that will give us unequivocal proof that genetic beets are bad.

Oh, please, spare me the "I take care of people, so that absolves me of making sound business decisions, accepting my leadership role and management responsibilities" thing. I am soooo bored with that. Profit? How many Medicare patients did you "willingly" see this week doc? How many Medicaid? Did you enjoy your $18-30 a visit? You send an ambulance to pick up your patient from the nursing home that is 30 yards away yet this week? Please. I remind you again, 10 years, your industry, and I have a lot of fans. My favorites are the 300 lb nurse aids, except when they hug me.

But that would require Obama admitting he was wrong, and naive, about engagement and, that would require Dave_in_Norfolk admitting he voted for Obama, and made a mistake and, that would require conner's, and whoever writes the columns for Salon, Moveon, Huffington, etc. head's to explode. Safe to say, nobody is going to admit they were wrong. The surge in Iraq didn't work, and the Iraq "War is lost", don't you remember? I could be wrong about the head exploding thing. I suppose you actually have to have something besides whatever somebody wrote, that is based on whatever George Lakoff said yesterday, in your head in order for it to explode.

Yeah right, as a guy who has gained a lot of insight into health care business processes in the last 10 years, I can guarantee you that any physician would support any plan that makes their reimbursement easier, or dare I say, consistent and reasonable. You have confused "only having to deal with one payer" with the concepts of "simplicity and consistency". Single payer is not simple, it sure as hell isn't consistent, and it's not going to get you what you want. Think about it for a second: do you really want the same people who gave us the MDS, CPT codes, and all the other "greatest hits" in charge of even more things?

Ah, so you can't respond to my other post, idiot, because you know that it's over. So, you reply to one that's not speaking to you? And even better, you try to make yourself look cool by using the Urban Dictionary? Pathetic. Consistent. Obfuscation.

Look, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what I am talking about, and this coy act is also very old and extremely hypocritical. Yeah, nuance is such a waste of time. Words don't mean things, let's just rely on your assumptions. If you say that the system is broken, fine, but it's what we have to work with right now. We already tried the massive "change" thing, with Clinton and with Obama, and in the first 2 years of both, it got us nothing but stupidity. The only way to truly change things is to do the hard work of gradually changing things for the better over time. I am simply saying that anybody can say "you're all stupid", and be right some of the time. There's nothing insightful in that. I am betting you know that, but you'd rather be coy and try to make it about me. I would be extremely happy if politicians read the instruction manual and only lived by it, and not this jackass agenda we have seen since FDR/LBJ. Ultimately, I would love to see a lot more problems solved at the local level, and only involve the Feds in things that are truly national issues. I would love to see the Feds stop cajoling the states and/or paying them off to accept their horseschit mandates. And, please don't misconstrue: if I call somebody an a-hole, it doesn't mean that I don't support their right to be an a-hole, or want to take that right away, I am not a liberal after all. I don't think I can stop people from being idiots by passing laws and creating massive government programs that only move the a-hole behavior from once place to another. Sure it is, that's just my frustration talking. But, perhaps rather than an amendment, we just simply start talking about that as a qualification for office. Oh, but that's right, we'd have to rely on the media for that....never mind.

Well this is ironic. You reference talking schit... and, at the same time, you bag on Conservatives, while pretending like conner exemplifies knowledge, reason, and solid debating skills, accountability and intellectual honesty, yes, conner, of all people on this board, represents rational thought, and, at the same time, you offer nothing in terms of the content of this thread, but we are supposed to heed your "talking schit" reference? Calling somebody an idiot is not a personal attack when that somebody consistently takes the position that only an idiot would take. If you spent the time here you said you haven't, you would be aware of conner's consistent foolishness, followed by obfuscation...unless of course, you are talking schit.

Oh, that's right, the reason they want the information is.... ...no reason. They just want to have it, for having it's sake. Right, they don't want to stop the predator attack program, they just want to know what's happening. Look, idiot, the ACLU and the far left REFUSE to correctly determine that we are fighting a f'ing war. Instead, they want to criminalize everything, and try people in court. That is moronic, and you are moronic if you don't get it..still...that in order for the ACLU/far left to accomplish their goal, they must stop the predator attacks. You can't hold a show trial in lower Manhattan, in which you blame everybody but the terrorist for his a-hole behavior, with the charred remains of some scumbag. You need to have a live body, so you can talk about how he is "another human being, and doesn't deserve harsh treatment, and none of this would have happened if he wasn't poor". You are gravely misinformed by believing that the ACLU's intentions are somehow sacrosanct. They haven't been for the last 10 years at least. They have been political, subjective, and unbalanced. They have not been standardized and objective, therefore, they don't get to sit in judgment of anybody else's standards or objectivity.