Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

Technology cant build a community. Rather the lack of technology, electricity, groceries, telephones, cellphone connections, gas, homes, whole cities and glass in downtown skyscrapers builds communities

I learned this all too well during that year when Hurricane Wilma hit us. It was a just-barely 2 (as in "just under cat 3" just barely). Suddenly I met all my neighbors.

Certainly changed my view about a lot of things then.

Strangely Cheney-esque image of Palin. (Via the AP.) Let's see if I can find something to compare it to...

[[seconds later]]

... Man. All that searching, and all I could find was this:

As a side note, quoting fuscom:

In fact, I'll be very surprised if you don't hear an exchange very much like this in an upcoming debate...

Seriously, you could take that back and forth, put it in this election and I don't think anyone would notice it came from 20 years ago. Although it did remind me of how vastly more intelligent GHWB is than GWB. (At least in front of a microphone. I've heard it said that GW is phenomenally gifted at being a "people person".)

(see below)

I pretty much guarantee you all of this attention on Palin by the Dems is playing right in to the hands of the Repubs. Because as we all know, all PR is good PR.

"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." -- Oscar Wilde (from "The Picture of Dorian Gray")

The graphic card requirements were actually for Myst 4 and 5, but I'm guessing I'll have to go with the Windows version of the games. (At elast 1 through 3. I don't think I can do 4 or 5 on that computer.)

As for the FFX glyps... that's a great idea. (FFX was one of my favorite games.) I'll take a look at those.

@fuscom: Thanks. I'd also like to thank you for your transparency. The "brochure" comment did seem like shallow bait. By further explaing (and thereby asking me to explain myself) the meaning behind that statement it showed me that I took the tone of the comment wrongly.

As far as who's running, the fact is I felt much more comfortable in this election than I have in any I've actually been able to get somewhat involved with. (My political curiosity extends back to the Bush/Clinton/Perot race of 1992. I liked Perot in that one, then Bush when he started looking kooky. Then again, I was only 12.) I like Obama, I like McCain, I've thought fairly well of Biden, and was really hoping McCain picked someone like Crist. But then, Palin was selected. After her speech, it suddenly became a much more divided, much more attack-oriented election.

I'll presume that a good portion of the blame falls on me (and perhaps I'm Oli's inspiration for the post; or perhaps I falter myself.)

Mia culpa.

I will admit to having lost my temper, though I don't believe I engaged in personal attacks until they actually started reaching me. To one, I will admit to have been baited. Should've controlled myself better and I didn't, partially because, not having been involved in a good political flamewar in a while, I was rather enjoying letting lose. (It doesn't help that I've been under some stress recently, something which doesn't excuse the behavior.) To the other, I stopped it once the (more direct) personal attack came. I thought about firing back, but honestly it wasn't worth it.

So for any trouble I may have caused, my apologies.

I have no issue with what Rundle or you posted here. All I have an issue with is empty thoughts like "I'm scared". Which comes straight from the brochure.

Fact is I haven't seen the brochure. The "scared" feeling I get is that Palin reminds me completely of Bush: polarizing, party-first mentality, and prone to attack rather than present ideals. Honestly, had McCain chosen someone more like himself, I would've been almost indiferent about who won the election: both Obama and McCain are good men who have over the years earned my admiration for the work they have done. Heck, except for the war issue and taxes issue I could have seen myself easily voting McCain, since I side with him on most social issues. (And I could argue for, and honestly support, either side of the war issue.) In short, the feeling really IS an honest opinion: the fact that someone like that is "one 72-year old heart beat away" from the presidency (as has been said before by... someone, either here or a pundit, I don't remember where) is what's frightening to me. On a personal level, I like Palin, I really do. I don't know that I'd want her to be President should something happen to McCain.

Then again, she could end up being like Gov. Charlie Crist of FL, in which case I'll very openly admit that I was wrong. (Turns out he's been a far better governor than I expected.)

But anyway, your lie/exaggeration doesn't take into effect the myriad private organizations that will help individuals with their medical care.

The sad part is that I do take that into consideration. But it's not enough.

Sadly, this brings our tete-a-tete to a stop. I don't take kindly to being called a liar.

Alright, let me try to break it down for you:

You do know that fairly intelligent, like minded folks will often come to similar conclusions when presented with the same evidence when left to their own devices, right?

This is a refutation of your statement, and indicates exactly what it says, that people often reach the same conclusions. (Implicit is the "without the need of a conductor.") It was phrased in the form of a question... mostly for effect, although I presumed you to be intelligent enough to understand the rhetorical nature of the question, and the pure absurdity of honestly believing that people couldn't reach similar conclusions without having talking points thrown at them.

Or are your heads so burried in Hugh Hewitt's page that you can't seem to understand the concept of judging for yourself, rather than having been spoonfed your opinions?

This was a continuation of the absurdity methodology used before, ratchetted up so it at once shows how idiotic the very concept is and how silly your prior statement sounded.

Of course, the way you act will paint your reality, so maybe you DO all really believe that the only way to formulate an opinion is to stick to talk show hosts and bloggers.

This statement builds a framework under which your statement can be construed as something other than satire, but rather an actual belief. The meaning is that if you DO actually believe that we're all getting our points from DailyKos or wherever, then perhaps it's because you do the same, but from Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaush, Sean Hannity, Little Green Footballs... wherever. In that case...

In that case I've seriously overestimated both of you.

That I'm questioning the intelligence of the person delivering the statement IF the satirical construct turns out to be true should be self evident, although perhaps I should have used "gave too much credit" instead of "seriously overestimated". Additionally, it was a complement to our conversations past indicating that I have come to expect intelligence from you, despite our disagreements.

In any case, perhaps this makes clear that I wasn't insulting you directly, but that your believing this has made it so.

How often does that happen though? I'm betting not often.

I'm betting often enough that it's become a major political issue.

Then oh well, I shouldn't be made to pay for it if you can't.

You already are. It's called the Emergency Room. (I thought we covered that?) And try tell that to someone who's considered "uninsurable." If you have a pre-existing condition, you can't get insured. The only other option is to go ahead and pay for the services yourself ($100 for a checkup, $1500 for an MRI, $1200 for an EGD, $15,000 for a broken leg, $25,000 for a cholecystectomy, $20,000 A TREATMENT for chemotherapy...) and if you're not rich enough for that then... die. Of course, maybe that'll help us reduce the surplus population.

Your answers have been nothing more than pithy, "well if they can't its their fault, and I shouldn't be made to pay for nothing of theirs!" can you come up with an argument more substantial than that? Or are you content to blame the individual when a system has been set up which essentially excludes the individual due to profit margin?

You missed the point entirely. Try reading it again. Particularly that last sentence.

@fuscon, @TJenkins: You do know that fairly intelligent, like minded folks will often come to similar conclusions when presented with the same evidence when left to their own devices, right? Or are your heads so burried in Hugh Hewitt's page that you can't seem to understand the concept of judging for yourself, rather than having been spoonfed your opinions? Of course, the way you act will paint your reality, so maybe you DO all really believe that the only way to formulate an opinion is to stick to talk show hosts and bloggers. In that case I've seriously overestimated both of you.

Seems all we hear is the emotional side of the argument, 40 million without medical benefits. What I want to see is the breakdown of that number. How many of those folks are our down on his luck friend, Bob?

So life has no intrinsic value past money, gotcha. If you haven't been able to succeed enough in the capitalist system to take care of yourself then no matter how much good you can do the world in other areas it doesn't matter. I guess in my mind, if even ONE person can't afford health care who wants and needs it that's too many.

The section in that report on citizenship is interesting. Twenty one percent of the 47 million folks without healthcare aren't even legal citizens of the US

What's 20% from 47,000,000? About ~40,000,000 (37,600,000 is about the right number). It's why I used that number. As for how many don't WANT health care... let's presume it's 1/2. So in the end we have 20,000,000 American citizens (sorry, 18,800,000) not covered by insurance who would like to be but are for one reason or another unable. I guess that's why in a recent study we ranked worst when it came to preventable deaths from treatable conditions.

You know, it's easy to prove your point with cold, hard logic. The problem, of course, is that you can justify just about ANYTHING with cold, hard logic. But when you're (and I pray you never are) the one in the position of needing the help becacuse all avenues have closed down to you, cold, hard logic doesn't mean jack. You just want to live.

Seems before we start flying off to Norway to study how to best take from their system, we should probably first spend time fixing our illegal immagration and border security issues.

You talk as if the two are mutually exclusive. (And yes, I'm very much on your side of the fence on this point, no pun intended. Illegal imigration should be adressed, at least in this context, before something like this is implemented.)

And what if Bob has a job, but, like so many, simply can't afford health care? (Don't know if you noticed, but companies are giving less and less in the way of health care to their employees, and for good reason: health care costs keep soaring, and they simply can't afford it anymore. Heck, in my company Blue Cross/Blue Shield jacked up our rates 40% in the past 2 years. How's that for inflation? I'm honestly surprised the company I work for still pays 100% of the insurance. I can't think of another company that does that.)

Would it make you feel better if it was Silent Bob? What about Sponge Bob?

gah! dupe

New thread on the Health Care issue here:

http://wingcolors.com/politics/notes/16001.

Now, can we keep this thread to the Onion video?

Soo... basically you're saying that it's useless to study successful models in order to create a successful model because what works in one place MIGHT not work in another. (Although it might.) This makes no sense. Seriously, it doesn't. Because what you're assuming is that a study is the same as grabbing someone else's program wholesale and implementing it here, instead of what it is, which is studying what they're doing IN ADDITION TO what we're doing, and seeing what works in a universal healt care setting, whether that be a private/public partnership, single-payer public, or completely privatized. Having over 40,000,000 without health care (some of who, admittedly, don't want it, but but vast majority who do) shows that something is very obviously NOT working with our current system.

For the record, only a fool would refuse to study available material and working examples before embarking on a huge project of a similar kind. When I worked for Verizon we did comparative studies between companies all the time: Sprint, AT&T, and our own efforts. And whenever dealing with an international market, what worked in the US and what worked in that country was studied, to use as a point of comparison. What worked for AT&T in a similar market? What worked for Sprint? What services do they offere there vs. here? What services do we offer there vs here? Everything from advertisements to services offered was studied, to see what worked and what didn't in different locations.

And by the way, the "slam" on creationists was not a slam at all, it was a point of comparison showing the use of similar tactics here and in a highly recognized argument.

Anyway, I'll be starting a thread now as a continuation of this particular line of thought, thereby leavivng this to stay within the originally intended topic: a humorous video that pokes fun at the racial elephant in the electoral room.

Considering I had to end up in the emergency room a few times, yes. Yes I do. Also, if you look at places where government health care is run well, I would be treated with similar efficiency. By the way, ever wonder why most of the citizens of these countries with universal health care have longer lifespans than Americans?

That said, you're using the old conservative tactic of attacking one portion of the issue in order to poke holes in the idea and thereby seemingly strengthen your argument. (Creationists do the same thing.) In other words, your question still skirts the issue without actually addressing it. The issue isn't "Well, where can we get the fastest health care," it's "where can people get ANY health care." Some people can't, and it's not because they're lazy, it's because sometimes you have issues that are completely out of your control. (By the way, did you know that the single biggest reason for filing bankruptcy -- which, by the way, is now harder than ever before -- is because of medical bills? We're not talking about fatasses that wouldn't stop shoveling hamburgers into their mouths, though that's another topic, we're talking about people who wake up one morning to find out that they have rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, cancer, or a myriad of other conditions which will eventually make them unable to work.) Other times, they have preventable issues which go unchecked so long -- because of the lack of checkups or medicine, which they can't afford, regardless of whether their job has insurance or not -- that they become chronic and life threatening, and in the end cost 10-fold more TO THE TAX PAYER than they would had they been treated earlier.

As I said, I'm a proponent of universal health care. That doesn't necessarily mean single-payer health care, although in most first world nations (most of which have considerably better overall health care than we have here) that's what's available and, when managed correctly (ie, not by people who constantly spend every political dime they have talking about how much they hate government) costs less than we pay here for insuring only 84% of the population. It also doesn't mean that I necessarily support Federal health care exclusively, though I do think it makes the most sense.

(Here's a side note: Conservatives LOVE talking about how much they hate government, how it can't do anything right, and how it's really no good. If I was an employer and someone came to me telling me how much they hate my company and what I do, how everything we do is wrong, and how much they hate the idea of their work, why in the HELL would I hire them, or keep them in the job? No wonder government sucks. It's currently run by people who hate their employer!)

Are there failed systems? Absolutely. For example, I'm not sure I'd want to copy either the British or the Canadian system of health care. However, since we'd be starting essentially anew, why not study the best systems and model ours after theirs? France and Sweden, and Norway come to mind. Why does it always have to be "bah! If it's government run it must necessarily be bad"?

The US constitution says that the role of the government is to protect its citizens. The constitution was written at a time when the idea of preventative medicine to the scale we have today was unheard of. Had the constitution been written today, ~230 years later, you can almost guarantee some level of health care would have been included. Why? Because protecting the health of the populace can wel be considered protecting the populace. (Think of it this way: the CDC and surgeons are sort of like our military forces, and primary care physicians are like the police.) But then, maybe it's time we had another constitutional convention. After all, that IS one of the two ways in which the constitution can be changed, as outlined in the constitution itself. But again, that's a subject for another matter.

Let me then turn it around and ask you, if my job didn't cover my insurance, or if I was one of the ~40,000,000 people who didn't have some kind of health insurance, if I didn't have enough to pay for it myself for one reason or another, would I have been treated at all? Or would my first diagnosis come in the emergency room during a life-threatening condition?

Actually from what I heard of last night's speech (I couldn't stomach listening to more than just a couple of minutes), the lady sounds like the continuation of the current administration's environment of permanent campaign. While I was OK on McCain for President (I don't agree with him on many issues, but think overall he's a good guy for the position), the idea of Palin just one heartbeat away from the Presidency scares the hell out of me.

As soon as I was done watching her speech last night I went to the Obama website and donated funds. In addition, I intend to volunteer for the campaign.

The biggest thing that concerns me is the stance on Universal Healthcare.

Honestly, fuscom, do you REALLY think we don't already have Universal health care? We do. It's called the Emergency room, and it's by far the most expensive form of health care available. Yet, that's what people are relegated to when they're not covered for any form of preventative care, waiting until it's bad enough that they have to be hospitalized, instead of getting it taken care of early.

Your example of Medicare is a great one. However, the biggest problem with Medicare isn't that it's a huge program, the biggest problem is that for YEARS Medicare has not been allowed to use any sort of negotiatin power when dealing with drug companies, so that something which would cost, say, the VA (which can negotiate prices with drug companies) $150 is costing Medicare (which has to pay sticker value) $1150. (Sadly, that's not an exaggerated example, although I can't cite specifics at the moment.) Give Medicare the same time of negotiating power that any other entity with a large client base has and see how suddenly the costs drop through the floor. You can thank the rather powerful, multi-BILLON-dollar pharma lobby for that one.

If we're going to have a free market, let's have a free market, not one where the tax payer is stuck paying top dollar because they're not allowed to collectively negotiate.

Oh yeah, tax those rich folk, they don't pay enough as it is...

They pay a helluva lot less than they did 8 years ago when we had a budget surplus. And by comparison, the rich folk who would be taxed more (the top 2% -- the bottom 98% would be taxed LESS under Obama's tax plan) have seen personal gain increases hundreds of times higher -- as a percentage -- than the bottom 98% over the same period of time. Frankly, as someone nearing the top 2% income bracket (not quite there yet), I can honestly say that I don't mind being taxed more if I know the money is being used for public infrastructure (like bridges and roads) and being invested in the welfare of the populace via services like a college education and health care.

McCain supports a plan for a $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, and a $5,000 credit for families, to make health insurance more affordable.

Last year my health expenditures were approximately $22,500. I was diagnosed with a number of conditions for which no matter how good my health was I could not guard against. (Research idiopathic gastroparesis and see how much you can really do to prevent that, will ya? That's just ONE of the recent, out of the blue diagnosis I received last year.) I have rather good health insurance through my work, so that only $1,500 of that came out of my pocket, NOT INCLUDING the medications they did not cover. (Thank God I can buy medications online for cheaper these days, otherwise I would be paying $6 per pill for my medication.) However, because of medical conditions over which I have NO control, my insurance cost would be somewhere between $600 and $1250 PER MONTH. Translation: the McCain plan would cover me for 4 months, TOPS, not including any co-pays I'd have to make before they would even start covering me. Between my wife and I we now make a fair amount, but I'll tell ya, $22,000 is still steep. I don't care how well you think you can take care of your own, if you come down with, say, multiple sclerosis, and in 5 years are no longer able to provide for your family, what then? What happens when you can't afford the medications or treatments, and when you're actually physically unable to provide for even your own care? What happens to your family then? Oh, what, your parents or siblings will help take care of you? What about those who don't have parents or siblings for one reason or another? Sorry, but the "I've got mine" philosophy endemic to modern libertarian thinking is nothing but heartless selfishness excusing itself by touting fiscal and personal responsibility. As a society we are better than that, better than "I've got mine, you go get yours, and I'll help you only if I really feel like it. Oh, and what's in it for me?"

But anyway, this conversation is getting WAY off topic, so I'll stop here. Interesting though it is, maybe it deserves another thread?

Usually when you're a popular leader, your supporters can explain in a lucid well formed sentence WHY they support you.

"because"

"he's great!"

"ummmmmm Bush sucks!"

The problem is that you're talking to people who are more excited about the persona than they are (or they fully understand) the platform. If you actually read what the man says you actually do get a rather comprehensive view of his policies and credentials. Besides, it's much easier to point out what's wrong with something than what's right with it. The reactions you get pro-Obama are like the reactions I get pro-Mccain: "Obama's a liberal!" being by far the most common. "He was a P.O.W.," and "Obama hasn't offered any plans" being the other two, with the later having once been true (at the very, very beginning of his campaign) but no longer.

(By the way, RightOn, who DO you support and why? I remember you being against McCain for his stance on immigration, but haven't seen you declare where you stand insofar as the presidential race is concerned.)

Why I still (despite that wretched phone company immunity vote) support the man: first, his overall economic policy of raising taxes on the people who can afford it while lowering it for the vast majority of the population is, I believe, the right way to go. To cut taxes then increase overall spending and paying for it with foreign loans is nothing short of suicidal. The fact that McCain wants to continue the tax cuts without any clearly outlined method of reducing the deficit without negatively impacting infrastructure and social programs is, to me, by far the worst thing about his campaign. Generally, I don't support the Libertarian platform because it tends to resemble more of a equatorial oligarchy than a liberal government where it is the responsibility of the government to protect its people, hence no Bob Barr. (Whether that responsibility should now be the providence of the Federal government as opposed to the state government is another discussion entirely.)

In addition, I strongly support the concept of universal health care, something which I believe we would be on the road to achieving through Obama's plans, which basically say "let the market do what the market does well, and have the Federal government step in when the market doesn't." This is opposed to the current idea (and one which, it seems, the McCain camp has taken to) that we should privatize the rewards while the government takes on the risks.

There are other reasons, such as my support of his service for college funds plan, whereby doing a certain amount of public service would result in the earning of money for college (an investment in both the public infrastructure and in the long-term education development and improvement of our population's standing in world markets), but I'll keep this post short.

Like you said... out of 300 million people he thinks he's the best.

McCain, Hillary, Bush, Kerry, Kennedy, Reagan... you name it, they're all, by definition, elitists. (Let's not forget, Reagan was ALSO a celebrity! OH NOES! As was the awesomeness incarnate, Charlton Heston! What has this world come to!)

But about the "celebrity" tag... remind me why that's a bad thing? Is he popular? Absolutely, and I'd honestly like to know what's wrong with that. Is he visible? Check. Is he therefore a celebrity? Pretty much by definition, yeah, and I'd like to know what's wrong with being a "celebrity". Most "celebrities" have actually done enough in their field to have earned the admiration from others. Einstein, Ford, Beethoven, Eisenhower, Lombardi--all celebrities. Yet all people who deservedly got there, as has Obama, who has become a popular leader. Usually when you're a popular leader it means you're doing what the people who elected you (or are hoping to elect you) want you to do. Leadership is not by definition unpopular. That's Bush logic: "Look how unpopular I am. I'm a great leader!"

And as for filling the coliseum, I fail to see what's wrong with that. Talking to a sea of people? Blasphemy! He should only be talking to the privileged few, the party elite, the bourgeois! Many people in his audience are celebrities? Blasphemy! Who cares if they're Americans, too! They're famous, they shouldn't be able to do things other people are entitled to, like displaying their political leaning and preferences, or exercising their power of free speech!

Frankly, I love the idea of him presenting in a stadium full of people.

I think the Onion's making fun of EVERYBODY here with this one, mostly because to many people that's sort of an unspoken, satirical idea. "Oh look, the black guy is getting called an elitist by a guy who can't remember how many houses he owns." Instead of asking the blatantly obvious, "Is he SERIOUS?!" they ask the funnier, "How great is that?!"

@liza: It was a BS call that gave Holland the opportunity for that score. It wouldn't bother me so much except that now we have to win against Nigeria without Freddy Adu. Likely we'll be playing against a bunch of outcast Nigerian princes who need to deposit millions into our bank accounts and who'll cut us in a piece of the action once we help them get their funds.

As many as I can. (Anywhere I can stream them for free online? I sort of don't really have a TV with reception.)

Is it important? No. Desirable? If you're trying to build a particular audience, then perhaps, since it allows you to personally target a particular market. (For example, if you have a blog about your town, then passing out cards may be a good idea to draw readers.) Of course, if you're treating your blog as a business, then the answer is a definite yes, if for no other reason than you'll likely talk about it to somoene and you'll likely want them to take you seriously. (As compared to the millions of bloggers they ignore because they DON'T take them seriously.)

Personally, I've considered getting cards, but haven't done so. Yet.

At the behest of Kamigoroshi, my wife and I watched it last night. It was awesome, and had us laughing a good part of the time. And the songs were actually catchy enough to make me want to sing them.

(Just as a sidenote, if you've watched this and enjoyed it, you'll likely be very interested in the book Soon I Will Be Invincible by Austin Grossman.)

Bret Favre in Tampa = Joe Montana in KC. Basically just a waiting room for retirement which won't really be good for either side.

Hoever, if he can still play, I don't see why not. Hell, maybe Atlanta -- his first team -- would like to have their prodigious son return. (Yes, prodigious, not prodigal.)

It makes too much sense. It'll never fly. Which is unfortunate because I agree with just about everything he said in the video. (I say just about everything because I don't know enough about natural gas to say whether I agree or don't.)

I think this marks the first time I agree with fuscom in just about anything.