100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
The Democrat campaigned on local issues and jobs. Seems like a good future! As expected it would be asking too much of a Republican to focus on important issues rather than sensationalizing and creating a controversy out of any attempt to improve America's futures. Oh please... the politicians are screwing over the future of our nation without lube. Our pants are around our ankles... if we do not do something drastic to stop the actions congress is taking right now, there will be no future to enjoy. If they really were about improving our future, it would involve long-lasting relief and stability, not calling three months "saving" a job so they can count it for credit. This is all smoke and mirrors - in the end, we are doomed. EDIT oh, and I love how you are always first to point out that it's all the republicans fault that progress cannot be discussed or made. You democrats are no better. Both sides are stubborn mules and just because you guys have the power, it's the republicans that are being bad and I know, you're an "independent" but if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck... First, the above article is about a local election campaign in Kentucky. Second, I've never hid my goal of weakening or eliminating the Republican Party as the second major political party in America. Third, I'm unaffiliated. I have never voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate in my life until Kerry in 04. Previously I had voted Bush, but after seeing him in action and recognizing his intentional lies earlier than most I began to realize the depth of the premeditated and organized corruption within the whole Republican Party. To me, they are a domestic enemy and a threat to American life and liberty. If you don't think that our liberties are disappearing at an alarming rate, then there is no hope for you. At least with W it was pretty much just the Patriot Act. With this administration, nothing is off limits. he's furthering the bush doctrine and taking on the democratic goals all at once. oh, and votes don't determine your affiliation - your ideals do. And to be honest, i've never heard you argue against a democratic ideal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the purpose of government to create jobs and it sure as hell isn't going to happen while paying down the debt. I'm not even getting into the taxing the rich part - it's just jealousy and greed from the bottom. But wait, only rich, white republicans can be rich. if it's anyone else, they deserve it. sorry... I forgot. Sorry Andrew, but I didn't read those accusations in the article. They don't have to be and I never said they were. That seems to be the going mentality. Don't have a job? Not my fault. I don't have a job...that is my fault. I decided to be a mechanic and put off school. I have nobody to blame but myself. Go look at the stats... anyone with a bachelor's degree or higher is under 5%. It's never even hit that mark as the official unemployment rate for high school grads crested almost 12%. maybe someone should have studied a little harder. It is the government's job to protect personal liberties, not create jobs. Besides, figuring that it cost the feds a couple hundred thousand to create a $30k a year job, I'm pretty sure that shows they suck at it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not having to be inside the gym... I do a weights at home to keep from being a stick (which i assure you looks goofy as all hell because I have very broad shoulders) but my workout is mostly jumping on the bike and taking off for a couple hours... very therapeutic and relaxing. Unfortunately, riding that long starts to burn muscle mass very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 12/10/09 06:53 PM
|
|
The Democrat campaigned on local issues and jobs. Seems like a good future! As expected it would be asking too much of a Republican to focus on important issues rather than sensationalizing and creating a controversy out of any attempt to improve America's futures. Oh please... the politicians are screwing over the future of our nation without lube. Our pants are around our ankles... if we do not do something drastic to stop the actions congress is taking right now, there will be no future to enjoy. If they really were about improving our future, it would involve long-lasting relief and stability, not calling three months "saving" a job so they can count it for credit. This is all smoke and mirrors - in the end, we are doomed. EDIT oh, and I love how you are always first to point out that it's all the republicans fault that progress cannot be discussed or made. You democrats are no better. Both sides are stubborn mules and just because you guys have the power, it's the republicans that are being bad and I know, you're an "independent" but if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Contradiction of terms
|
|
Ok, so Holder wants to try Mr. 9/11 in New York as a criminal trial, not as an act of war in a military tribunal. However, we went to war in Afghanistan on the principle that 9/11 was an act of war. Even Obama has cited Afghanistan as the "righteous war."
How can it be righteous if you do not believe the premises for going to war do not exist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the purpose of government to create jobs and it sure as hell isn't going to happen while paying down the debt. I'm not even getting into the taxing the rich part - it's just jealousy and greed from the bottom.
But wait, only rich, white republicans can be rich. if it's anyone else, they deserve it. sorry... I forgot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are aprox. 90,000,000 homes at an average value of 300,000. So lets say the mortgage on those assets is 50% borrowed money. 45,000,000 x 300,000 = 13,500,000,000,000 So thats 13.5 trillion So now the banks are holding those notes on leveraged money! So when the housing prices drop and the forclosures start hitting the bank is over stretched and they went under right? If they wanted the money from the American people why not right down the 13.5 trillion dollar investment? The actual money owed by americans? I will tell you why, because big business will not allow us off the hook! Even though they made the bad investment we have to flip the bill! They never paid the tarp money back and never will! They just increased banking costs to the American people to make up the difference! Now look at those figures once more and realize that our debt currently stands at 12 trillion and we have to pay that back and no one is gonna bail us out??????? If we had to bail them out because they where too big to fail and they really paid all the tarp money back, how about the banks take on some of that debt after all they are responsible for a portion of it due to their mismanagement! If they can pay tarp back so fast as they claim let them take on the debt! Its all a farse, kinda strange how they paid back billions and there is no money anywhere! The investments were made in good faith, the problem is people borrowed more than they could pay. I blame mortguage de-regulation that allowed "zero down" "interest only" loans. The republicans wanted to claim "more home ownership has taken place under George Bush than at any other time in american history" -- problem is, they ware not paying for them... Ultimately - people did not pay - bottom line. $.02 
I blame the politics involved. The housing push started under Clinton's administration where they wanted to get everyone into a home. That is what started the subprime lending. It was political pressure from both sides to lend to those that had no right in owning a home in the first place. If anything, de-regulation has made a lot of things worse. Everyone just throws that term around like they know exactly what it means and it's totally evil. Regulations have two downfalls: they are not preemptive and they greaten the void between the haves and have nots. regulation follows failure. This largely happens because when you regulate the hell out of something, you simply make it so those that know the system can game it and those that do not are left in the dark. That is how all these games get played and go around the back of regulations. By putting up a fence, you simply inspire people to look for a way around it because they know that once the find it, they'll be the only one to grab the opportunities on the other side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...and I'd like a serious answer for it. Actually, it's really two questions in one: Why is it the responsibility of the health insurance industry to make sure that everyone is provided with services from the healthcare industry and why is it their fault that medical care has become so expensive? It just seems to me that the root problem in all of this is not the insurance industry as they are allowing us to attain service we could not afford on our own, but largely in the healthcare industry. Can someone give me a serious, non-partisan, non-theinsuranceindustryisgreedy bickering type answer? I dont know if it is their fault medical care is expensive but I know that INSURANCE is expensive and that medical costs are charged HIGHER to those without insurance, than they are to the insurance companies themselves. Meanwhile, they get premiumes every month from people expecting some financial assistance with medical bills and then reserve the right to deny those very customers what they have paid for when some vital health issue arises. Try to get a doctor to perform any major surgery without insurance and you have a chore on your hands...thats what makes insurance nearly a necessity. Because it is nearly a necessity, it needs to be more affordable and available to all whether employed, unemployed, or underemployed. but why is it the insurance agency's fault that medical care is so expensive? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
regardless of who's fault it still needs to be regulated because companies are allowed to jack up prices for premiums along with people being over billed for services or ordered to undergo unnecessary procedures but its many of the insurance regulations that add to the cost. Right now, you cannot buy insurance across state lines - that severely limits competition. Furthermore, that also requires corporate entities in every state for companies like blue cross, further increasing costs and prices for consumers. The over billed part is largely a mistake of communication or largely mistakes by the hospitals and not something that needs to be taken out on the insurance companies. The unnecessary procedures are the same thing - all on the care end, not the insurance. I cannot think of one case where an insurance company would want someone to receive treatment that they do not need where the company will have to pay. It's all problems in the root of the issue: the medical care system. It has nothing to do with the insurance company other than increasing costs for them and us @msharmony i understand the issue of being another option, but all the public "option" is is a price ceiling. granted it can go two ways, but neither have a good outcome: Situation #1: Public option provides alternative to steep insurance costs from private co. Assuming there was no limitation on pricing for pre-existing conditions and high-risk patients for private companies (unlikely), this would lead to everyone with a special situation (basically, the unhealthy or high-risk) flocking to the public option. This is bad. All it will do is place an undue load on the system and bankrupt the private option. Sure, the private companies will be happy to rid themselves of their more expensive clients, but the government will be losing money hand over fist and we will have to find a way to pay for it. Situation #2: public option acts as a price ceiling by undercutting private insurers Here, you end up with a single-payer system. This is my greater fear and the more likely situation because I really doubt this will be passed without severe price limitations in place. Essentially, the government does not have to make a profit so they can therefore do less fraud monitoring and also, being they have far smaller operations by integrating nationwide, already have cost advantages. This will ultimately price the small insurers out of the market very quickly with the larger ones to follow. as insurers die off, more and more will join the cheaper public plan and ultimately, the big insurers will have no clients. Either way, this is a means to an end. Everything they are putting in place is going to kill the industry and spike prices. By artificially placing a ceiling and limiting how much private insurers can charge but not limit their payouts, you limit their options to ultimately having to charge everyone in an age group more. Right now, the youth pay for the elderly, but someone 55 in great health will pay less than the 55 year old who had two heart attacks. Since you no longer can split the age, you have to charge the two 55 year olds the same and bump up the charges for the younger one to meet costs. Where the **** does that make healthcare cheaper in the public sector? It doesn't it kills off the industry little by little until one day, the government is the only one standing; even if they're up to their balls in debt to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still haven't received a serious answer to why it's the insurance industry's responsibility to make sure we all have healthcare. Why not force the medical industry to give the care for less as opposed to forcing someone else to pay the astronomical prices?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What everybody seems to be missing is the banks have been taxing the American people on the front end with credit card rates and fees! They never paid the American people back the American people paid themselves back! Not to mention when all the big banks where gobbling up the samll banks for pennies on the dollar they received their assets at a bargain and now have our housing market held hostage! The bailout was wrong and the banks should have failed and when they did they would have never been able to recover the money owed to them! The money owed to them by the American people by in large! bailing them out only gave them the money to go after us and they have in full force! The banks get a free ride on the backs of the American tax payers! We paid to bail out our own creditors to collect on a good debt and we paid to clean up their bad debt! We had the banks on the ropes and all the suckers including those damn republicans that i voted for sold us down the river! Had they allowed the banks to fail the FDIC could have cleaned up the mess and what couldnt be cleaned up would have been foriegn investors losing their money or other investors!!!! But nnoooooooooooo we can't let the chinese and saudi's and wealthy lose their money so we put it on the backs of the american tax payer! Such a farse by all politicians! Almost every single one of them was in on this scandal! One only has to look at what the government allowing Lehman Brothers to fail caused. Letting Bank of America and Citigroup fail would have shut down the whole world basically.. It would have been real nasty for the American people. The FDIC would have had no clue as to where to start to clean up the mess. Foreign nations would no longer do business with the US. You don't have to use a credit card....no one forced you to sign the agreement but yourself. Free markets don't work that way... If they had allowed BofA and Citigroup (two branches of the same network) to fail... Someone else would have elbowed their way in and took over their market... Life would have gone on with a small hic-up instead of a HUGH crash that we are STILL in. So... The panic caused mistakes. The mistakes will cause another panic as the next ledge gives way a plumets the economy yet again. they saved a burning house by putting gasoline in the basement had sprinkling water on the burning timbers... What happens when the embers finaly hit the basement. I will never believe that....Wall Streeters say otherwise too. More like the New Orleans scenerio during Katrina where no one had answers. Then answer this for me: What did the financial industry learn from all of this? What was their punishment? I can guarantee the free market is far less forgiving of those that fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance innocent... Please, insurance is a ripoff from the get. But we buy it so... the actual truth as I see it here is that all the opposing views are a smoke screen. the politicians will continue to do what the politicians have planned and jack us all into indentured servitude while they live lives of spendor. The true redistribution of wealth... From your pocket to the pockets of those that think they govern. with a pittance to the bottom layer to keep them quiet! Thing is, insurance (as actual insurance anyway, not what this bill will make it) is a necessary evil. not many of us can afford healthcare without it, and while for many like myself where premiums add up to more than the care received, the companies love us - we are getting ripped off. but what about that one time you really need it and the bill is $20k? Then what? Is it still a ripoff? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why bother.. They obviously are not listening. Perhaps they actually need to feel the burn of the rope. the only thing important to a politician (as they appear right now) is how much money you stick in their pockets, how much control they have over the money flow, and who's *** they need to kiss to keep both of the above. Gallows time. Hang a few and the new ones won't be so willing to jack over the community that makes their jobs necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 12/10/09 11:26 AM
|
|
...and I'd like a serious answer for it. Actually, it's really two questions in one:
Why is it the responsibility of the health insurance industry to make sure that everyone is provided with services from the healthcare industry and why is it their fault that medical care has become so expensive? It just seems to me that the root problem in all of this is not the insurance industry as they are allowing us to attain service we could not afford on our own, but largely in the healthcare industry. Can someone give me a serious, non-partisan, non-theinsuranceindustryisgreedy bickering type answer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
out of 12 doctors I've talked in the last couple weeks not one single doctor favors the plan they all believe it gonna lead to rationing of health care No, the care. If they make less, there is less incentive to become a doctor and take on the couple hundred thousand in loans required to become one. They also will retire earlier. You cut supply while increasing demand. If anything, the one cost they have not included in the bill is to subsidize the doctors they're going to need to keep up with the demand they're creating. Sure, they can all go the the ER so the problem won't be there so much, but if you think the preventative care side isn't going to suffer you're fooling yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
%&#@ Windows 7!
|
|
The crashing, blue screens and black screens of death you're describing sounds like it may be faulty hardware, or more likely, faulty hardware drivers. I would start by updating your video driver direct from ATI, Nvidia, Intel, or whatever. Could be some software you loaded after the fact too. I've worked on a hundred Windows 7 machines already and have not come across the stability issues you're describing. If it were me, I'd try again with a fresh install & go from there Thing is it's not hardware because I never had these issues on XP. Drivers are unlikely because I've downloaded every one from the manufacturer just to be sure and the fact I have no idea which one threw the BSOD. I dunno if the x86 version is different or something, but either way, I'm going back to xp for a while or just wait and try the x64 architecture on the mac in a few months. maybe the x64 is more stable. Wish you the best of luck, in my past experience with x64 architecture on the desktop side, i have always had issues with programs not supporting the x64 installation paths, i know they kind of fixed this in windows 7, but it sounds a little flakey still.. With the Mac, if i were you i would just use ESX-I and install virtual images.. I know mac works fairly well with ESX-I. the only problem I've had with VMware is that the really intensive programs do not like it. Photoshop used to screw wine over royally running ubuntu, fedora, or arch - it didn't matter. It'll probably have a 500GB hard drive so I'll just dual boot. Actually, I'm considering removing the superdrive when I get it and installing a second hard drive. That way I can have a Mac drive and a windows/ubuntu drive. Seems pretty straightforward to be honest other than the bootloader part but it sounds to me that I can go from the apple loader and chainload the windows bootloader so I can select windows or ubuntu from that screen and it'll be no sweat. Then again, for me, it's always easier said than done and I'm more of a database/networking kind of guy with some web design thrown in over software and programming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I do not play much video games I play real sports or go out from time to time. I do not know the wii system well enough to help you. wow, such a manly thing to say. Anyway, I've never done linux on a wii, but I have done it on xbox along with a friend (though I have no idea why he did it). Are you saying that you can use the wiimote as the pointing device in ubuntu? because that would be awesome. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
windows xp won't boot, help?
|
|
It could just be your ram. My brother had the same problem.He has a dell. I told him it could be his memory or ram. Sure enough thats what it was. I told him to pull one out and then reboot. Then it booted up. Try that. Pull one or your ram out and reboot. If that dont work, put it back and remove the other ram then reboot. One of your rams may be bad. Your computer will give your a beeping code when you boot up to tell what is wrong with your computer. Just count the beeps lets say, one beep then two quick beeps then one slow beep. Then look up your beep code for your mother board on the internet. But try removing the ram first. Last I checked, Dells come defaulted to silent boot. Unless they want to go digging into the bios to change it, i doubt there's going to be a beep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
%&#@ Windows 7!
|
|
The crashing, blue screens and black screens of death you're describing sounds like it may be faulty hardware, or more likely, faulty hardware drivers. I would start by updating your video driver direct from ATI, Nvidia, Intel, or whatever. Could be some software you loaded after the fact too. I've worked on a hundred Windows 7 machines already and have not come across the stability issues you're describing. If it were me, I'd try again with a fresh install & go from there Thing is it's not hardware because I never had these issues on XP. Drivers are unlikely because I've downloaded every one from the manufacturer just to be sure and the fact I have no idea which one threw the BSOD. I dunno if the x86 version is different or something, but either way, I'm going back to xp for a while or just wait and try the x64 architecture on the mac in a few months. maybe the x64 is more stable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't even know what to think of all this, I trust the government as far as I can throw a building...and that aint far! They are talking about a compromise on the Public Insurance option. Rather than creating a new program this would expand on Medicare. Making it available to people starting at age 55, and expanding it to include new nationwide private plans to be run by the same agency that oversees the system that lawmakers use for themselves and their families. Yeah, because medicare is so efficient right now. This is bull. A national private option? Just open the border limitations! All you are doing now is a government-regulated private insurance plan that has to cover everyone and will be no better off than the public option would be. We are so ****ed. I hope you are all happy about this in 5 years when it's bankrupt. Oh, wait, nevermind... there's going to be lots of money in it for a while because WE HAVE TO PAY FOR 3 ****ING YEARS BEFORE IT EVEN KICKS IN! so much for the need to hurry. how convenient that it starts the year after the next election so if it tanks, nobody will be on the chopping block that year. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
