View Full Version : Surgeon General's warning, Pat's Blog may cause frustration
Haiti
Damn, that earthquake just fucked them up.
I was in an earthquake of the same power back in 1989. Fortunately for me I was in the US and not Haiti. Food and water wasn't a problem.
You can't flee from an earthquake like you can from a hurricane, there isn't advance notice.
Mr Obama enlisted the help and support of Mr Clinton and Mr Bush for this disaster that occurred in another country. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the way Mr Bush handled hurricane Katrina, he is now of value to the current administration. Is that because Mr Bush is suddenly a valuable asset, or is that because Mr Obama see's the Haitians as worthless as the partisan liberals claimed Mr Bush treated the Katrina survivors?
Just asking.
MintJulep
01-16-2010, 10:47 PM
Don't even get me started, Pat. The faux parading of Bush on TV today to shill for money about made me puke after the way they treated him.
Mr Obama wants to tax the surviving banks for the bailout TARP funds. Many surviving banks have already paid back those funds, the failed banks never will, they are gone, they can't. Many banks didn't take or need TARP money. Why should they be punished?
Is Mr Obama going to ask congress to tax Ford Motor Company (they didn't take bail out monies) for the bailouts to Chrysler and GM?
Is Mr Obama going to hold the soldiers in Iraq responsible for the death of civilians in Afghanistan?
It’s not about race, it’s about dishonesty.
Congressman Joe Wilson yelled “You lie” at Mr Obama during a speech last year. His outburst was labeled as a racist statement. Unprofessional? Yes. Uncouth? Yes. Racist? Absolutely not.
When on the campaign trail, (then Senator) Mr Obama often altered his tone and cadence when giving speeches. You know, he sort of used that “Negro dialect” that Senator Reid spoke about. Was that racist? Absolutely not. What it was, was pure unadulterated pandering. Ms Clinton did the same thing (see her campaign speech in Alabama). Was that racist? Again, it was not. It was also pandering.
When some people felt like Mr Bush didn’t react quickly enough to the hurricane Katrina disaster, there were rumblings (and some accusations) about racism. You know, as in he wasn’t reacting quickly because it was mostly black folks left in New Orleans. It was a disaster for crying out loud, race had nothing to do with the government’s response.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans are not racist. While there is no doubt that there are some racists, we must remember that prejudice and racism exist in some individuals across all races. It is individuals we must hold accountable for that behavior, not a race, not a political party, not a region of the country.
The problem we have in America is dishonesty about race, not racism itself. Flinging out the term “racist” just because somebody happens to differ in opinion only hinders open dialogue. If I point out that the black high school dropout rate is higher than the white high school drop out rate, that is a statistic, it isn’t racism. Calling it racism does nothing to address the actual problem of children not graduating from high school. Until people are willing to accept the idea that a racially related problem is not in and of itself a racist act, we cannot fix the problem.
The main race problem that America has is an unwillingness to be honest about race.
It is an honesty problem, not a racial problem. People constantly fret about race, then refuse to be honest about it. Our politicians are the worst ones.
MintJulep
01-17-2010, 08:10 PM
Pat, it's much more simple than that. The race card is simply a tactic to shut down the debate. We've seen this employed since the primaries. It's a crutch that's been worn down to a toothpick and has no more effect on me now than the word "eggplant" does.
:lmao2:
Robin Hood vs the Pied Piper
Can we compare and contrast the 2 legends?
Let’s start with Robin Hood.
Is stealing from the rich honorable? It is in the legend of Robin Hood. According to the legend, Robin Hood stole from the rich and then gave to the poor. In today’s modern society, I seriously doubt that many of you would feel ok if somebody broke into your house and stole your personal property just so that they could give it to a poor person.
How many of you would feel it was justifiable if somebody pointed a gun at you on the street and demanded that you give them the cash out of your purse or wallet, then gave that cash to somebody else. Robin Hood didn’t offer people the choice of which charity they wanted to donate to.
I’m not sure why Robin Hood is praised in legend.
Let’s talk about the Pied Piper.
Is performing a service to the population an honorable act? In the legend of the Pied Piper it isn’t. According to the legend, the Pied Piper drove the rats out of the town, then the citizens didn’t pay him his contract. In today’s modern society I seriously doubt that many of you would feel ok if you weren’t paid for your labor.
How many of you would feel it was justifiable if somebody hired you to do a service for them, then after you did it, they refused to pay you the agreed salary? The Pied Piper offered people the choice to use his services or not.
I am not sure why the Pied Piper is vilified in legend.
At this point, I am sure that some of you are asking, “Pat, what do the legends of Robin Hood and the Pied Piper have to do with politics?”
It’s actually a good comparison in my mind. The politicians are more like Robin Hood than the Pied Piper. They have good press. They rob and steal, but since their intentions are well meaning, we tend to give them a pass. They vilify the Pied Pipers of the world that actually perform a service that the people want and need because it is motivated and based upon profit.
The Pied Pipers of the world are the ones that put groceries at your fingertips and the Robin Hoods of the world are the ones that want you eat the scraps from their table.
Bill Cosby
01-18-2010, 12:51 AM
Haiti
Damn, that earthquake just fucked them up.
I was in an earthquake of the same power back in 1989. Fortunately for me I was in the US and not Haiti. Food and water wasn't a problem.
You can't flee from an earthquake like you can from a hurricane, there isn't advance notice.
Mr Obama enlisted the help and support of Mr Clinton and Mr Bush for this disaster that occurred in another country. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the way Mr Bush handled hurricane Katrina, he is now of value to the current administration. Is that because Mr Bush is suddenly a valuable asset, or is that because Mr Obama see's the Haitians as worthless as the partisan liberals claimed Mr Bush treated the Katrina survivors?
Just asking.
Perhaps they now have him to blame for whatever goes wrong..........
Jesting aside I personally do not want this to be a partisan issue...
I have no idea why he would pick them........... Neither would be my first pick & neither would be the first pick of the Haitians either............
America's handling of our "near abroad" has not been very pretty.........
Hopefully these to smart guys can work some of their stuff to the benefit of those ppl..........
Bill Cosby
01-18-2010, 12:55 AM
Nice blog & lots of interesting things...........
I'll be back..........http://www.theblogofrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/arnold-schwarzenegger-vs-garry-kasparov.jpg
Efficiency Causes Job Loss
In 1790, farmers were about 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.
I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, Pat? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”
The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
ROdger Right
01-19-2010, 12:21 AM
Robin Hood vs the Pied Piper
Can we compare and contrast the 2 legends?
Let’s start with Robin Hood.
Is stealing from the rich honorable? It is in the legend of Robin Hood. According to the legend, Robin Hood stole from the rich and then gave to the poor. In today’s modern society, I seriously doubt that many of you would feel ok if somebody broke into your house and stole your personal property just so that they could give it to a poor person.
How many of you would feel it was justifiable if somebody pointed a gun at you on the street and demanded that you give them the cash out of your purse or wallet, then gave that cash to somebody else. Robin Hood didn’t offer people the choice of which charity they wanted to donate to.
I’m not sure why Robin Hood is praised in legend.
Let’s talk about the Pied Piper.
Is performing a service to the population an honorable act? In the legend of the Pied Piper it isn’t. According to the legend, the Pied Piper drove the rats out of the town, then the citizens didn’t pay him his contract. In today’s modern society I seriously doubt that many of you would feel ok if you weren’t paid for your labor.
How many of you would feel it was justifiable if somebody hired you to do a service for them, then after you did it, they refused to pay you the agreed salary? The Pied Piper offered people the choice to use his services or not.
I am not sure why the Pied Piper is vilified in legend.
At this point, I am sure that some of you are asking, “Pat, what do the legends of Robin Hood and the Pied Piper have to do with politics?”
It’s actually a good comparison in my mind. The politicians are more like Robin Hood than the Pied Piper. They have good press. They rob and steal, but since their intentions are well meaning, we tend to give them a pass. They vilify the Pied Pipers of the world that actually perform a service that the people want and need because it is motivated and based upon profit.
The Pied Pipers of the world are the ones that put groceries at your fingertips and the Robin Hoods of the world are the ones that want you eat the scraps from their table.
And after the piper was not givin any money he tuted a different tune and stole all the villages children, who were never seen again but i dont think thats part of the legend
xav8terx
01-19-2010, 03:19 PM
Umm, your title is not correct. Everyone here knows your bullshit is no mystery.
Taxing bad behavior.
It is common knowledge that the government can reduce “bad” behavior by taxing or penalizing it.
Tobacco and alcohol use are the perfect examples. Every time the tax rates increase on tobacco products, some people quit using tobacco. It happens with alcohol also. Some people quit or reduce consumption because they can’t afford it anymore. Some because they just don’t want to pay the increased taxes.
Not to long ago, the city of Chicago instituted a 5 cent tax on bottled water. They said they needed the tax money because all those empty bottles were getting into landfills. I guess they sort of forgot about their recycling programs. The sales of bottled water dropped, and Chicago didn’t get the revenue stream they anticipated and wrote into their budget.
By the way, the reason I know this about Chicago’s water tax is because I am the IT person for a fortune 500 retailer that had to develop the reporting so that our company could collect and pay the tax to the city. Our sales of water have dropped dramatically since the tax was introduced.
Part of the health care bill calls for a tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans. Just like tobacco, alcohol and water, this will price some people out of the market. Instead, they will settle for a sub-prime health care plan. The government won’t get it’s anticipated revenue stream, and some person will end up not getting the type of medical care they really wanted to and was willing to pay for.
Another part of the health care bill calls for taxing manufactures of medical equipment. I am willing to bet, those costs will be passed on and some doctor or hospital will just buy less medical equipment. The anticipated taxes won’t be realized, and the medical services that could have been provided with that equipment won’t be available.
Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that unfairly taxing something reduces a person’s propensity to engage in that behavior. Putting special taxes on medical related goods and services isn’t going to improve medical care any more that putting special taxes on tobacco increases the sale of tobacco products.
I'm not sure why the government thinks medical care is bad behavior.
The dumbest statement in America
“The government is giving me a <insert dollar amount here> tax refund.”
There are variations of this statement such as, “I got” or “I’m getting” $X refund.
The bottom line is this,
You aren’t getting anything back but your own money. It was money you overpaid. Money you loaned to the government interest free over the course of the last year. Money you worked for and earned. It isn’t a freebie.
The government has some good marketers working for them.
That’s why they call it “Filing your tax return” instead of calling it “Paying your taxes”. By calling it a “return”, some people feel like it is a “return” on an investment or something.
Hey, the government is going to “return” some of your own money to you, don’t you feel good about that? Don’t you feel special?
Every year, I send off my tax papers on April 15th. I enclose a check for the taxes they demand. I’m not loaning them money for free. It’s not my entire tax liability for the year, but it’s still a check I have to write.
I see too many people that get excited about how much of a “refund” they are getting, rather than looking at how much they actually paid. How much the government took from their paycheck over the last year.
If there was no payroll withholding throughout the year, and people had to write a check on April 15th, I suspect there would be an outcry about the tax rates.
If you are getting a tax refund, don’t get giddy about it; adjust your withholding so they don’t have to return the interest free money you loaned them. You are better off getting a measly 1% interest from a bank than getting zero interest from a government forced savings account.
Don’t be guilty of using the dumbest statement in America.
Binky
01-22-2010, 03:24 PM
Perhaps they now have him to blame for whatever goes wrong..........
Jesting aside I personally do not want this to be a partisan issue...
I have no idea why he would pick them........... Neither would be my first pick & neither would be the first pick of the Haitians either............
America's handling of our "near abroad" has not been very pretty.........
Hopefully these to smart guys can work some of their stuff to the benefit of those ppl..........
Well, IMO, I believe the reason Clinton and Bush were picked was because they were the most recent of former presidents.....Enlisting the help of those that had served in recent past has most always been the way it was done....
With the horrific catastrophy that has occured in Haiti, I am sure they could use any and all help they could get..... If I were able to get there, I would do whatever I could to assist the doctors, since I have a background as a nursing assistant.....
Binky
01-22-2010, 03:39 PM
The dumbest statement in America
“The government is giving me a <insert dollar amount here> tax refund.”
There are variations of this statement such as, “I got” or “I’m getting” $X refund.
The bottom line is this,
You aren’t getting anything back but your own money. It was money you overpaid. Money you loaned to the government interest free over the course of the last year. Money you worked for and earned. It isn’t a freebie.
The government has some good marketers working for them.
That’s why they call it “Filing your tax return” instead of calling it “Paying your taxes”. By calling it a “return”, some people feel like it is a “return” on an investment or something.
Hey, the government is going to “return” some of your own money to you, don’t you feel good about that? Don’t you feel special?
Every year, I send off my tax papers on April 15th. I enclose a check for the taxes they demand. I’m not loaning them money for free. It’s not my entire tax liability for the year, but it’s still a check I have to write.
I see too many people that get excited about how much of a “refund” they are getting, rather than looking at how much they actually paid. How much the government took from their paycheck over the last year.
If there was no payroll withholding throughout the year, and people had to write a check on April 15th, I suspect there would be an outcry about the tax rates.
If you are getting a tax refund, don’t get giddy about it; adjust your withholding so they don’t have to return the interest free money you loaned them. You are better off getting a measly 1% interest from a bank than getting zero interest from a government forced savings account.
Don’t be guilty of using the dumbest statement in America.
Yeah, that sure is a stupid statement. Whatever the refund may be, it is not the gov'ts money. It is our money. We earned it. We are entitled to it. And if the gov't had its way, it would keep every single farthing that it could....
Binky
01-22-2010, 03:53 PM
Efficiency Causes Job Loss
In 1790, farmers were about 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.
I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, Pat? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”
The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
I gather the reason they wail and scream about the loss of manuf. jobs is because the jobs are been shipped overseas... I've been wondering if maybe the powers that be don't want us to have any jobs. But rather, they want us to be dependant of the gov't for every breath we take, every bite of food we eat, every blanket we use and every scrap of toilet tissue we consume etc.... Otherwise, why isn't the gov't keeping these large corporations from farming out their work, so to speak, to other nations? Maybe the gov't should tell those corporations that if they ship out most of the jobs then they had better pack up and move as well, as they are losing their citizenship and all the perks that goes with operating in America.....and/or living here....
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security
Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.
For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.
For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.
The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.
That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 6.2% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it. Instead, they get nothing.
Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
T-Cat
01-23-2010, 12:51 PM
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security
Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.This is a ridiculously false claim. This will be revealed below. As they say there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.
For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.
The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.This is a good example of how to lie with statistics. There is no such thing as an average black male. The "logic" you are using basically states that all black males die at age 67 and therefore they "collect nothing from his 40 year contribution". This is horribly flawed. You have to look at the statistical expected age distribution, not the average age. Many black males live well past 67 years of age and collect SS, albeit a smaller percentage than white males. Just as important is how much they are expected to collect in comparison to how much they have paid in. Blacks on average pay less in than whites do.
That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 6.2% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it. Instead, they get nothing.False, Social Security pays out something called survivor benefits and therefore they do not get nothing.
Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.htmlRaw Life Expectancies aren't very useful. They don't give you the actually paid in paid out calculations that are relevant.
For instance what the table doesn't show is that blacks have a much higher infant mortality rate (13.60 per 1000 vs 5.66 per 1000) than whites do. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201436.html) Now while the difference in figures represents a small percentage of the population, it doesn't take very many additonal deaths at age < 1 to significantly bring down the average life expectancy. Teenage mortality rates for black males are also considerably higher than for whites and they too bring down the average life expectancy. But both groups contribute virtually nothing into social security and therefore don't represent people dying earlier and not collecting what they paid into.
However if you look at males of age 62 who will have paid into social security for 40 years, the expected number of years of remaining life expectancy is almost the same for blacks (17 years) as it is for whites (18 years). So the longer you live and the more you pay into social security, the more equal it becomes for receiving those benefits if you are black.
GAO Report on Social Security and Minorities (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03387.pdf)
Minorities also receive a higher proportion of SS disability benefits and because social security is progressive and blacks earn less than whites on average, they receive a larger benefit relative to their income than whites do. Overall when you factor in working life expectancy, disability benefits, and income disparity, blacks do as good if not better than whites overall.
Bush attempted to use the same argument in 2005 as you just did. He was wrong too.
CommonCents
01-24-2010, 09:47 AM
It’s not about race, it’s about dishonesty.
Congressman Joe Wilson yelled “You lie” at Mr Obama during a speech last year. His outburst was labeled as a racist statement. Unprofessional? Yes. Uncouth? Yes. Racist? Absolutely not.
When on the campaign trail, (then Senator) Mr Obama often altered his tone and cadence when giving speeches. You know, he sort of used that “Negro dialect” that Senator Reid spoke about. Was that racist? Absolutely not. What it was, was pure unadulterated pandering. Ms Clinton did the same thing (see her campaign speech in Alabama). Was that racist? Again, it was not. It was also pandering.
When some people felt like Mr Bush didn’t react quickly enough to the hurricane Katrina disaster, there were rumblings (and some accusations) about racism. You know, as in he wasn’t reacting quickly because it was mostly black folks left in New Orleans. It was a disaster for crying out loud, race had nothing to do with the government’s response.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans are not racist. While there is no doubt that there are some racists, we must remember that prejudice and racism exist in some individuals across all races. It is individuals we must hold accountable for that behavior, not a race, not a political party, not a region of the country.
The problem we have in America is dishonesty about race, not racism itself. Flinging out the term “racist” just because somebody happens to differ in opinion only hinders open dialogue. If I point out that the black high school dropout rate is higher than the white high school drop out rate, that is a statistic, it isn’t racism. Calling it racism does nothing to address the actual problem of children not graduating from high school. Until people are willing to accept the idea that a racially related problem is not in and of itself a racist act, we cannot fix the problem.
The main race problem that America has is an unwillingness to be honest about race.
It is an honesty problem, not a racial problem. People constantly fret about race, then refuse to be honest about it. Our politicians are the worst ones.
The latest use of this dishonest tactic, was against Scott Brown. Because he used a pick-up truck in his campaign ads, they are now saying that was "racist".
Can the left get any more ridiculous?
A Health Care Conspiracy Theory
Do you have one of those cards the grocery store scans at the checkout counter?
You know what I’m talking about, they scan the card and you sometimes get a discount on some things you purchase. They advertise specials also; if you are one of the people that carry the card, this week you get a buy one get one free, or maybe 10% off of something. But you have to have the frequent flier card to get that deal.
They also spit out special coupons for you, based upon your buying habits. They track what you buy, and then do things like offer to give you free mustard if you buy hot dogs and buns.
It’s all data mining. It’s pretty easy to do with computer programs.
What about a debit card? Do you use one of those (or a credit card) to pay for most of your daily purchases? Your bank or your grocery store, or anybody you do business with can track your debit card purchases and use data mining to find patterns.
Now, let’s look at something else.
You have a social security card. Well just about everybody does. Kind of hard to get a job without one.
How about a national health care card? Should you have one of those? Just think, if you had one, and it was similar to a grocery store scan card, your doctor (or ER visit) could know all your medical records extremely quickly. That could come in handy if you were in a situation where you couldn’t speak. For instance, like a serious car accident.
Enter the conspiracy theory.
Suppose all these cards that uniquely identify you were all tied together in networked databases. Just think of all the information that could be joined together and used to make decisions.
Scenario:
You are in a serious auto accident with some random person. Both of you are in the trauma center of the hospital and both facing life threatening injuries.
The doctor scans your both of your health ID cards. The computers start spitting out the data from all the networked card info (remember, the debit card, the grocery card, the health card).
Your data –Bought one 6-pack of beer in the past 30 days.
His data – Bought eight 12-packs of beer in the past 30 days.
Your data – Had a physical six months ago.
His data – Last physical was five years ago.
Your data – Married with 2 children
His data – Divorced, no children
Your data – 25 visits to fast food restaurants in the past 365 days
His data – 210 visits to fast food restaurants in the past 365 days
Your data – Gym membership
His data – Buys a carton of cigarettes a week
Do you think the medical treatment will be the same for both of you?
Just asking.
MintJulep
01-24-2010, 12:54 PM
Wow. Definitely not. I don't see how a National Healthcare database could be implemented without violating HIPAA, unless they just throw out HIPAA entirely, which wouldn't surprise me.
slowhand
01-24-2010, 06:37 PM
A Health Care Conspiracy Theory
Do you have one of those cards the grocery store scans at the checkout counter?
You know what I’m talking about, they scan the card and you sometimes get a discount on some things you purchase. They advertise specials also; if you are one of the people that carry the card, this week you get a buy one get one free, or maybe 10% off of something. But you have to have the frequent flier card to get that deal.
They also spit out special coupons for you, based upon your buying habits. They track what you buy, and then do things like offer to give you free mustard if you buy hot dogs and buns.
It’s all data mining. It’s pretty easy to do with computer programs.
What about a debit card? Do you use one of those (or a credit card) to pay for most of your daily purchases? Your bank or your grocery store, or anybody you do business with can track your debit card purchases and use data mining to find patterns.
Now, let’s look at something else.
You have a social security card. Well just about everybody does. Kind of hard to get a job without one.
How about a national health care card? Should you have one of those? Just think, if you had one, and it was similar to a grocery store scan card, your doctor (or ER visit) could know all your medical records extremely quickly. That could come in handy if you were in a situation where you couldn’t speak. For instance, like a serious car accident.
Enter the conspiracy theory.
Suppose all these cards that uniquely identify you were all tied together in networked databases. Just think of all the information that could be joined together and used to make decisions.
Scenario:
You are in a serious auto accident with some random person. Both of you are in the trauma center of the hospital and both facing life threatening injuries.
The doctor scans your both of your health ID cards. The computers start spitting out the data from all the networked card info (remember, the debit card, the grocery card, the health card).
Your data –Bought one 6-pack of beer in the past 30 days.
His data – Bought eight 12-packs of beer in the past 30 days.
Your data – Had a physical six months ago.
His data – Last physical was five years ago.
Your data – Married with 2 children
His data – Divorced, no children
Your data – 25 visits to fast food restaurants in the past 365 days
His data – 210 visits to fast food restaurants in the past 365 days
Your data – Gym membership
His data – Buys a carton of cigarettes a week
Do you think the medical treatment will be the same for both of you?
Just asking.
He will probably get the same treatment if he has good insurance
People who live like that make doctors wealthy..Costs a ton of money to keep people like him alive
MintJulep
01-24-2010, 06:42 PM
He will probably get the same treatment if he has good insurance
People who live like that make doctors wealthy..Costs a ton of money to keep people like him aliveNot under CommieCare, bucko.
Did you miss the part about the "national health card"? The database is part of govt CommieCare, not private insurers. Funds in the "stimulus" are earmarked for this.
slowhand
01-24-2010, 10:05 PM
Not under CommieCare, bucko.
There will be no CommieCare..I posted that from day one, and by CommieCare Im talking single payer, and/or public option, not that hacked up piece of hamburg that they refer to as a healthcare bill..What they are trying to push, is exactly what I expected from them..You all it CommieCare..I dont have a name for it..Here, Ive got it!..How about NobodyCares? :lmao2:
Did you miss the part about the "national health card"? The database is part of govt CommieCare, not private insurers. Funds in the "stimulus" are earmarked for this.
I got the part about datamining..This may sound wacky, but I think computers are a big conspiracy..You wanna know something about somebody?..Look in their computer..There was a time that I refused to own one of these things, because I believed, and still do, that the ulterior motive, not of the development of computers per se, but the initiative behind getting every American..everyone in the world, for that matter, to own one, in their home, office, etc, was an intentional clandestine plot to invade peoples' privacy, directly, as well as indirectly
In some cases, in police work for example, it is an invaluable tool, and gets criminals behind bars where they belong
But by the same token it can also be an invaluable tool to rip off, manipulate and deceive
Thats my Conspiracy Theory
MintJulep
01-25-2010, 01:09 AM
There will be no CommieCare..I posted that from day one, and by CommieCare Im talking single payer, and/or public option, not that hacked up piece of hamburg that they refer to as a healthcare bill..What they are trying to push, is exactly what I expected from them..You all it CommieCare..I dont have a name for it..Here, Ive got it!..How about NobodyCares? :lmao2: :lmao2:
Yes, CommieCare would be SP or public option, but everything they propose is a stepping stone to exactly that.
I got the part about datamining..This may sound wacky, but I think computers are a big conspiracy..You wanna know something about somebody?..Look in their computer..There was a time that I refused to own one of these things, because I believed, and still do, that the ulterior motive, not of the development of computers per se, but the initiative behind getting every American..everyone in the world, for that matter, to own one, in their home, office, etc, was an intentional clandestine plot to invade peoples' privacy, directly, as well as indirectly
In some cases, in police work for example, it is an invaluable tool, and gets criminals behind bars where they belong
But by the same token it can also be an invaluable tool to rip off, manipulate and deceive
Thats my Conspiracy TheoryPat is right about data mining. It's pretty mind blowing when you connect the dots. If that's the only conspiracy theory you believe in, then you're all right with me.
slowhand
01-25-2010, 01:35 AM
:lmao2:
Yes, CommieCare would be SP or public option, but everything they propose is a stepping stone to exactly that.
You maybe right, but I will put my money on, not gonna happen
As I see it..even if they squeek that thing out before Scott Brown makes the scene on the Senate floor, I figure that bill is in the bottom of the ninth, down by 10 runs, 2 outs, no balls, two strikes, and nobody on base, with Mighty Casey at bat
Pat is right about data mining. It's pretty mind blowing when you connect the dots. If that's the only conspiracy theory you believe in, then you're all right with me.
She is right about that..Its only a matter of time before one click, on one website, in one second brings up our complete life history..We'll probably be like a box of Cracker Jacks at the 7 Eleven with a bar code
MintJulep
01-25-2010, 06:44 AM
You maybe right, but I will put my money on, not gonna happen
As I see it..even if they squeek that thing out before Scott Brown makes the scene on the Senate floor, I figure that bill is in the bottom of the ninth, down by 10 runs, 2 outs, no balls, two strikes, and nobody on base, with Mighty Casey at bat I think it would be political suicide.
She is right about that..Its only a matter of time before one click, on one website, in one second brings up our complete life history..We'll probably be like a box of Cracker Jacks at the 7 Eleven with a bar codeI'm not sure if Pat's a she. I always thought he was a he. :D But yes, Big Brother is watching.....
The Health Care Crisis
Is there really a health care crisis in the United States, or are the politicians and the media just making this stuff up?
You hear things such as “The US has the highest per capita spending on health care”. Well no kidding, the US also has the highest obesity rate of any country. That costs money to treat all these fat people with high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease.
We also have the most state of the art health care in the world.
You didn’t see Ted Kennedy running off to England, Russia, Japan, New Zealand or Sweden for treatment for his brain tumor, did you? (He went to Duke University in North Carolina in case you missed it).
85% of America has good quality health care or insurance. On top of that you have things like SCHIP for children. That gets the poor kids medical coverage.
We have lots of 15%ers.
Over 15% of people don’t have a computer, so there must be a computer crisis.
Over 15% of people don’t receive a daily newspaper, so we must have a news crisis.
Over 15% of people don’t have regular sex, so we must have a sex crisis.
Then you have the other things we spend our money on.
US spending on pet food is higher per capita than it is in the rest of world. OMG, it must be a crisis.
US spending on music is higher per capita than it is in the rest of the world. OMG, it must be a music crisis.
US spending on cosmetic surgery is higher per capita than the rest of the world. OMG, it must be a crisis.
Health care in the US is not a crisis, don’t let the media and the government feed you that crap.
slowhand
01-27-2010, 12:41 AM
The Health Care Crisis
Is there really a health care crisis in the United States, or are the politicians and the media just making this stuff up?
You hear things such as “The US has the highest per capita spending on health care”. Well no kidding, the US also has the highest obesity rate of any country. That costs money to treat all these fat people with high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease.
We also have the most state of the art health care in the world.
You didn’t see Ted Kennedy running off to England, Russia, Japan, New Zealand or Sweden for treatment for his brain tumor, did you? (He went to Duke University in North Carolina in case you missed it).
85% of America has good quality health care or insurance. On top of that you have things like SCHIP for children. That gets the poor kids medical coverage.
We have lots of 15%ers.
Over 15% of people don’t have a computer, so there must be a computer crisis.
Over 15% of people don’t receive a daily newspaper, so we must have a news crisis.
Over 15% of people don’t have regular sex, so we must have a sex crisis.
Then you have the other things we spend our money on.
US spending on pet food is higher per capita than it is in the rest of world. OMG, it must be a crisis.
US spending on music is higher per capita than it is in the rest of the world. OMG, it must be a music crisis.
US spending on cosmetic surgery is higher per capita than the rest of the world. OMG, it must be a crisis.
I think what makes it a crisis isnt so much the percentage, but the burden that 15% puts on the individuals affected
Health care in the US is not a crisis, don’t let the media and the government feed you that crap.
I think what makes it a crisis isnt so much the percentage, but the burden that 15% puts on the individuals affected
If 15% of Florida didnt have heat, it wouldnt be much of a crisis
But if 15% of Maine were without heat, it would be a crisis
15% of healthy people without healthcare is not a crisis
15% of sick people without it is
A non-political and very sweet (suite) blog
I just recently completed a pretty large project at work. Yesterday I told my boss that I was going to take a few days off to unwind after this project.
She told me I could have 3 days without using vacation time as a reward for a successful project. Anything beyond 3 days will be vacation.
A Thursday through Monday is only 3 work days.
So, on short notice, I was poking around travelocity and found a quick round trip to Las Vegas (non-stop flights even) for just over $300.
I booked the flight.
Hotel room was next.........
I called The Rio (which is off the strip, but a damn nice hotel/casino) to see what a room for a couple nights would cost me.
Hot damn, or should I say sweet, or is that suite?
I got a complimentary hotel stay in a suite. No hotel charge for my trip.
They must remember how much money I lost last year. :)
Is America great or what? I can fly across the country to a damn fun city for a few hundred dollars and get a free suite in a hotel on less than a two weeks notice.
Life is great.
The Hierarchy
Remember back in High School when they talked about Abraham Maslow? His theory about the hierarchy of needs? It was interesting stuff, and probably was and still is a semi-realistic model.
Can the government fulfill that hierarchy? Should they?
As I think about how government institutions and ideals have tried to attempt Maslow’s hierarchy, I see a disconnect to reality.
The very basic (bottom of the pyramid) needs were/are the first thing the government tried to do for some. Food, water, shelter, the physiological. We have government programs that attempt to provide those things for people that cannot (or will not) provide those things for themselves.
But, a funny thing happened on the way up the hierarchy. Not so long ago, esteem became a government program. Yes, it was subtle, but it was there and it happened. Schools started trying to make sure nobody had their self-esteem hurt. You know, things like making sure everybody got an award of some type, passing kids onto the next grade level even if they weren’t ready.
And the federal government got concerned about esteem also. Enter the EBT card. No more embarrassing food stamps, now the government issues a debit card for welfare. It looks a debit card, that way the people that use one won’t be embarrassed or ashamed at the grocery store.
Esteem is the 4th level of the pyramid.
The government forgot part of the 2nd level which includes health and property.
(Disclaimer by Pat: You cannot legislate morality, not all morals are the same for all people. You can pass laws about murder and theft, but things like homosexuality and abortion are not shared morals)
The government can’t do anything about the 3rd level of the pyramid, that’s impossible.
And today, we have the government trying to legislate the 2nd level of the pyramid. Trying to pass a ‘Health Care Bill’. Did they put the cart before the horse? Did they think they could force Maslow’s hierarchy? Do they still think they can?
Anybody that needs the government to physiologically and psychologically fulfill their needs is unfortunate. They won’t get what they truly need. Anybody that expects the government to do that for others is delusional and/or egotistical. You can’t reach the 5th level of the pyramid unless you accomplish the 4th level on your own.
Charity has changed
Is it the government’s role to control charity?
Please read this, http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html first, and then continue with the rest of my post.
What makes some government bureaucracy a better determinant of my charity than myself, or yourself? Shouldn’t we each have the decision about what our preferred charities are? Shouldn’t we each be able to decide for ourselves and give as we deem appropriate?
What is more important, breast cancer research, colon cancer research, prostate cancer research or Parkinson’s disease research? I have my opinion about that and you have yours. And both of us could pick a few other things also.
I don’t want the government deciding those things. It’s not their job. It’s my decision and your decision.
I think the problem is that many Americans have gotten intellectually lazy, weak-minded and apathetic.
It’s just so easy to send in your tax money and let some politician or bureaucrat decide which charity needs it most (or lobby’s best for it).
Americans are charitable people. Most of us have the luxury of being able to give when we want to. See things such as the current Haitian disaster, Darfur, hurricane Katrina or the Indian Ocean tsunami for proof. We don’t need the government to decide for us or determine for us what is worth giving to. We can do that on our own.
Why do many Americans just let the government decide charitable giving? They decide to give X amount for breast cancer research, but Y amount for prostate cancer research? Do people think that the government has some sort of Star Wars ‘The Force’ type of magical ability to ‘know’ what is best?
I don’t.
It’s not theirs to give.
The Religion of Politics
Or is that that the politics of religion?
Our constitution sets a clear boundary between government and religion, and yet, if you want to run for a high political office, you better be careful about your religion. The 2008 presidential election was full of religious discussion.
Fearful claims that Mr Obama was a muslim and near slanderous shouting about Mr Romney’s mormonism.
But it wasn’t just this past presidential election where religion has been brought to the forefront within politics.
There were questions about Mr Kennedy being a catholic when he ran for president in 1960.
Mr George H.W. Bush made this comment in 1987, "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
Atheism is the big point I want to address.
About 12% of Americans identify themselves as either atheist or agnostic (Pat’s note: An agnostic is just an atheist that isn’t willing to admit it). 0% of US Senators identify themselves as atheist or agnostic. There are 100 senators and not a single one representing the diversity of atheism. (I don’t think there are any muslims in the senate either)
Do you think an admitted atheist could run for Senate or President and get an honest shake from the media? From a political party? From Americans?
I say no.
Especially from the media, and even more so after all the religious attention and hype from this latest presidential election.
I found it incredibly interesting how the MSM that often bashes the “religious right”, suddenly bent over backwards to portray Mr Obama in a favorable “christian” perspective during the past election.
I don’t think Americans are truly ready to separate religion from politics. Some of us (us being atheists) are, but the vast majority isn’t. And that applies to both major political parties.
Just like a christian can’t become president of Iran, an atheist can’t become president of the United States. People are too hung up on their religious beliefs.
slowhand
02-04-2010, 03:38 PM
No pictures..No videos in your blog :talktothehand:
I have morphed political figures into the video, and photoshop satire of the fine arts
I can put Sarah Palin on the deck of the Black Pearl
I can make Grumpy Old Men of Ronald Reagan and John McCain
I can animated George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld into rappers
I can take Rudy out of NY and morph him into a duelin' banjo pluckin' hillbilly in Georgia
I can take the entire Bush Admin, and sum it up in one 5 minute video
What better way to express your First Amendement rights?
Your blog throws out topics in search of a sounding board..I am the sounding board
Dont tell them..Show them!
"Is it real, or is it Memorex?" :disbelief:
Get the picture? :lmao2:
A Divorce Offering From the Right
I have come to the conclusion that I (the right-wing) can no longer maintain my marriage with you (the left-wing).
We tried to make a go at it for the children’s sake, but I can no longer keep up the façade and we need to part ways.
I offer a fair and equitable distribution of our assets.
I believe in a strong law and order and military, and you believe in criminal rights and extending the hand of friendship to dictators. So, I’ll take the guns, the military and the NRA, you can have the olive branches, the ALCU and liberal judges.
I believe in self sufficiency and personal responsibility, and you believe in giving people a handout. I’ll take Ford, capitalism and greedy pharmaceutical companies. You can have GM, the welfare queens and Fannie Mae.
I believe in allowing people to keep what they earned, and you believe in redistributed taxes. I’ll take the rich, the producers and the hard working, and you can have the poor, the freeloaders and the lazy.
I believe that health care is paid for, and you believe that health care is a right. I’ll take the doctors and nurses that work for profit and you can have the doctors and nurses that work for free.
I believe that government works for me, and you believe that government is supposed to take care of you. You can have the current congress and president, I only ask that you also keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell.
I believe a sovereign nation protects its boarders, and you believe that illegal immigrants are just ‘undocumented workers’. You can have all the illegal aliens and I will erect one-way doors that allow leaving but not entrance without application.
We both believe in education as a means to success. I’ll take the people willing to work for their education and you can have the people that want a free education. While we are doing that, you can have the colleges and universities that offer free education and I’ll take the ones that charge money for education.
MintJulep
02-04-2010, 10:38 PM
I believe in a strong law and order and military, and you believe in criminal rights and extending the hand of friendship to dictators. So, I’ll take the guns, the military and the NRA, you can have the olive branches, the ALCU and liberal judges.
I believe in self sufficiency and personal responsibility, and you believe in giving people a handout. I’ll take Ford, capitalism and greedy pharmaceutical companies. You can have GM, the welfare queens and Fannie Mae.
I believe in allowing people to keep what they earned, and you believe in redistributed taxes. I’ll take the rich, the producers and the hard working, and you can have the poor, the freeloaders and the lazy.
I believe that health care is paid for, and you believe that health care is a right. I’ll take the doctors and nurses that work for profit and you can have the doctors and nurses that work for free.
I believe that government works for me, and you believe that government is supposed to take care of you. You can have the current congress and president, I only ask that you also keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell.
I believe a sovereign nation protects its boarders, and you believe that illegal immigrants are just ‘undocumented workers’. You can have all the illegal aliens and I will erect one-way doors that allow leaving but not entrance without application.
We both believe in education as a means to success. I’ll take the people willing to work for their education and you can have the people that want a free education. While we are doing that, you can have the colleges and universities that offer free education and I’ll take the ones that charge money for education.Sounds like a hellava deal to me!
Nice job. :thumbsup:
doctordog
02-05-2010, 12:16 AM
Pat is about Cash and I don't mean this one:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k98/bigthorn/johnny_cash.jpg
I mean this one:
http://www.abvent.com/support/forum/attachments/atl_objets_us/big_284.jpg
Now we have pictures!:thumbsup:
slowhand
02-05-2010, 12:45 AM
A Divorce Offering From the Right
I have come to the conclusion that I (the right-wing) can no longer maintain my marriage with you (the left-wing).
We tried to make a go at it for the children’s sake, but I can no longer keep up the façade and we need to part ways.
I offer a fair and equitable distribution of our assets.
I believe in a strong law and order and military, and you believe in criminal rights and extending the hand of friendship to dictators. So, I’ll take the guns, the military and the NRA, you can have the olive branches, the ALCU and liberal judges.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9mGxvDfjwY
http://i49.tinypic.com/svjeyw.jpg
I believe in self sufficiency and personal responsibility, and you believe in giving people a handout. I’ll take Ford, capitalism and greedy pharmaceutical companies. You can have GM, the welfare queens and Fannie Mae.
http://paulbarsch.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/enron.jpg
I believe in allowing people to keep what they earned, and you believe in redistributed taxes. I’ll take the rich, the producers and the hard working, and you can have the poor, the freeloaders and the lazy.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/godfather/images/thumb/d/d0/Al_capone.jpg/250px-Al_capone.jpg
I believe that health care is paid for, and you believe that health care is a right. I’ll take the doctors and nurses that work for profit and you can have the doctors and nurses that work for free.
I believe that government works for me, and you believe that government is supposed to take care of you. You can have the current congress and president, I only ask that you also keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell.
I believe a sovereign nation protects its boarders, and you believe that illegal immigrants are just ‘undocumented workers’. You can have all the illegal aliens and I will erect one-way doors that allow leaving but not entrance without application.
We both believe in education as a means to success. I’ll take the people willing to work for their education and you can have the people that want a free education. While we are doing that, you can have the colleges and universities that offer free education and I’ll take the ones that charge money for education.
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/limbaugh_drugs.jpg
steamedheat
02-05-2010, 02:36 AM
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security
Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.
For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.
For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.
The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.
That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 6.2% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it. Instead, they get nothing.
Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
And those that do not draw until they are 66, 67, etc. are paying in extra years which at your 6.2% is a lot of money.
Well I read through your blog, and as expected disagree with most of it. My thought is, you should have a blog that allows you to keep the topic together with the comments ~ or maybe this way you can confuse & dismiss the commenters that disagree with you. :)
Build it and they will come!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does VBulletin offer interacting blogs? Or you could use Blogger and then have links here. blogspot.com
Hate Crimes
I sort of understand the reasoning behind “Hate crime legislation”, but I really don’t understand the purpose.
The reasoning is about adding additional punishment if you can prove that a crime was motivated by hate. Can somebody please explain to me what crime is committed based upon love?
Why is it any more or less heinous to harm or kill somebody for any reason? They are heinous acts regardless of legislation. If I kill you because you are black, gay or Jewish, are you any more dead than if you had been white, hetero or Christian?
I live in a neighborhood that is pretty racially diverse. Predominately black, but about 30% of us fall into the white, Hispanic or Asian ethnicities. During December, there was a crime spree in the neighborhood. Lots of houses were broken into and things were stolen (my house included). Only one black family had their house broken into, all the rest of us were non-black. The perpetrator was obviously targeting non-black households.
Was that a series of hate crimes? Do you think the black guy that got caught will be charged for hate crimes? Should he be?
My answers to those questions are Yes, No and No.
My stolen property is no more or less stolen based upon the subtle or ulterior motive behind the crime.
Hate crime legislation is just an excuse for our legislators to pretend that they are trying to do something about crime instead of them treating all criminals with swift and fair punishment for their nefarious actions. It makes people like Al Sharpton feel better but it doesn’t prevent crime nor punish it equally.
Drug Crimes
Over 250,000 state inmates are incarcerated for drug use. They are in jail for what they did to themselves, not for what they did to somebody else. Over 40% of them are black, even though the black population in the US is under 13%.
I’ll bet more white people use drugs than black people.
What is the point of incarcerating somebody for drug use? There was no victim, so why is it a crime? I want criminals that harm somebody else to be in jail/prison. I don’t give a damn if you use drugs as long as I am not paying for you to do it.
Why is ‘crack’ sentenced more heavily than cocaine? Is it because crack is used more by blacks and cocaine is used more by whites? They are just different forms of the same drug.
The criminal justice system is wrong when it punishes people for victimless crimes. Sitting in your house and smoking a joint or snorting a line of coke harms nobody. Would anybody be comfortable with jailing another person for using a scented candle? Hey, the scent and smoke from that candle might harm the user, but not you or I, we should put them in jail.
Stupid.
The police and courts should focus on real crime, not made up crime.
The Agenda
Back in the early 1980’s the anti-smoking lobby had their first success. They managed to make airplanes divide people into smoking and non-smoking sections.
It was actually a fair way to keep non-smokers from having to breathe second hand smoke.
Next, they got restaurants to do the same thing.
Today, smoking is completely banned on airplanes. Additionally, many states have completely eliminated smoking in restaurants.
In late 2006 an entire city went non-smoking; you can read about it here, http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988
The non-smoking campaign has been extremely successful. Successful at removing personal rights anyway. Somewhere around 25 states prevent bar and restaurant owners from choosing what they want to do with their own personal property when it comes to smoking. Individual cities in states where smoking isn’t banned have done the same thing.
What’s the next thing on the agenda? That was a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
Food.
New York City has banned trans fat, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/
So has the state of CA, http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Legislation/Californian-trans-fat-ban-takes-effect
The agenda to take away your rights isn’t a butcher knife, it’s a scalpel. It carefully and surgically slices away your rights a little bit at a time until the right is completely removed. Of course, it’s done under the guise of well-meaning fools that think they know what’s best for you and I.
Those that willingly give up their rights to the government deserve none. I just wish they weren’t so damned insistent to give away my rights along with theirs.
steamedheat
02-06-2010, 06:56 PM
Drug Crimes
Over 250,000 state inmates are incarcerated for drug use. They are in jail for what they did to themselves, not for what they did to somebody else. Over 40% of them are black, even though the black population in the US is under 13%.
I’ll bet more white people use drugs than black people.
What is the point of incarcerating somebody for drug use? There was no victim, so why is it a crime? I want criminals that harm somebody else to be in jail/prison. I don’t give a damn if you use drugs as long as I am not paying for you to do it.
You would think that prison space would house illegals
Why is ‘crack’ sentenced more heavily than cocaine? Is it because crack is used more by blacks and cocaine is used more by whites? They are just different forms of the same drug.
Crack is worse than cocaine, by maybe ten times worse. But illegal drugs are illegal and should all be treated the same.
The criminal justice system is wrong when it punishes people for victimless crimes. Sitting in your house and smoking a joint or snorting a line of coke harms nobody. Would anybody be comfortable with jailing another person for using a scented candle? Hey, the scent and smoke from that candle might harm the user, but not you or I, we should put them in jail.
Stupid.
The police and courts should focus on real crime, not made up crime.
The criminal justice system is not only wrong, it is broken and need of repair. Which I will make a thread on. But victimless crimes shouldn't require prisons.
ROdger Right
02-07-2010, 12:12 AM
Drug Crimes
Over 250,000 state inmates are incarcerated for drug use. They are in jail for what they did to themselves, not for what they did to somebody else. Over 40% of them are black, even though the black population in the US is under 13%.
I’ll bet more white people use drugs than black people.
What is the point of incarcerating somebody for drug use? There was no victim, so why is it a crime? I want criminals that harm somebody else to be in jail/prison. I don’t give a damn if you use drugs as long as I am not paying for you to do it.
Why is ‘crack’ sentenced more heavily than cocaine? Is it because crack is used more by blacks and cocaine is used more by whites? They are just different forms of the same drug.
The criminal justice system is wrong when it punishes people for victimless crimes. Sitting in your house and smoking a joint or snorting a line of coke harms nobody. Would anybody be comfortable with jailing another person for using a scented candle? Hey, the scent and smoke from that candle might harm the user, but not you or I, we should put them in jail.
Stupid.
The police and courts should focus on real crime, not made up crime.
No shit whites do more drugs we do have a 20-25% more of the population in America than blacks.
The police clean up crime scenes because if they did their job they might be out of one.:D
Bill Cosby
02-07-2010, 02:37 AM
No shit whites do more drugs we do have a 20-25% more of the population in America than blacks.
The police clean up crime scenes because if they did their job they might be out of one.:D
????????????????????
So Rog, go grab a forty out of the frig, sit down on the milk crate & break this all down for us..........:thumbsup:
THnX............
:D
The Woes of Complexity
Face it, you are stupid, my president thinks so.
In Mr Obama’s state of the union address he commented that the subject of health care was “complex” and that he had not “explained it enough”.
Wow, I think he had plenty of opportunity to explain it in his 25+ speeches about it. See them here, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/search/issues/health-care/
Gee, all that intelligence of his and you and I are just too damn dumb to understand him. Good thing he’s looking out for us unwashed masses.
It’s health care, not nuclear physics, guess which one I understand better.
The real story is that they took 2000+ pages to address health insurance reform, but are trying to sell it to us as health care reform. Is there anything in the bill that actually addresses the cost of health care?
Why do our politicians think you and I are just dumb and ignorant? We know how to read and we know how to form thoughts based upon our research. Are they scared of us? I hope so, they should be.
Mr Obama and the congresscritters can tell us it’s complex all they want to, but it’s actually kind of simple, just like their minds are. Their obfuscation is just confusing themselves.
Let’s all be stupid together and vote them out of office.
Ask not what your country can do for you
Powerful words, spoken by President Kennedy.
When did we turn the corner and start asking what our government can do for us?
Do you remember the town hall debate between Mr McCain and Mr Obama? I have selected a few questions asked of those men.
QUESTION: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?
QUESTION: Well, Senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.
QUESTION: Senator McCain, I want to know, we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?
BROKAW: Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?
Do you notice that those questions all focus on the government doing something for you?
I’d also like to point out that the media chose which questions were going to be asked.
It didn’t start in the last presidential election though.
Do you remember this question that was asked in the 1992 presidential debate?
It was asked by Denton Walthall (now known as ‘ponytail guy’), here was his question,
“The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it….”
Followed up with this,
“Could we cross our hearts; it sounds silly here, but could we make a commitment? You know, we’re not under oath at this point, but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the United States to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours. Again, I have to repeat that, it’s a real need, I think, that we all have.”
As a nation, we have kicked Mr Kennedy’s idea in the proverbial balls.
Somehow, I think former President Kennedy is not only turning in his grave, he’s spinning like a top.
doctordog
02-10-2010, 11:25 PM
Drug Crimes
Over 250,000 state inmates are incarcerated for drug use. They are in jail for what they did to themselves, not for what they did to somebody else. Over 40% of them are black, even though the black population in the US is under 13%.
I’ll bet more white people use drugs than black people.
What is the point of incarcerating somebody for drug use? There was no victim, so why is it a crime? I want criminals that harm somebody else to be in jail/prison. I don’t give a damn if you use drugs as long as I am not paying for you to do it.
Why is ‘crack’ sentenced more heavily than cocaine? Is it because crack is used more by blacks and cocaine is used more by whites? They are just different forms of the same drug.
The criminal justice system is wrong when it punishes people for victimless crimes. Sitting in your house and smoking a joint or snorting a line of coke harms nobody. Would anybody be comfortable with jailing another person for using a scented candle? Hey, the scent and smoke from that candle might harm the user, but not you or I, we should put them in jail.
Stupid.
The police and courts should focus on real crime, not made up crime.
People on scented candles don't jump in cars while the are "mellow" and pull into oncoming traffic while smiling. People don't come it work in the mines floating on butterflies and neglectfully kill others while "mellow". Drug use is not a victimless crime, just ask my grandson, oh you can't, he was killed by my stepson in a car wreck two years ago while puffing a crack pipe.
MintJulep
02-10-2010, 11:52 PM
The Woes of Complexity
Face it, you are stupid, my president thinks so.
In Mr Obama’s state of the union address he commented that the subject of health care was “complex” and that he had not “explained it enough”.
Wow, I think he had plenty of opportunity to explain it in his 25+ speeches about it. See them here, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/search/issues/health-care/
Gee, all that intelligence of his and you and I are just too damn dumb to understand him. Good thing he’s looking out for us unwashed masses.
It’s health care, not nuclear physics, guess which one I understand better.
The real story is that they took 2000+ pages to address health insurance reform, but are trying to sell it to us as health care reform. Is there anything in the bill that actually addresses the cost of health care?
Why do our politicians think you and I are just dumb and ignorant? We know how to read and we know how to form thoughts based upon our research. Are they scared of us? I hope so, they should be.
Mr Obama and the congresscritters can tell us it’s complex all they want to, but it’s actually kind of simple, just like their minds are. Their obfuscation is just confusing themselves.
Let’s all be stupid together and vote them out of office.:thumbsup:
Nice work.
MintJulep
02-10-2010, 11:52 PM
People on scented candles don't jump in cars while the are "mellow" and pull into oncoming traffic while smiling. People don't come it work in the mines floating on butterflies and neglectfully kill others while "mellow". Drug use is not a victimless crime, just ask my grandson, oh you can't, he was killed by my stepson in a car wreck two years ago while puffing a crack pipe.I'm sorry to hear that.
doctordog
02-11-2010, 12:59 AM
I'm sorry to hear that.
It broke my wife's heart, it is hard to look my stepson in the eye now without disgust. thanks for the thought.:)
Stimulating The Economy
I just got back from Las Vegas.
I see it as my own economic stimulus contribution.
I had to fly on a plane to get there. That employs pilots, flight attendants, ticket agents, airplane mechanics, some guy to mop the floors at both airports, the people that fuel the plane, the people that work in the refinery that makes jet fuel, the author of the book I read on the plane, the people that work in the printing company that printed the book, the people that work in the book store that sells the book.
When I got to Las Vegas, I stayed in a hotel. That employs the people that built the hotel, the maid in the hotel, the reservation person, the person that sweeps the casino floor, the dealers, the bartender (oh hell, did I say bartender?) that means, somebody had to brew my drinks, somebody had to package my drinks, make the container they came in, drive a truck to deliver the drinks to the casino.
Of course I ate while I was there, so now, a chef, a waiter, a busboy and dishwasher are employed. And I gamble to. A dealer, a pit boss and a cashier were employed by me gambling. I’m sure there are others.
Then, of course, there are all the lights and slot machines and gaming tables. I'm paying for the electricity, the manufacturing for the slot machines, the tables and yes, even the light bulbs.
I know I've only touched the surface of all the people I helped pay for and employ when I took my trip. True economic recovery will occur when people spend money, not when the government spends money.
It's like I'm a one person economic stimulus package.
MintJulep
02-14-2010, 08:08 PM
It broke my wife's heart, it is hard to look my stepson in the eye now without disgust. thanks for the thought.:)I can imagine. If that didn't make him straighten out, not much will. :(
doctordog
02-14-2010, 08:23 PM
I can imagine. If that didn't make him straighten out, not much will. :(
that is just one of the reasons I can never be for the light sentences for drug offenses or making the illegal ones legal.
Religion in the Work Environment
I’ve been gainfully employed for over 34 years. I am also an atheist.
I have no problem if you are religious, that’s your choice. What I do have a problem with is if your religion or religious activities interfere with my (or your) productive work environment, or if you want to proselytize to me at work. Just because you and I work next to each other doesn’t mean I want to hear about your religion or have you try and convert me.
I work for a Fortune 500 company with well over 2000 people on site and over 60,000 employees company wide. We have employees and contractors from all over the world and with every imaginable religion. I won’t tell them I am atheist because I don’t them trying to convert me.
Gina is the person that sits closest to me at work. She and I get along great. A couple years ago I found out she is a Jehovah’s Witness. She’s never mentioned her religion to me, maybe that’s part of the reason I like her.
Before Gina sat in that office, Justin did. I once had to schedule a meeting that included Justin, 9:00am was an available time for everybody, except Justin had his calendar blocked from 9:00 to 9:05. I scheduled the meeting anyway, and Justin told me he had his calendar blocked because that was the time he said a prayer everyday and could I please schedule the meeting for another time. I asked him to say his prayer at 8:55 that day instead, rather than inconvenience 5 other people. He never liked me after that.
Matt is part of the same team I’m on. He’s a young guy, hard working, and one of the Christian denominations. He’s also in seminary school. He makes sure everybody knows he and his wife are religious folks (his wife works at the company also). I get along pretty well with him, he’s a nice guy. I still don’t want to hear about his religion though, and sometimes I screw with him about it if he pushes it.
Like the time Matt mentioned that Gina was in a cult. Oops, he picked the wrong person to say that to. I told him that he needed to be cautious when calling another persons religion a cult. Most people don’t take kindly to that sort of thing. About 30 minutes later he emailed me the definition of a cult, just to prove his point. Within 5 minutes I emailed him back proof showing that his religion had all the same characteristics as his definition. He wouldn’t accept it and wanted to argue with me, and I just kept going back to the point that you don’t call another persons religion a cult, especially in the work environment.
None of the Asian, Pakistani, African or Indian (from India) people at work ever push their religion, never. And we have a lot of them. The Jewish don’t push their religion either, but a lot of them make sure you know it.
About 12 years ago I was working in a warehouse. One of my employees was struggling or failing everyday to finish her work on time. It took me a while to figure out what was going on, but I noticed that this guy that didn’t work for me was stopping by her work station after every one of his breaks. He was talking to her for about 15-20 minutes after lunch and after both breaks. He was preventing her from getting her work done.
So, when I realized that was the problem, I approached them one day when he was talking to her. I told him she had work to do, and he needed to let her work. He told me “We were just talking about the Lord, that’s all”. I thought he was going to have a coronary when I told him, “This is a place of employment, not a house of worship, get back to work”. She started getting all her work done in a timely fashion after that.
The HR department told me I needed to be more “sensitive”, and I told them that I could have fired her for not getting her job done or solved the problem of her not getting her job done, which option did they think was more “sensitive”? They agreed with me.
When it comes to the work environment, keep your religion to yourself, or at least keep it confined to your breaks. I don’t want your religion preventing you, me or my employees from getting their job done.
doctordog
02-17-2010, 10:54 PM
With go to meeting, and conference numbers there is not much reason to subject yourself to distractions anyway. I feel exactly the same way about hearing about kids, grandchildren, or other family members. As far as I am concerned, unless there is a personal relationship nothing needs to be said outside of business at the office.
Precisely why I work out of the south end of the house when I am not traveling.:thumbsup:
slowhand
02-18-2010, 12:00 AM
What pisses me of is when someone slips me one of those.."Have you been saved?" cards, or when the Jehovahs or the Mormons come knocking on my door, trying to sell me their shit..Nothing like insulting your intelligence by telling you, you've been doing it all wrong, or living in sin all these years
doctordog
02-18-2010, 07:03 PM
Every time the Jehovah Witness people drop by and ask if I am looking for Jesus, I always replyl;
"I didn't know he was lost"
The look on their faces is priceless!:lmao2:
The Disease That Isn’t
Addiction.
Sorry, I just can’t accept that addictions like alcohol, drugs or sex are an actual disease. Maybe a mental illness, but not a disease.
I’d like to know what other actual physical or mental diseases can be cured by a twelve-step program. Can you cure leukemia, lung cancer or Parkinson’s with a twelve-step program? What about bi-polar disorder? Can that be cured with twelve steps administered by somebody with no medical training?
Why isn’t nicotine addiction considered a disease like alcohol or heroin or sex addiction?
What sets tobacco use apart from other addictions? Could it be politics and the anti-smoking lobby that has determined that tobacco use is something to be vilified?
Golly gee, we wouldn’t want to show any sympathy for tobacco users, but if you choose to use heroin, then you are a victim.
Addiction isn’t a disease, calling it one is just an excuse.
doctordog
02-21-2010, 01:38 PM
The Disease That Isn’t
Addiction.
Sorry, I just can’t accept that addictions like alcohol, drugs or sex are an actual disease. Maybe a mental illness, but not a disease.
I’d like to know what other actual physical or mental diseases can be cured by a twelve-step program. Can you cure leukemia, lung cancer or Parkinson’s with a twelve-step program? What about bi-polar disorder? Can that be cured with twelve steps administered by somebody with no medical training?
Why isn’t nicotine addiction considered a disease like alcohol or heroin or sex addiction?
What sets tobacco use apart from other addictions? Could it be politics and the anti-smoking lobby that has determined that tobacco use is something to be vilified?
Golly gee, we wouldn’t want to show any sympathy for tobacco users, but if you choose to use heroin, then you are a victim.
Addiction isn’t a disease, calling it one is just an excuse.
I believe people with "drug" addictions are weak minded and have low self esteem to begin with. As they say "We have to have something to help us deal with life". I say get your ass a job or career. Raise your kids to be repsonsible contributors to their county. We have a drug user in our family that has destroyed everything in his life because he started with pot. He is midddle aged with a degree and works as laborer because he can't lay off the shit that fucks up his life. Now California wants a whole damn state of these kind of people. They will reap what they have sewn.
slowhand
02-21-2010, 01:57 PM
The Disease That Isn’t
Addiction.
Sorry, I just can’t accept that addictions like alcohol, drugs or sex are an actual disease. Maybe a mental illness, but not a disease.
I’d like to know what other actual physical or mental diseases can be cured by a twelve-step program. Can you cure leukemia, lung cancer or Parkinson’s with a twelve-step program? What about bi-polar disorder? Can that be cured with twelve steps administered by somebody with no medical training?
Why isn’t nicotine addiction considered a disease like alcohol or heroin or sex addiction?
What sets tobacco use apart from other addictions? Could it be politics and the anti-smoking lobby that has determined that tobacco use is something to be vilified?
Golly gee, we wouldn’t want to show any sympathy for tobacco users, but if you choose to use heroin, then you are a victim.
Addiction isn’t a disease, calling it one is just an excuse.
The reason why you dont understand addiction, is because you havent lived through it..You look at it from the outside, and make judgements, when you havent walked a mile in their shoes
What makes you think that you know how it feels to have any other disease for that matter, unless you've had it?..I have Parkinsons, and on some days, you cant tell there is anything wrong with me..On those days, a casual observer would wonder how I qualified for disability, but then come and see me after I get done with a simple task, that most people take for granted, like cutting the grass, with a riding mower
I also battled with addiction for 23 years of my life, and I can tell you this about addiction, for a guarenteed fact
Most people who suffer from addiction, die as a direct result of it, that those who die with it
Ever single one of the guys I used to drink with, who did not stop drinking, is dead..Every single one of them, from all walks of life..Dead!!..One of them in particular I visited in the hospital, on his death bed..He had cirrhosis of the liver..His liver was so swollen and so full of fluid, that he looked like he had swallowed a basketball..Do you know what he said to me?.."I wish someone would donate a liver so I could drink for another 20 years"..The guy is lying there dying, and the only thing he's concerned about, is the very thing that is killing him to begin with
Did you ever entertain the idea, that maybe, when I take a drink of alcohol, that something happens to me physically, and mentally, that does not happen to you when take a drink?..Did you ever wonder why some people can drink socially with impunity, and never get become alcoholics, and other people have one lousy drink, and dont stop drinking untill they pass out?
There is a reason why the American Medical Association considers addiction a disease..they didnt arrive at that conclusion by accident
You also mentioned nicotine..Do you smoke?..Have you ever smoked?
What happens to the majority of people who cant stop smoking?..They develop all sorts of terminal illnesses, that they would not have developed as a direct result of smoking..and they contract these illnesses, and they continue to smoke, and they continue to smoke even when there is hope that they can survive..Addiction is not a conscious decision..it is a physical and mental handicap
Take Capt Phil Harris from "Deadliest Catch" who recently passed away from a massive stroke..A years ago, he survived a pulminary embolism at sea, and he was a chain smoker..If addiction were a conscious decision, dont you think a man of reasonable intelligence, would say to himself, "Gee, that was a close one!..I'm never going to have another cigarette again for the rest of my life"
But no...He continued to smoke, inspite of the fact, that he also continued to experience cronic health problems after that..He tried to quit smoking, but he couldnt do it, and it certainly did not not help his chance for survival, and I think it is reasonable to say that it contributed to his demise
Why do you think it is that the majority of alcoholics and drug addicts, are in and out of detoxes and treatment programs like a revolving door?..The ones who have been through it a number of times have lost everything, some are homeless as a result..Wouldnt a rational thinking person say "fuck this" long before their drinking/drugging caused them to become unemployable and homeless?..If it were that easy, then why is there such an epidemic of addiction in this country?..Addiction has nothing to do with moral standards, or lack of intelligence, because many prominent moral and intelligent people have fallen victim to it as well
The reason why you dont understand addiction, is because you havent lived through it..You look at it from the outside, and make judgements, when you havent walked a mile in their shoes
What makes you think that you know how it feels to have any other disease for that matter, unless you've had it?..I have Parkinsons, and on some days, you cant tell there is anything wrong with me..On those days, a casual observer would wonder how I qualified for disability, but then come and see me after I get done with a simple task, that most people take for granted, like cutting the grass, with a riding mower
I also battled with addiction for 23 years of my life, and I can tell you this about addiction, for a guarenteed fact
Most people who suffer from addiction, die as a direct result of it, that those who die with it
Ever single one of the guys I used to drink with, who did not stop drinking, is dead..Every single one of them, from all walks of life..Dead!!..One of them in particular I visited in the hospital, on his death bed..He had cirrhosis of the liver..His liver was so swollen and so full of fluid, that he looked like he had swallowed a basketball..Do you know what he said to me?.."I wish someone would donate a liver so I could drink for another 20 years"..The guy is lying there dying, and the only thing he's concerned about, is the very thing that is killing him to begin with
Did you ever entertain the idea, that maybe, when I take a drink of alcohol, that something happens to me physically, and mentally, that does not happen to you when take a drink?..Did you ever wonder why some people can drink socially with impunity, and never get become alcoholics, and other people have one lousy drink, and dont stop drinking untill they pass out?
There is a reason why the American Medical Association considers addiction a disease..they didnt arrive at that conclusion by accident
You also mentioned nicotine..Do you smoke?..Have you ever smoked?
What happens to the majority of people who cant stop smoking?..They develop all sorts of terminal illnesses, that they would not have developed as a direct result of smoking..and they contract these illnesses, and they continue to smoke, and they continue to smoke even when there is hope that they can survive..Addiction is not a conscious decision..it is a physical and mental handicap
Take Capt Phil Harris from "Deadliest Catch" who recently passed away from a massive stroke..A years ago, he survived a pulminary embolism at sea, and he was a chain smoker..If addiction were a conscious decision, dont you think a man of reasonable intelligence, would say to himself, "Gee, that was a close one!..I'm never going to have another cigarette again for the rest of my life"
But no...He continued to smoke, inspite of the fact, that he also continued to experience cronic health problems after that..He tried to quit smoking, but he couldnt do it, and it certainly did not not help his chance for survival, and I think it is reasonable to say that it contributed to his demise
Why do you think it is that the majority of alcoholics and drug addicts, are in and out of detoxes and treatment programs like a revolving door?..The ones who have been through it a number of times have lost everything, some are homeless as a result..Wouldnt a rational thinking person say "fuck this" long before their drinking/drugging caused them to become unemployable and homeless?..If it were that easy, then why is there such an epidemic of addiction in this country?..Addiction has nothing to do with moral standards, or lack of intelligence, because many prominent moral and intelligent people have fallen victim to it as well
Slowhand,
My intent with this blog has been to express my opinions and not respond to any other posts made here. You have managed to coax me out of that stance with this post of yours.
I have lived through addiction. From both the inside and outside.
In my early 20's I was addicted to crystal meth. I don't know what allowed me to break that addiction when so many can't.
My ex-spouse is a recovered alcoholic. Our marriage was destroyed by that alcoholism. Today we are friends, but it took many years to get there.
Yes, I do pass judgment about alcohol, drugs and tobacco use (and yes, I do smoke and I do drink). It is no different than me passing judgment about somebody that would steal from me. I don't care if you want to steal to feed your children, stealing is wrong.
I also understand that addictions affect people from all walks of life, rich and poor, smart and stupid, famous and unknown.
It still isn't a disease. Parkinson's is a disease, alcoholism is not.
slowhand
02-21-2010, 02:45 PM
Slowhand,
My intent with this blog has been to express my opinions and not respond to any other posts made here. You have managed to coax me out of that stance with this post of yours.
I have lived through addiction. From both the inside and outside.
In my early 20's I was addicted to crystal meth. I don't know what allowed me to break that addiction when so many can't.
My ex-spouse is a recovered alcoholic. Our marriage was destroyed by that alcoholism. Today we are friends, but it took many years to get there.
Yes, I do pass judgment about alcohol, drugs and tobacco use (and yes, I do smoke and I do drink). It is no different than me passing judgment about somebody that would steal from me. I don't care if you want to steal to feed your children, stealing is wrong.
I also understand that addictions affect people from all walks of life, rich and poor, smart and stupid, famous and unknown.
It still isn't a disease. Parkinson's is a disease, alcoholism is not.
I dont know why I have been able to stop, while I watched so many others die..
But from my experiences, I do know that I cannot drink, or smoke anymore, because there is no guarentee that I will be able to stop again if I do..I have sat and watched other people have two drinks, and leave half of the third one, every time they drink..I cant do that..never could
I know where that road leads, there is no doubt in my mind about it..After what alcohol has done to my life, and the lives of other alcoholics, for me to think I could have a drink, would be insanity..but yet so many others have knowingly made this insane choice, only to have the inevitable happen again
People on scented candles don't jump in cars while the are "mellow" and pull into oncoming traffic while smiling. People don't come it work in the mines floating on butterflies and neglectfully kill others while "mellow". Drug use is not a victimless crime, just ask my grandson, oh you can't, he was killed by my stepson in a car wreck two years ago while puffing a crack pipe.
I'm sorry to hear that.
doctordog
02-21-2010, 10:16 PM
I'm sorry to hear that.
thank you Sir Moby.
Fair Share
I have often heard the term “fair share” when it comes to taxation. Usually it is used in conjunction with claiming that somebody else isn’t paying enough in taxes.
As in, “The rich aren’t paying their fair share”.
So far, nobody has ever defined for me what “fair share” is as it relates to taxes. They just say that somebody else isn’t paying their “fair share”.
I’m curious, what exactly is my “fair share” of taxes? Without knowing how much I make can anybody determine what my “fair share” is? Can they define it for me? Is my portion of “fair share” based upon my income alone, or should it be based upon my use of public services and monies, or both?
Suppose I make $500,000 a year and use public transportation. Should my “fair share” be more than somebody that makes $30,000 a year and drives their own car? We both use the same roads. Should my “fair share” be the same as somebody else that also uses public transportation but only makes $30,000 a year, or should my “fair share” be more for the same public service?
Let’s imagine that both you and I each make $48,000 (that’s the approximate annual household income in the US). Let’s say that I am single and you are married and have 3 children. Should my “fair share” of taxes be higher than yours, even though your family uses more community services than I do?
As current tax code stands (all other things being equal), I would pay a lot more in tax than your household would, is that fair? Is that just my “fair share” because I don’t have a spouse and children?
Where is this line that determines “fair share”? Can somebody define it for me?
PursuitOfHappinessParty
03-06-2010, 04:14 PM
These reasons are why I want a national sales tax on non-food and medicine items instead of the IRS.
Fair Share is entitlement, which is an empowerment and that just doesn't work.
waka Mole
03-07-2010, 04:49 PM
I dont know why I have been able to stop, while I watched so many others die..
But from my experiences, I do know that I cannot drink, or smoke anymore, because there is no guarentee that I will be able to stop again if I do..I have sat and watched other people have two drinks, and leave half of the third one, every time they drink..I cant do that..never could
I know where that road leads, there is no doubt in my mind about it..After what alcohol has done to my life, and the lives of other alcoholics, for me to think I could have a drink, would be insanity..but yet so many others have knowingly made this insane choice, only to have the inevitable happen again
Its called using your brain. So when you quit what type of activities, sports etc. did you replace it with?
MintJulep
03-07-2010, 05:35 PM
The Disease That Isn’t
Addiction.
Sorry, I just can’t accept that addictions like alcohol, drugs or sex are an actual disease. Maybe a mental illness, but not a disease.
I’d like to know what other actual physical or mental diseases can be cured by a twelve-step program. Can you cure leukemia, lung cancer or Parkinson’s with a twelve-step program? What about bi-polar disorder? Can that be cured with twelve steps administered by somebody with no medical training?
Why isn’t nicotine addiction considered a disease like alcohol or heroin or sex addiction?
What sets tobacco use apart from other addictions? Could it be politics and the anti-smoking lobby that has determined that tobacco use is something to be vilified?
Golly gee, we wouldn’t want to show any sympathy for tobacco users, but if you choose to use heroin, then you are a victim.
Addiction isn’t a disease, calling it one is just an excuse.:thumbsup:
Another masterpiece. I agree totally.
I am addicted to nicotine but it is of my own choosing. I could quit but I would have to summons some willpower and go through a few days of hell, but, it could be done. It is not a "disease", just a vice and a weakness.
PursuitOfHappinessParty
03-07-2010, 06:59 PM
You kinda have to start at the why. Why are these people addicts? Tobacco is a socially driven drug that mostly, IMO, derives its addicts from social use. Many, but not most, alcoholics fit this as well.
Drug users don't fit that model. So why do people seek the drugs? Why, after detox do they go back to these drugs? Nobody wants to be an addict, believe that so why?
They are self-medicating. Medicating mental illness.
In my line of work and its attending social circles I've met many drug addicts of all type of drug preferences. Almost without fail I can match their drug of choice to their back-ground. Their childhoods for the most part. You can do the same with some sexual addictions as well.
So, with access to real doctors these people would instead of say , Meth, be on bipolar meds or ADHD meds or the like.
A better solution would be to invest more on early treatments, counseling at the earliest school levels, and education all the way around. More attention spent to mental illness since the knowledge at this point is pathetic.
That's the only way to break the chain or cycle of abuse and take away the problem.
Criminalizing it has been the absolute worst thing we have ever done.
Bill Cosby
05-02-2010, 07:44 PM
:thumbsup:
Another masterpiece. I agree totally.
I am addicted to nicotine but it is of my own choosing. I could quit but I would have to summons some willpower and go through a few days of hell, but, it could be done. It is not a "disease", just a vice and a weakness.
But you don't want to??:confused:
But you wanna waste a couple hundred bucks a month???
Or you just love paying all those EXTRA TAXES TO COVER GOVERNMENT WASTE SO THE REST OF US NON- & Xsmokers don't have to....:lmao2:
I think you have the will power but you must also have the will, that is the desire to stop.....
It is hell for 3 days........ Obsessive thoughts (this should tell yea what it is really about, craving that drug, nicotine, not the joy of watching smoke come out our face or flicking ashes into an ashtray)... Then for about two weeks & comes & occasionally goes & then slowly deminishes after that....
I recommend the gum, worked for me....
I have a friend @ work that is quitting......... He is on his sixth week now & Is over the hump but still has cravings... He had his first few corona's the other day & survived so I am confident he will never smoke again....... & he realizes he can never touch one again or he will be back @ square one & going through it all again...:mad:
Tom Paine
05-08-2010, 06:05 PM
What I used to quit was different forms that were less appealing to me and so I figured I wouldn't become addicted to cigars or pipe tobacco but would still satisfy the urge of smoke in my lungs.
Even the dreams of me smoking a ciggerate have become less frequent.
Bill Cosby
05-09-2010, 03:17 AM
What I used to quit was different forms that were less appealing to me and so I figured I wouldn't become addicted to cigars or pipe tobacco but would still satisfy the urge of smoke in my lungs.
Even the dreams of me smoking a ciggerate have become less frequent.
LOL.............. :thumbsup:
CongratZ...............:D
Giving up the "addiction" to nicotine is one of the hardest things most ppl will ever give up..............
MintJulep
05-09-2010, 03:36 AM
But you don't want to??:confused:
But you wanna waste a couple hundred bucks a month???
Or you just love paying all those EXTRA TAXES TO COVER GOVERNMENT WASTE SO THE REST OF US NON- & Xsmokers don't have to....:lmao2:
I think you have the will power but you must also have the will, that is the desire to stop.....
It is hell for 3 days........ Obsessive thoughts (this should tell yea what it is really about, craving that drug, nicotine, not the joy of watching smoke come out our face or flicking ashes into an ashtray)... Then for about two weeks & comes & occasionally goes & then slowly deminishes after that....
I recommend the gum, worked for me....
I have a friend @ work that is quitting......... He is on his sixth week now & Is over the hump but still has cravings... He had his first few corona's the other day & survived so I am confident he will never smoke again....... & he realizes he can never touch one again or he will be back @ square one & going through it all again...:mad:Geez, I know all about it. I quit for three years and then started back again like a dumbass. I'm not an addictive personality, but this shit has me whipped. It's evil I tell ya. They are putting something wicked in there, something like CRACK. :lmao2:
It's so nerve-wracking the first couple of weeks. You wake up in the middle of the night because you're jonsing for nicotine. Yes, your friend is right, he can never touch another cigarette again or it's all over. Been there, done that.
John Galt
05-09-2010, 10:31 AM
Where is this line that determines “fair share”? Can somebody define it for me?
Slowhand,
My intent with this blog has been to express my opinions and not respond to any other posts made here. You have managed to coax me out of that stance with this post of yours.
Make up your mind.
You either want interaction, or you don't.
Bill Cosby
05-09-2010, 12:00 PM
Geez, I know all about it. I quit for three years and then started back again like a dumbass. I'm not an addictive personality, but this shit has me whipped. It's evil I tell ya. They are putting something wicked in there, something like CRACK. :lmao2:
It's so nerve-wracking the first couple of weeks. You wake up in the middle of the night because you're jonsing for nicotine. Yes, your friend is right, he can never touch another cigarette again or it's all over. Been there, done that.
LOL........... I had dreams for several years about "starting again"......... Probably the first 5 years I had one a week @ least...:mad:
Did you ever try the gum?? It worked for me..... That & not wanting to go through it all again........
It is like crack in many ways...... The body craves & demands that nicotine fix........ Nicotine is a very addictive substance right up there w/ heroin, coke, crack etc.........
Obviously the first step is the decision that you really wanna do it, & I guess secondarily, not wish to suffer that jones again.......... & again...... & again..
Dictators, plain taters, and nukes
OK, not every country seeking nuclear weapons is run by a dictator.
But,
I think they all have at least one thing in common.
They all seek nuclear weapons as a means to protect themselves from war that may or may not come to them.
The US, Russia and China are the 3 most powerful militaries on the planet. None of the 3 has ever invaded a country that possessed nuclear weapons. Even in spite of the fact that all 3 individually posses enough nuclear weapons to wipe out any country they have battled.
India and Pakistan both posses nuclear weapons, yet despite their ongoing dispute, neither has used that weapon.
All countries that have nuclear weapons are part of the coalition to control/restrict nuclear armament of other countries.
If I was in control of a nation, I’d damn sure want a nuclear weapons program if nothing more than to be deterrent. Possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to war from an aggressor. Possession of potatoes isn’t.
Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Than Shwe are not fools.
Trinnity
06-05-2010, 03:46 PM
Nations that have nukes and the year of their first successful test:
United States.....................................1945 ("Trinity")
Russia (former Soviet Union)............. ....1949 ("RDS-1")
United Kingdom...................................1952 ("Hurricane")
France............................................ .. 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")
China............................................. ....1964 ("596")
Non-NPT nuclear powers (non-proliferation treaty)
India............................................. .....1974 ("Smiling Buddha")
Pakistan.......................................... ...1998 ("Chagai-I")
North Korea.........................................2006 (2006 test)
Undeclared nuclear powers
Israel............................................ .....possibly 1979 (See Vela Incident)
Other
South Africa........................................dism antled, early 1990's
Ukraine........................................... ....transferred to Russia, 1996
Belarus........................................... ....transferred to Russia, 1996
Kazakhstan........................................ . transferred to Russia, 1995
Shared Nukes:
Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, and historically Canada, Greece.
Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store.[35] This involves pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practicing, handling, and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs. Until 1984 Canada also received shared nuclear weapons, and until 2001, Greece.[36] Members of the Non-Aligned Movement have called on all countries to "refrain from nuclear sharing for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements."[37] The Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) has criticized the arrangement for allegedly violating Article I and II of the NPT, arguing that "these Articles do not permit the NWS to delegate the control of their nuclear weapons directly or indirectly to others."[38] NATO has argued that the weapons' sharing is compliant with the NPT because "the U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe are in the sole possession and under constant and complete custody and control of the United States."[39]
Source, -Wiki
Bill Cosby
06-05-2010, 09:07 PM
Dictators, plain taters, and nukes
OK, not every country seeking nuclear weapons is run by a dictator.
But,
I think they all have at least one thing in common.
They all seek nuclear weapons as a means to protect themselves from war that may or may not come to them.
The US, Russia and China are the 3 most powerful militaries on the planet. None of the 3 has ever invaded a country that possessed nuclear weapons. Even in spite of the fact that all 3 individually posses enough nuclear weapons to wipe out any country they have battled.
India and Pakistan both posses nuclear weapons, yet despite their ongoing dispute, neither has used that weapon.
All countries that have nuclear weapons are part of the coalition to control/restrict nuclear armament of other countries.
If I was in control of a nation, I’d damn sure want a nuclear weapons program if nothing more than to be deterrent. Possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to war from an aggressor. Possession of potatoes isn’t.
Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Than Shwe are not fools.
BC thanX Pat for this most excellent post......... :thumbsup:
The Baby Boomer Bust
What is going to happen to the government when all the Baby Boomers are out of the work force? They won’t be paying income taxes anymore, will they? Well, maybe some will off of investments, but not anywhere near the amount they pay right now from their employment income.
The Boomer generation was born between 1946 and 1964.
Currently, the Boomer generation is at their peak of personal income and thus personal income taxes paid.
They are also at their peak of paying into Social Security.
They are also at their peak of paying other taxes such as sales tax, as they have immense purchasing power.
In less than 20 years, all the Boomers will be retired. That means they will be drawing all that SS money they paid in.
As they age, they will also be utilizing the medical care system like no other generation ever has before, If you think health care costs are expensive now, just wait until we start sucking up all those resources.
The Boomers will be the single largest voting bloc in the US. I doubt they will vote to give up the SS and Medicare they spent most of their lives paying into.
There is not another post Boomer generation as large as THE Baby Boomers of my generation.
The first of the Boomers are starting to retire, the rest of us will be retired in 20 years. That means we will no longer be supplying the tax revenue that is just barely keeping this nation afloat right now. Instead, we will start taking what we have contributed (SS and Medicare). And we WILL want it back. We paid it, we will want it back.
What is currently the largest bloc of contributors towards taxes, SS and medicare is about to become the largest bloc of recipients of SS and medicare.
What is going to happen when us Baby Boomers stop paying and start collecting?
The Outsourcing Conundrum
We actually have a few conundrums when it comes to outsourcing labor and manufacturing to other countries.
The first one I would like to point out is congress. The politicians weep and wail about companies sending jobs overseas, then they tax and regulate the crap out of companies stateside. Both of which encourage outsourcing. They bemoan the fact that manufacturing is leaving, and they tell us they want “good paying manufacturing jobs” right here in the good old US of A. How many congresscritters want their sons or daughters working in a manufacturing plant as general labor? Name one.
Next on the list are people that scream and cry about the piss-poor wages paid to people in other countries for the labor they perform. You know what I’m talking about. They tug at your heartstrings with statements like “Those people are working for $5 dollars a day, its unfair”. Hey, guess what, they are making more money than if we kept the jobs here and they had zero income. Would you prefer that they had no income at all?
Then we have you and I, the consumer. We want inexpensive products. We want our dollar to go as far as possible, we want a bargain. We have a choice where we spend our money and what we spend it on. You can choose to buy a shirt made in the US or one made in Pakistan. Will you pay more for American Made?
Those are the conundrums and each of us contributes to the riddle and the solution.
Legalized Theft
The majority of Americans are not gay. If the majority of non-gay Americans voted to institute a tax on gay Americans just because they are gay would you support it? What if some congresscritter said they could balance the budget by taxing people for being gay? What if they said they would use the money for children’s health care? Would you support it then?
The majority of Americans are not muslim. If the majority of non-muslim Americans voted to institute a tax on muslim Americans just because they are muslim would you support it? What if some congresscritter said they could balance the budget by taxing people for being muslim? What if they said they would use the money for children’s health care? Would you support it then?
The majority of Americans do not wear red shoes. If the majority of non-red shoe wearing Americans voted to institute a tax on red shoe wearing Americans just because they wear red shoes would you support it? What if some congresscritter said they could balance the budget by taxing people for wearing red shoes? What if they said they would use the money for children’s health care? Would you support it then?
If you have read this far, then I am sure some of you are thinking, Pat that is ridiculous, nobody would support singling out specific behaviors like that and then instituting a tax on it. You may be thinking the American people don’t single out minority groups for punitive taxation; Pat is crazy to offer up something like that.
And yet, it seems that many people have no problem proposing a special tax on that minority of people that make in excess of 250,000 dollars. The majority non-rich want to institute a higher tax on the minority rich. They are proposing legalized theft of another person’s income. Perhaps if the top tax rates applied to congressional salaries our congresscritters might see things a bit differently. Perhaps if the top tax rates applied to anybody proposing different tax rates, they might see things a bit differently.
We promise to use the money for children first and balancing the budget second.
Trinnity
11-28-2010, 04:31 PM
Next on the list are people that scream and cry about the piss-poor wages paid to people in other countries for the labor they perform. You know what I’m talking about. They tug at your heartstrings with statements like “Those people are working for $5 dollars a day, its unfair”. They conveniently fail to note the cost of living is peanuts compared to ours.
Efficiency Causes Job Loss
In 1790, farmers were about 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.
I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, Pat? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”
The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
I wonder if Walter Williams is reading my posts?
Here is an article he published Jan 5th 2011.
My post was Jan 18th 2010
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/11/TrueOrFalse
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2011
True or False
So many statements we accept as true, plausible or beyond question; but are they? Let's look at a couple of important ones: global warming and U.S. manufacturing decline.
In 2000, Dr. David Viner of University of East Anglia's disgraced Climatic Research Unit advised, "Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event." "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Britain's Meteorological Office said this December was “almost certain” to become the coldest since records began in 1910. Paul Michaelwaite, forecaster for NetWeather.tv, said, "It is looking like this winter could be in the top 20 cold winters in the last 100 years.”
In reference to the last decade of the Earth's cooling, geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, emeritus professor at Western Washington University, says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Global warming hype is nothing less than a gambit for more government control over our lives.
How about statements like these: "The United States got to where it is today by making things." "There's nothing made here anymore." "One-third of the nation's manufacturing jobs have vanished in the past decade." These statements suggest that we are no longer the world's top manufacturer; we have all but turned into a nation of "hamburger flippers."
According to data assembled by Dr. Mark Perry, in his article in The American (12/23/2009) titled "Manufacturing's Death Greatly Exaggerated," "For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion.” If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The 2008 GDPs were: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent, and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Because of automation, the U.S. worker is now three times as productive as in 1980 and twice as productive as in 2000. It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.
U.S. manufacturing is going through the same kind of labor-saving technological innovation as agriculture. In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture. What would you have had Congress do in the face of this precipitous loss of agricultural jobs? Should Congress have outlawed all of the technological advances and machinery that cost millions of agricultural jobs and made our farmers the world's most productive? Also, had Congress done something to save those agricultural jobs, where would we have gotten the workers to produce the millions of things we enjoy that weren't even around in 1790? We would have been poorer.
Let's not stop with agriculture. In 1970, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 workers, in good-paying jobs as switchboard operators, handling 9.8 billion long-distance calls yearly. Today, the telecommunications industry employs fewer than 60,000 operators, and they handle more than 100 billion long-distance calls yearly. That's an 85 percent job loss. The spectacular advances in telecommunications, which raised productivity, made the cost of long-distance calls a tiny fraction of what they were.
What we're witnessing in many of our industries is what economic historian Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction." The adjustment to it can be painful, but to stand in its way will make us a poorer nation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
It looks almost as if he quoted me directly on some of his points.
And Moby has the audacity to claim I just use talking points. He might want to re-think that misguided position of his.
Bill Cosby
01-16-2011, 06:08 PM
I will have to have another talk w/ him about coming here & stealing other ppl's material.........
Beck, palin, Olbermann, Mathews etc- those fools would be lost w/out us......
I will have to have another talk w/ him about coming here & stealing other ppl's material.........
Beck, palin, Olbermann, Mathews etc- those fools would be lost w/out us......
Since I only wrote facts, it's not plagiarism, he just used the same facts.
By the way, did you know that according to Moby, facts are talking points?
T-Cat
01-16-2011, 11:11 PM
I wonder if Walter Williams is reading my posts?
Here is an article he published Jan 5th 2011.
My post was Jan 18th 2010
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/11/TrueOrFalse
It looks almost as if he quoted me directly on some of his points.
And Moby has the audacity to claim I just use talking points. He might want to re-think that misguided position of his.Does Williams get his "facts" about Climate Change from you too?
In 2000, Dr. David Viner of University of East Anglia's disgraced Climatic Research Unit advised, "Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event." "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Britain's Meteorological Office said this December was “almost certain” to become the coldest since records began in 1910. Paul Michaelwaite, forecaster for NetWeather.tv, said, "It is looking like this winter could be in the top 20 cold winters in the last 100 years.”Viner said that but it was just an ad hoc opinion of his that wasn't based on any published scientific research.
In reference to the last decade of the Earth's cooling,FALSE! The earth has not been cooling over the last decade.
geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, emeritus professor at Western Washington University, says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Global warming hype is nothing less than a gambit for more government control over our lives.The same Don J. Easterbook who said back in March 10, 2009: "Beginning this year, global cooling will cause crop failures and serious food shortages".
I must have missed the global cooling and crop failures because of it the last two years. We did see some record breaking heat waves though.
MintJulep
01-16-2011, 11:15 PM
Pat does it again. :D
Does Williams get his "facts" about Climate Change from you too?
Viner said that but it was just an ad hoc opinion of his that wasn't based on any published scientific research.
FALSE! The earth has not been cooling over the last decade.
The same Don J. Easterbook who said back in March 10, 2009: "Beginning this year, global cooling will cause crop failures and serious food shortages".
I must have missed the global cooling and crop failures because of it the last two years. We did see some record breaking heat waves though.
I guess you missed the facts (AKA 'talking points' according to Moby) I posted that Mr Williams also used in his article almost a year later.
My posts are full of important and factual information. The facts posted by me (above) don't seem to be in question or challenged, probably because you know my facts are solid and not debatable.
I suppose you could try Moby's tactic and try and attempt to belittle them by calling them "talking points', but that still doesn't negate the true facts that they are. You are probably too smart to use such a weak tactic.
T-Cat
01-16-2011, 11:38 PM
I guess you missed the facts (AKA 'talking points' according to Moby) I posted that Mr Williams also used in his article almost a year later.
My posts are full of important and factual information. The facts posted by me (above) don't seem to be in question or challenged, probably because you know my facts are solid and not debatable.
I suppose you could try Moby's tactic and try and attempt to belittle them by calling them "talking points', but that still doesn't negate the true facts that they are. You are probably too smart to use such a weak tactic.How do we know those are actual facts? You didn't source anything.
Just like Williams doesn't source what he wrote. And some of the stuff he wrote aren't facts, they are false.
And just because you use facts, it doesn't mean your analysis of those facts is correct. Don't forget this gem of yours:
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security (http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=170399&postcount=17)
You presented a variety of facts, but your analysis using those facts was terribly flawed.
Pat does it again. :D
People should probably read my other posts in this thread so that they can have a better understanding of the real world.
I'd probably contribute more if I didn't have to suffer some of the fools that haunt this place.
Bill Cosby
01-16-2011, 11:42 PM
People should probably read my other posts in this thread so that they can have a better understanding of the real world.
I'd probably contribute more if I didn't have to suffer some of the fools that haunt this place.
Is Moby haunting you?? He is not even here & you keep bringing him up......
SPend more time totting you own horn & less time worrying about him..........
You will have more fun...............:thumbsup:
How do we know those are actual facts? You didn't source anything.
So far, after a year of that post being there, nobody has managed to refute any of the facts stated. But then, they are historical facts that most intelligent people already know.
Just like Williams doesn't source what he wrote. And some of the stuff he wrote aren't facts, they are false.
And just because you use facts, it doesn't mean your analysis of those facts is correct. Don't forget this gem of yours:
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security (http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=170399&postcount=17)
You presented a variety of facts, but your analysis using those facts was terribly flawed.
Funny, I get paid quite well by a Fortune 500 company to be an analyst.
Your opinion may differ from mine, but I get paid for my analysis, which means my analysis is worth more than yours.
You seem tense and irritable, please try to calm down.
Is Moby haunting you?? He is not even here & you keep bringing him up......
SPend more time totting you own horn & less time worrying about him..........
You will have more fun...............:thumbsup:
Why do you assume that point was about Moby? Do you think he is a fool?
It seems that you are bringing him up now, perhaps you shouldn't be worrying about him so much.
T-Cat
01-16-2011, 11:53 PM
So far, after a year of that post being there, nobody has managed to refute any of the facts stated. But then, they are historical facts that most intelligent people already know.Where did you get the historical facts from?
Funny, I get paid quite well by a Fortune 500 company to be an analyst. Your opinion may differ from mine, but I get paid for my analysis, which means my analysis is worth more than yours.LOL, so you actually think that Black men don't get social security. :lmao2:
You said this: "Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution." Your employer should ask for a refund because clearly you don't understand statistics. Your analysis wasn't worth the pixels on the screen.
You seem tense and irritable, please try to calm down.You seem a little confused and irritable yourself, I think you need to chill.
Bill Cosby
01-17-2011, 12:18 AM
Why do you assume that point was about Moby? Do you think he is a fool?
It seems that you are bringing him up now, perhaps you shouldn't be worrying about him so much.
Pat, I noticed you mentioned him previously...... I am not trying to harp on you about it......... I am just making a friendly observation.........
I hope I am wrong & that into the new year we can all leave the shit from 2010 behind us...... :thumbsup:
:D
T-Cat
01-17-2011, 12:35 AM
What Pat doesn't mention in his blog piece is the fact that the loss of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades isn't entirely comparable to the historic loss of agricultural jobs. Both improve in efficiency, that is true, and that increase in efficiency results in job losses. But here is where the comparison to agricultural jobs doesn't necessarily match up. How many agricultural jobs were outsourced during that time? Manufacturing jobs aren't just disappearing because of increases in efficiency, they are also being outsourced and replaced with imports.
Here is what Williams says:
How about statements like these: "The United States got to where it is today by making things." "There's nothing made here anymore." "One-third of the nation's manufacturing jobs have vanished in the past decade." These statements suggest that we are no longer the world's top manufacturer; we have all but turned into a nation of "hamburger flippers."
According to data assembled by Dr. Mark Perry, in his article in The American (12/23/2009) titled "Manufacturing's Death Greatly Exaggerated," "For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion.” If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The 2008 GDPs were: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent, and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Because of automation, the U.S. worker is now three times as productive as in 1980 and twice as productive as in 2000. It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.Notice he provides lots of facts. But he doesn't provide any facts on how many jobs were outsourced vs the number of jobs lost by efficiency increases. Why not? He tosses out lots and lots of numbers but nothing specific to that point. He then claims: It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.
Now that could be true but where are the facts to support it? Rather than tossing out GDP figures for various countries (which don't prove anything about changes in US manufacturing jobs) etc. why not present a breakdown or comparison of efficiency losses vs outsourcing/imports for manufacturing jobs. Certainly a professor of economics can do better than that.
And of course he should check his sources, he presented false information about global warming.
Roger from Ohio
01-17-2011, 12:58 AM
What Pat doesn't mention in his blog piece is the fact that the loss of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades isn't entirely comparable to the historic loss of agricultural jobs. Both improve in efficiency, that is true, and that increase in efficiency results in job losses. But here is where the comparison to agricultural jobs doesn't necessarily match up. How many agricultural jobs were outsourced during that time? Manufacturing jobs aren't just disappearing because of increases in efficiency, they are also being outsourced and replaced with imports.
Here is what Williams says:How about statements like these: "The United States got to where it is today by making things." "There's nothing made here anymore." "One-third of the nation's manufacturing jobs have vanished in the past decade." These statements suggest that we are no longer the world's top manufacturer; we have all but turned into a nation of "hamburger flippers."
According to data assembled by Dr. Mark Perry, in his article in The American (12/23/2009) titled "Manufacturing's Death Greatly Exaggerated," "For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion.” If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The 2008 GDPs were: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent, and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Because of automation, the U.S. worker is now three times as productive as in 1980 and twice as productive as in 2000. It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.
Notice he provides lots of facts. But he doesn't provide any facts on how many jobs were outsourced vs the number of jobs lost by efficiency increases. Why not? He tosses out lots and lots of numbers but nothing specific to that point. He then claims: It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.
Now that could be true but where are the facts to support it? Rather than tossing out GDP figures for various countries (which don't prove anything about changes in US manufacturing jobs) etc. why not present a breakdown or comparison of efficiency losses vs outsourcing/imports for manufacturing jobs. Certainly a professor of economics can do better than that.
And of course he should check his sources, he presented false information about global warming.
If he used relevant facts then his analysis would be completely wrong.
You know the saying..... facts have a liberal bias. :lmao2: :lmao2:
MintJulep
01-17-2011, 01:14 AM
If he used relevant facts then his analysis would be completely wrong.
You know the saying..... facts have a liberal bias. :lmao2: :lmao2:You are too dumb to even reply to anything Pat writes. Honestly, you are so illogical and dense you make me feel like a rocket scientist.
T-Cat
01-17-2011, 01:14 AM
If he used relevant facts then his analysis would be completely wrong.
You know the saying..... facts have a liberal bias. :lmao2: :lmao2:I don't know if his analysis would be completely wrong. But Williams certainly engages in tossing a lot of smoke (all those GDP figures for other countries) that doesn't address manufacturing jobs losses in the US. It's a great trick, present information that is true but conveniently avoid presenting other facts that are more relevant to your actual claim.
T-Cat
01-17-2011, 01:16 AM
You are too dumb to even reply to anything Pat writes. Honestly, you are so illogical and dense you make me feel like a rocket scientist."Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution."
But wait, Pat gets paid for his analysis. :lmao2:
MintJulep
01-17-2011, 01:24 AM
"Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution."
But wait, Pat gets paid for his analysis. :lmao2: Pat would lose more brain cells blowing his nose than Roger has possessed from birth. That was my only point.
T-Cat
01-17-2011, 01:27 AM
Pat would lose more brain cells blowing his nose than Roger has possessed from birth. That was my only point.Pat must blow his nose a lot then.
MintJulep
01-17-2011, 01:31 AM
Pat must blow his nose a lot then.It doesn't appear that way........
T-Cat
01-17-2011, 01:35 AM
It doesn't appear that way........Because you never critically examine any of his analyses.
MintJulep
01-17-2011, 01:39 AM
Because you never critically examine any of his analyses.He must be getting something right, since you launched into a critique of the author's comments on global warming, instead of the original topic.
T-Cat
01-17-2011, 01:44 AM
He must be getting something right, since you launched into a critique of the author's comments on global warming, instead of the original topic.Why? It took me 10 seconds to identify falsehoods in the author's comments about global warming. The "earth's cooling" bullshit is a quick pick. Easterbrook's bullshit predictions are another. I responded to that.
Then I read both of their analyses and identified a questionable assumption that Pat didn't address and that Williams didn't provide data to support. And I responded to that.
Roger from Ohio
01-17-2011, 02:43 AM
You are too dumb to even reply to anything Pat writes. Honestly, you are so illogical and dense you make me feel like a rocket scientist.
Minty... our lil rocket scientist..... tell us the last statement that you made that you were able to back up with facts?
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.