Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 21, 2014, 05:02:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79174 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1037 Members
Latest Member: DCoutinho
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 76
151  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: February 05, 2014, 07:37:58 PM
"Again and again Reps (McCain, Romney, etc) flinch in front of race-baiting and class warfare."

So do the Bush's, so do the Boehner's, etc.

"I would focus our self-analysis on the courage of our convictions, vel non.  Again and again Reps (McCain, Romney, etc) flinch in front of race-baiting and class warfare.  In a very pleasant way (see Reagan, Dr. Ben Carson?) we need to forthrightly and aggressively assert what we are for."

The Clintons will pretend they are for the same convictions.  Remember "the era of big government is over?"

We have to explain why "they are wrong" why and how "they deceive us" and why "our way is better".

And We have to explain why we are not favoring the wealthy.  The wealthy don't deserve loopholes anymore then those at the bottom deserve a free ride.

Ideology alone will not trump cold hard cash when people are struggling.



152  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 3rd post of day on thread on: February 05, 2014, 10:08:21 AM
Yep.  Just when they are achieving success the African Americans are seemingly unwittingly giving their country away to the world.  Some I know from personal talks  do see this but....   

   
******INVASION USA

Republicans to rescue Dems, betray the nation

Thomas Sowell likens illegal aliens to embezzlers or burglars 'living in the shadows'
      
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif. He is the author of 28 books, including "Dismantling America" and "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy."   

Some supporters of President Obama may be worried about how he and the Democrats are going to fare politically, as the problems of Obamacare continue to escalate and it looks like the Republicans have a chance to win a majority in the Senate.

But Democrats may not need to worry so much. Republicans may once again come to the rescue of the Democrats, by discrediting themselves and snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.

The latest bright idea among Republicans inside the Beltway is a new version of amnesty that is virtually certain to lose votes among the Republican base and is unlikely to gain many votes among the Hispanics the Republican leadership is courting.

One of the enduring political mysteries is how the Republicans can be so successful in winning governorships and control of state legislatures, while failing to make much headway in Washington. Maybe there are just too many clever GOP consultants inside the Beltway.

When it comes to national elections, just what principles do the Republicans stand for? It is hard to think of any, other than their hoping to win elections by converting themselves into Democrats lite. But voters who want what the Democrats offer can vote for the real thing, rather than Johnny-come-lately imitations.

Listening to discussions of immigration laws and proposals to reform them is like listening to something out of “Alice in Wonderland.”

Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them. One of the big problems that those who are pushing “comprehensive immigration reform” want solved is how to help people who came here illegally and are now “living in the shadows” as a result.

Is liberty on life support for good? There is hope … read Manny Edwards’ book “The Truth About Liberty: How the Tea Party Can Save America”

What about embezzlers or burglars who are “living in the shadows” in fear that someone will discover their crimes? Why not “reform” the laws against embezzlement or burglary, so that such people can also come out of the shadows?

Almost everyone seems to think that we need to solve the problem of the children of illegal immigrants, because these children are here “through no fault of their own.” Do people who say that have any idea how many millions of children are living in dire poverty in India, Africa or other places “through no fault of their own,” and would be better off living in the United States?

Do all children have some inherent right to live in America if they have done nothing wrong? If not, then why should the children of illegal immigrants have such a right?

More fundamentally, why do the American people not have a right to the protection that immigration laws provide people in other countries around the world – including Mexico, where illegal immigrants from other countries get no such special treatment as Mexico and its American supporters are demanding for illegal immigrants in the United States?

The very phrase “comprehensive” immigration reform is part of the bad faith that has surrounded immigration issues for decades. What “comprehensive” reform means is that border control and amnesty should be voted on together in Congress.

Why? Because that would be politically convenient for members of Congress, who like to be on both sides of issues, so as to minimize the backlash from the voting public. But what “comprehensive” immigration reform has always meant in practice is amnesty up front and a promise to control the border later – promises that have never been kept.

The new Republican proposal is to have some border-control criteria whose fulfillment will automatically serve as a “trigger” to let the legalizing of illegal immigrants proceed. But why set up some automatic triggering device to signal that the borders are secure, when the Obama administration is virtually guaranteed to game the system, so that amnesty can proceed?

What in the world is wrong with Congress taking up border security first, as a separate issue, and later taking responsibility in a congressional vote on whether the border has become secure? Congress at least should come out of the shadows.

The Republican plan for granting legalization up front, while withholding citizenship, is too clever by half. It is like saying that you can slide halfway down a slippery slope.

Republicans may yet rescue the Democrats, while demoralizing their own supporters and utterly failing the country.

 

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/republicans-to-rescue-dems-betray-the-nation/#s4jLsSpXbDdKLpGJ.99
153  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / edema from Kwarhiakor or renal failure? on: February 05, 2014, 09:50:38 AM
I was astonished to read that anyone could survive 16 months at sea (the first report I read).  Now it is 13 or 14 months and I was even more astonished to see his picture a few days after he was rescued.  I don't recall ever seeing someone look so good after over a year at sea eating fish turtles and birds.

This is definitely a Ripley's believe it or not story:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/marshall-islands-castaway/castaway-gets-haircut-n22586
154  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / wanna guess who will be stuck paying for some of the child support benefits? on: February 05, 2014, 09:40:22 AM
Woman On The Rebound Wants Back In Ex's Court
.
By Abigail Van Buren 10 hours ago Dear Abby
 
     
DEAR ABBY: After a two-year relationship ended, I got pregnant on the rebound. I called my ex and told him I was having a baby with another man because I wanted to hurt him. Apparently it worked -- at least that's what his best friend told me.

Now that a few months have passed, I ran into him and all those loving feelings I had for him came rushing back. Should I tell him? The father of this baby is a good-for-nothing deadbeat. He wants to be father-of-the-year without helping me financially.

What should I do about my feelings for my ex, and what should I do about the father of my baby? -- CAN'T DECIDE IN NEW JERSEY

DEAR CAN'T DECIDE: It is time for you to grow up and accept responsibility for the situation you're in right now. Your behavior has been immature and irresponsible. The child you're carrying is going to need someone who can provide for him or her financially and emotionally.

Because you have feelings for your ex, contact him and let him know, but don't count on him wanting to reconcile. Then you should also contact a lawyer about ensuring that "Babydaddy" lives up to his financial responsibilities.

And in the future, when you decide to have sex with someone, recognize there could be consequences and use birth control. Every time!
155  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: February 05, 2014, 09:32:51 AM
One major point on how Clintons always come away winning the media argument.  It is rather simple:

Their political people anticipate ahead of time the Repubs moves and have plans in place to rapidly hit the MSM willing airways to swipe away the "right's jump shot" before it even goes to a downward trajectory.

The right NEVER from what I have witnessed since following politics (at least since we were stuck with the Bushes) ever does the same.  The repubs are always flat footed, too late, and too little.  Always.  Only Reagan in my lifetime was able to control this.  Yet he made mistakes too.  Witness immigration.  The debt exploded under him too.
156  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / pessimistic on: February 05, 2014, 09:09:07 AM
"Don't think Hillary will try to have it both ways.  She will position herself as a champion to all these interest groups while trying to distance herself from the Brock as someone who is a champion for America."

I meant don't think Hillary will *not* try to have it both ways.  I can see her outrunning the stupid ass Republicans even now.  The repubs will be claiming her policies will be a threat to America.   She will be way ahead of them and play she is the champion of American not this globalization thing.  But a version of  American that plays into all the lefts identity politics thing where women of people of color sexual orientation, religion can have equal opportunity etc., etc.   

She will outrun the Republicans.  The repubs always play chess with the Clintons one step behind.  They will criticize them for something and the next day the Clintons have their media machine out in public twisting it all around to negate or neutralize the opposition.  And the adoring media allows them to do this.  And the Repubs just look stupid.

We right just doesn't have the wise political strategists the left does. 

I can already see the RNC failing to really prepare for this. 

Folks it is hopeless unless some unexpected event occurs to change the dynamic.

And Christie was never the answer.   We don't have one so far. 
157  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: February 05, 2014, 09:00:03 AM
"Don't think Hillary will try to have it both ways.  She will position herself as a champion to all these interest groups while trying to distance herself from the Brock as someone who is a champion for America."

Allow me to clarify this on the 16 thread.
158  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: February 05, 2014, 08:56:48 AM
Thank you BBG.

This clarifies my latest confusion about the right's claims temperatures in the US fall but the left's claims global temps are nearly highest recorded.
Like I have questioned before I don't know what to think or believe because we are rarely getting unbiased balanced views.  This article indeed does address this:

*******Global Temperatures

And we’d be remiss not to review the global temperature for 2013.

The liberal-leaning press reports the 2013 global temperature as the seventh (or fourth) highest on record, while the conservative-leaning press reports it as another year in which the global temperature has refused to rise (Figure 4).



Figure 4. TOP: Annual global surface temperature history, 1880-2013, as compiled by NOAA (blue) and NASA (red) (figure source, NOAA/NASA Joint Briefing). BOTTOM: Monthly global surface temperature anomalies, 1997-2013 (source: U.K. Hadley Center).

But all can agree that the temperatures in 2013 further extended the “pause” in the global surface temperature record-which now stands at some 17 years. A lot of people are at work trying to explain what’s behind the “pause,” but no matter the cause the longer that it continues, the further from reality climate model projections become (Figure 5).



Figure 5. Observed (blue) and projected (red) temperatures, 1980-2013. The projected temperatures are the annual mean of 106 climate runs (data source, Climate Explorer).

The most viable explanation that ties everything together is that the climate sensitivity-that is, how much the earth will warm in response to a doubling of the effective carbon dioxide concentration-is much larger in the climate models than it is in reality.

If this is indeed the case, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is, than the urgency to “do something” about climate change is reduced and so too the level of support for federal regulations aimed at limiting carbon dioxide and thus limiting our energy choices.*******
159  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: February 05, 2014, 08:52:52 AM
"'Only 17.9 percent of Hispanics responded "the less government the better," and 85.3 percent said "a strong government involvement is required to handle economic problems."' This is not the profile of a future Republican voter."

This is the dilemma in a nutshell.  The immigration thing is important but compared to above stated fact it is only a sideshow.

The Latinos who are here legally as well as the ones who are coming here illegally are overwhelming supporters of big social welfare programs.  Why?

Simple.  They receive these benefits by huge margins.

"Republicans have convinced themselves that Hispanics are a 'natural' constituency for their party because they are hard workers, religious and family-oriented"

I have been posting more or less this for years.  Only an idiot can think ideology will trump cold hard cash.

It is not just the Latinos either.  It is also Asians and Africans and Carribbeans.   Even many western Europeans.  Anyone do a poll of the 50,000 illegal Irish in the NY met area?

The Eastern Europeans may be the only group who might swing more towards Republicans. 

One would think Chinese would also be Republicans but they are by majority not.

We will have to have a giant crash for these people to change their minds.  No other way I see.

Jews are some sort of exception.  They are and always have been different.  They vote Dem not so much for benefits (IMO) but because of some warped ideology.
Their beloved Democratic party.  As we can see these liberal Jews will even sell out Israel for their beloved party.

They also participate tooth and nail to give the country away to the world.  The country that they as a group have done so well in.  Despite discrimination.  I read once only those of the Lutheran religion have done better.

What else is there to say?

It is nearly check mate.

Don't think Hillary will try to have it both ways.  She will position herself as a champion to all these interest groups while trying to distance herself from the Brock as someone who is a champion for America.

I don't see anything other than a crash that might, might wake people up to the dangers of the expanding state.

I do give Cal credit for saying the obvious.   



160  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / second post of day on: February 02, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
I would be curious to also find out if the hospitals that encouraged admission to be able to bill also encourages rapid as possible discharge to avoid accumulating costs vs. the fixed reimbursements.  The latter happens all the time not always unethical or wrong but the other end of the same coin I guess:

******Suits: How a Hospital Chain Schemed to Boost Profits

'NYT' looks at lawsuits against Health Management Associates

By Arden Dier,  Newser Staff

Posted Jan 24, 2014 9:41 AM CST

 (Newser)  – The New York Times today takes a look at whistle-blower lawsuits claiming for-profit hospital chain Health Management Associates employed a strategy to up admission—whether or not patients needed care—in order to boost Medicare and Medicaid payments. The paper shares one tactic, in which ER scorecards were posted daily, showing doctors who met an admission target in green. Doctors who were close to the figure were in yellow, and failing doctors in red. That target? Admitting at least half of patients over 65 who visited the emergency room. In another case, a baby was admitted with a "fever" despite a normal temperature of 98.7 degrees.

When the CEO of an HMA-owned North Carolina hospital reported that his doctors wouldn't go along with the revenue-boosting policies, former HMA chief exec Gary Newsome—who made $22 million in three years—allegedly replied, "Do it anyway." Threats and financial incentives were also allegedly used, while execs who questioned the policies were often fired and reports on admission rates were burned, the Times adds. So far eight whistle-blower lawsuits have been filed against HMA in six states; last month, the Justice Department joined in, but one expert says typical penalties number in the 8-figure-range—pennies compared to the profits. She predicts it would take a settlement of at least $500 million to make an impact. To wit, the Times reports that when HMA revealed the DOJ was stepping into the lawsuits, its stock hardly moved.*****
161  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Does this help? From Dick Morris on: February 02, 2014, 12:12:34 PM
Hillary's Benghazi Cover-Up

By Dick Morris - January 29, 2014

By saying that her main regret during her years as secretary of state is the terror attack on the Benghazi consulate and the deaths of four Americans, Hillary Clinton continues her cover-up.

Even as she expresses her regrets, she pretends that the reason she did not act to beef up security at the compound and that she lied afterwards, blaming the attack on the Internet video, was "imperfect" intelligence information.

In fact, as the records released by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee make clear, she had all the relevant facts before her and just ignored them

This is highlighted in the text of a recent interview.

"Oh, sure. My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi," said Clinton. "I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information. And you make them to -- as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn't mean that there's not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns."

However, "unforeseen consequences and unpredictable twists and turns" had nothing to do with her failure to secure the compound or to send adequate security to protect it. Rather, she got every sort of warning from her own ambassador, the State Department, the CIA, and the Defense Department. She just failed to act on them.

When you read the various pieces and bits of information she received in the weeks and months prior to the attack, it is hard to see how they could have been any more blunt or explicit in warning of the likelihood of future terror attacks in Benghazi:

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee:

On June 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency authored a report entitled: "Libya: Terrorists Now Targeting U.S. and Western Interests."

The report cited "growing ties between al-Qaeda regional nodes and Libya-based terrorists."

The DIA report said: "We expect more anti-U.S. terrorist attacks in eastern Libya [redacted], due to the terrorists greater presence there."

Six days later, according to the committee report, the Pentagon's Joint Staff daily intelligence report included a slide entitled: "Terrorism: Conditions Ripe for More Attacks, Terrorist Safe Haven in Libya."

It said: "[Redacted] support will increase Libyan terrorist capability in the permissive post-revolution security environment. Attacks will also increase in number and lethality as terrorists connect with AQ associates in Libya. Areas of eastern Libya will likely become a safe haven by the end of 2012."

A CIA report issued on July 6, 2012 -- "Libya: Al-Qaeda Establishing Sanctuary" -- was more declarative.

"Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups and associates are exploiting the permissive security environment in Libya to enhance their capabilities and expand their operational reach," said this CIA report.

Two months before Sept. 11, 2012 the CIA was already reporting that al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists had made parts of eastern Libya "their safe haven."

Soon after that, a CIA officer told State Department officials that al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists had training camps "within Benghazi."

On Aug. 15, 2012, the State Department's principal officer in Benghazi called together an "Emergency Action Committee" to discuss "the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi."

The next day, Ambassador Chris Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., summarizing the points made at this meeting.

Stevens' cable said a CIA officer had "briefed the EAC on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi."

For Hillary now to say that she did the best she could on the basis of "imperfect information" and to blame the tragic outcome on "unforeseen consequences and unpredictable twists and turns" is such an act of distortion of the record that it takes one's breath away.

The plan fact is that this possible future president failed miserably in her first major administrative assignment: Running the embassies and consulates under her jurisdiction as secretary.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Outrage." To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
 
 
162  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Samadi on: February 02, 2014, 11:58:52 AM
***What Dr. Samadi fails to say is that only 1 in 36 men actually die of it****  Please see yahoo post response to this article included below.  Autopsy studies suggest that 75% of men have microscopic prostate cancer in their gland when they died.  Proportionately few will even know much less even die of it.  Not to say prostate cancer can be ignored - 25 000 die of it every year in the US.  So it is very serious.  I don't like this guy promoting a procedure he and probably the institution he works with both making a mint from this touting it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.  We see this a lot in the medical field.  Conflict of interests are Everywhere.  And they are not readily reported as pretended by publications like the New England Journal of Medicine.  That is not to say there are not very ethical men and women who ARE doing the best they can for humanity and if they can make money from it that is fine.  But I am very skeptical this guy is one of them.

******For Prostate Cancer, Radiation Complications May Outweigh Risks

LiveScience.com
By Dr. David Samadi, Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City January 31, 2014 7:36 PM
   
Dr. David Samadi is the chairman of urology and chief of robotic surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and is a board-certified urologist and oncologist specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of urologic diseases, kidney cancer, bladder cancer and prostate cancer. Samadi also specializes in many advanced, minimally invasive treatments for prostate cancer; is one of the few urologic surgeons in the United States trained in oncology, open-, laparoscopic- and robotic-surgery; and was the first surgeon in the nation to successfully perform a robotic surgery redo. He contributed this article to LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Radiation for prostate cancer has shown once again that it leads to more complications than surgery. For men with prostate cancer, deciding whether to opt for radiation or surgical removal of the gland can be overwhelming. How does one decide with the risks, such as the unpleasant side-effects of erectile dysfunction and incontinence?

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy, second only to skin cancer. Unfortunately, doctors diagnose more than 240,000 men in the United States with the disease every year, which translates into 1 in every 6 men being affected by prostate cancer. A new study published last Thursday in the Lancet Oncology Journal found that "men treated with radiotherapy had fewer minimally invasive urological procedures compared to those who chose surgery." However, over time, "the radiation group had a higher proportion of hospital admissions, rectal or anal procedures, related surgeries and secondary cancers."

Men need to take the time to do their research on how "radiation" really works and what side effects they will have to live with. There are two kinds of radiation, external beam and brachytherapy, which involves radioactive material inside the prostate. We as men have all the control in the world to decide what form of treatment is best for us. Do you just want a quick fix that will sometimes show you upfront results from radiation, but will cause you to suffer from side effects in the long run or would you rather choose robotic prostatectomy with minimal bleeding, 95 percent to 97 percent continence rate, and an overall better quality of life? Put aside the temporary leakage and erectile dysfunction that you may receive from robotic prostatectomy, because a year from your surgery those minimal side effects will dissipate.

The questions I suggest my patients ask themselves are:
Do you want to be admitted to the hospital more frequently?
Do you want to likely bleed from your bladder or rectum?
Do you want to risk a second cancer?

This can be the reality for patients who undergo radiation treatments and how it can decrease your confidence and overall quality of life. In the recent study, radiotherapy complication rates were 2- to 10-times higher than complication rates in men who were treated with robotic prostatectomy. Choosing surgery after radiation makes the surgery more complicated. Radiation destroys the surrounding healthy tissue causing the prostate to be embedded in scar tissue. This makes the surgery more complex than operating on tissue that has not been affected by radiation.

Once the prostate is removed, surgeons like myself monitor the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels to ensure that the cancer doesn't come back. If radiotherapy is performed prior to the surgery, the PSA will fluctuate due to radiotherapy and pieces of the prostate that are left behind, confusing that monitoring process.

Following a prostate cancer diagnosis, men are flooded with tons of informationand must try to make sense of the different treatment options — it can make even the most educated patient uncertain. [Prostate Cancer Screening Test May Prevent 17,000 Advanced Cases Yearly]

Do your homework and really look at the outcomes one month to one year to a lifetime from now and ask yourself: "Will I be happy with these results?" As the numbers point to robotic prostatectomy, the decision lies in your hands.*****

___________________________________
A very good reply from someone in the same specialty who has no financial conflict of interests very unlike this Fox news guy who for quite sometime now has lost my respect as not much more than a self serving charlatan:

****This is a very self-serving & misleading piece of pro-surgery propaganda. Full disclosure: I'm a retired urologist who practiced 20 years privately and was also a clinical prof. at the local medical school. The first item is that the DaVinci robot is currently under multiple suits over its design and propensity to cause serious injuries at surgery leading to major complications, reoperations, permanent urinary incontinence, permanent impotence (erectile dysfunction), and death. It is true that radiation therapy (XRT) has a higher incidence of 'radiation proctitis' (inflammation & bleeding of & from the rectal blood vessels)... since surgical prostatectomy, done correctly, doesn't affect the rectum, that's not surprising since radiation is less precise; although brachytherapy ('seeds') has a far lower incidence. It is also important to understand that all urologists have a vested interest in treating prostate cancer aggressively since the advent of effective medical treatment for benign enlargement of the prostate ('BPH') has rendered the prior 'bread & butter' operation for it (TURP) infrequent. What Dr. Samadi does by waving the scare statistic of 1 in 6 men getting prostate cancer (ACP) is to try and create a stampede of fearful men seeking any means of not dying of prostate cancer. What Dr. Samadi fails to say is that only 1 in 36 men actually die of it (Google: What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?) and that dying of ACP is more a function of the aggressiveness of the cancer than of its treatment - that is; men with aggressive prostate cancers die of it more often than men with less aggressive tumors regardless of how early it's detected or how it's treated. Lastly, the vast majority of men's prostate cancers are detected within the last decade or two of their lives and, if followed until evidence of local growth is note, and XRT given then (followed by hormonal therapy for those rare progressions after XRT) most can live very comfortably and without complications of treatment until their other disease processes take them away... and in my book, even if there's evidence of active prostate cancer, that's effectively a 'cure'.


.
Expand Replies (1)  Reply 
163  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Alinsky's Rules for Radicals on: February 02, 2014, 11:18:22 AM
From a poster on a yahoo board.  Has anyone here read rules for radicals?  Is this actually what is in it?

Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals.
 There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.
 The first is the most important.
 1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people
 2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty
 level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight
 back if you are providing everything for them to live.
 3) Debt – Increase the debt to an
 unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will
 produce more poverty.
 4) Gun Control – Remove the ability
 to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a
 police state.
 5) Welfare – Take control of every
 aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and
 Income)
 6) Education – Take control of what
 people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in
 school.
 7) Religion – Remove the belief in
 the God from the Government and
 schools
 Cool Class Warfare – Divide the people
 into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be
 easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the
 poor.
 Does any of this sound familiar???
164  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The eye scorching glare of hypocracy on: February 02, 2014, 11:11:28 AM
Though they try Fox cable and talk radio simply cannot balance the liberal media bias.

I think it clear Christie knew of the bridge closings.  I do believe there is a chance he may have been told the reason was for a "traffic study" and did not know the real reason for the closing, but on the face of it, is certainly stretches reasonable credibility. 

As one who "leans Republican", though I no longer call myself one, I certainly do find it disheartening how the national candidate Democrats always seem to slip out of any SIMILAR scrutiny when they are caught red handed.  Even OBVIOUS lying before an election does not bring the same media outrage.  A simple stupid email is all it takes it appears to bring someone down but months of making up fabricated stories and lies and obvious cover-ups means nothing.   cry
The left controls 90% of the media. 

And most people either don't keep up with the news, don't care or just want the paychecks I guess.  It really is astonishing when we see the occasional reporter going onto the street and asking random people what they think about certain current events or history etc and not only do they not have a clue they make up answers.  To think people like this vote.....

It really is who controls the hearts and minds (and pocketbooks) of many of the people that makes all the difference.   No Republican is on the national scene as yet who can do this.  Walker sounded good.   The Ex Senator from Mass. who lost to Warren was good a few night ago.  I agree with Crafty Huckabee is worth another look.  Walker from Wisconsin was good recently.  Maybe Jindal?  My nephew works very closely with him.


*****Christie going on offensive about accusation
Associated Press
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI and PHILIP ELLIOTT 16 hours ago
     
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is going on the offensive after a former loyalist said he has evidence the Republican governor knew more than he has admitted about an apparently politically motivated traffic jam ordered by one of his staffers last year.

GOP ponders scandal's toll on Christie's future Associated Press
NJ Democrats combine traffic jam probes Associated Press
Lawyer: Evidence contradicts Christie on closures Associated Press
Lawyer: NJ probe of Christie office can proceed Associated Press
10 things you need to know today: February 1, 2014 The Week (RSS)

The governor's political team sent an email Saturday to donors, along with columnists and pundits who might be in a position to defend Christie, bashing the man Christie put in a top post at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the accusations the man's lawyer made in a letter Friday.

The email says the former Port Authority official, David Wildstein, "will do and say anything to save David Wildstein."

The action from Christie's supporters comes as Republicans are debating the implications of the scandal that this year has surrounded the administration of the possible 2016 presidential contender. It was sent at a moment when Christie is in the spotlight with his state hosting Sunday's Super Bowl.

Christie's team criticizes the initial report Friday about lawyer Alan Zegas' letter as "sloppy reporting," noting that Wildstein did not present any proof to back up the claims that his lawyer made. The note also denies that Christie knew about the traffic jam or its political motive until after it was over and bashes Wildstein on a variety of fronts, characterizing him as a litigious teenager, a controversial mayor and for his past career as an anonymous political blogger.

The email, headlined "5 Things You Should Know about the Bombshell That's Not a Bombshell" was obtained by The Associated Press and confirmed by Christie's office. It was first reported by Politico.

A lawyer for Wildstein, who was the first of four people with Christie connections to lose a job because of the scandal, did not immediately respond to emails from The Associated Press on Saturday.

The implications of the scandal for Christie have become a source of debate not just for Democrats but also for Republicans.

Some said the accusations could derail hopes of Christie running for president if he can't shake the scandal soon, while others were quick to express faith in the governor while discrediting his accuser and questioning his motives.

"It's not good for him," said Matt Beynon, a Republican operative who worked on former Sen. Rick Santorum's 2012 presidential campaign and still has him as a client. "The longer the story goes on, the worse it gets for him. If this is still an issue a year from now, he's going to have trouble pulling the trigger. ... Gov. Christie will have to think long and hard about running."

But Ken Langone, a co-founder of Atlanta-based Home Depot Inc. and a staunch Christie supporter, expressed no such reservations.

"I have complete faith and trust that the governor is telling the truth, and I continue to believe that he would be a superb president if he were elected in the future," Langone said.

Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based Republican consultant, agreed that Christie's chances on a national stage won't be harmed so long as he has been honest about what he knew.

"As long as he was telling the truth, he is fine," Mackowiak said. "But if he knew about this, it brings him in directly and adds — potentially — dishonesty to the charges."

Christie, who has kept mostly to the sidelines during the run-up to this year's Super Bowl, which his state is hosting, received a smattering of boos and some cheers during a pre-game ceremony in New York on Saturday. He didn't appear affected by the crowd's reaction during the Times Square ceremony.

As the new head of the Republican Governors Association, Christie's priority this year is raising money for the party's gubernatorial candidates around the country. Republicans maintain that donors are staying loyal to Christie so far.

"My donors are saying they believe what Gov. Christie is saying. They're giving him a lot of rope," said Ray Washburne, who leads the Republican National Committee's fundraising effort.

"He's not raising money for himself," Beynon added. "If you're a donor in Cleveland, you're thinking about (Ohio Gov.) John Kasich and not Chris Christie."

Also Saturday, the lawyer for a state legislative panel investigating the traffic jams said he was confident the probe can continue without impeding a federal criminal investigation.

Reid Schar, special counsel to the panel, said he had discussed the parallel probes with officials from the U.S. Attorney's office Friday and said the committee "would be mindful" not to interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation.

The lawmaker who chairs that panel said Wildstein's new allegations validate the skepticism committee members have expressed throughout the probe, an investigation Christie once referred to as the Democrats' obsession and some state Republicans have called "a witch hunt."
165  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: February 02, 2014, 10:47:11 AM
*****For example, at present I have:

a) greater competition through a unified national market, instead of 50 separate markets
b) greater transparency as to what policies do and do not cover; analogous to the list of contents on a package of food; 
c) greater freedom of choice as to what coverage you buy;
d) transparency as to prices so as to enable competition via price.*****

You have just described the reason for the single payer system. cry

166  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: February 01, 2014, 09:56:26 PM
This is interesting as I had patients coming in reporting they did not want drugs I prescribed because they were too expensive.  I was shocked since these were drugs that should have been quite inexpensive. 

Now I connect the dots.

Thanks again Brock and your liberal revolutionaries:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/31/Why-Are-Costs-For-Generic-Medications-Soaring

What a great well meaning guy he is..... tongue
167  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: February 01, 2014, 08:47:45 AM
****Isolating the part I disagree with   grin 

"Wesbury knows he can make far more money giving advice than following it."

Exactly.  And all of us I suspect, and certainly me, would be wealthier if we had followed it.****

What in here do you not agree with?
168  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: February 01, 2014, 08:44:19 AM
The person who asked me thought something was pressuring Beck.  Like the IRS, he was caught with a hooker, smoking something, I dunno.

I guess he was suspicious that the left was had something on him.  It really is remarkable how we keep seeing those who go after Obama being targeted.

The pattern is obvious.   
169  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: February 01, 2014, 08:40:18 AM
"We're sending a message to the Democrats, going after seven of their vulnerable seats with an eye towards picking up Senator Mark Warner's seat in Virginia as well"

And what is Warner's response?   He just came out in support of the Democratic candidate.  These establishment guys just think too much of themselves not Americans.
170  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: February 01, 2014, 08:35:50 AM
One politburo member's answer. 

****Why Does Health Care Cost so Much in America? Ask Harvard’s David Cutler

BY Paul Solman  November 19, 2013 at 5:23 PM EST

By David Cutler

The American health care system is structured differently from systems in other countries, making it more expensive. Photo courtesy of Joe Raedle/Getty Images.

Paul Solman: Harvard’s David Cutler is among the country’s foremost health economists, famous for — among other research — a controversial paper arguing that even our exorbitant health care industry, in terms of increased productivity and life span outcomes, delivers more than what we pay for it.

Cutler, who was profiled by Roger Lowenstein in the New York Times Magazine in 2005, subsequently worked for President Barack Obama on health care issues, and talked to us recently for a story about cost savings. But far more of what he had to say seemed worthwhile than what we have time to air. Here is some of it.

Paul Solman: Why does health care cost so much in America?

David Cutler: Let me give you three reasons why. The first one is because the administrative costs of running our health care system are astronomical. About one quarter of health care cost is associated with administration, which is far higher than in any other country.

Paul Solman: What’s the next highest?



MORE FROM THE BUSINESS DESK:

Harvard’s David Cutler on How to Cut Health Care Costs


David Cutler: About 10, 15 percent. Just to give you one example, Duke University Hospital has 900 hospital beds and 1,300 billing clerks. The typical Canadian hospital has a handful of billing clerks. Single-payer systems have fewer administrative needs. That’s not to say they’re better, but that’s just on one dimension that they clearly cost less. What a lot of those people are doing in America is they are figuring out how to bill different insurers for different systems, figuring out how to collect money from people, all of that sort of stuff.

The second reason health care costs so much in America is that the U.S. spends more than other countries do on many of the same things. Drugs are the most commonly noted item, where a branded drug will cost much more in the U.S. than in other countries. But, for example, doctors also earn more for doing the same thing in the U.S. than they do in other countries, and a lot of suppliers charge more for things like durable medical equipment in the U.S. than in other countries.

Paul Solman: And that’s not only doctors being paid more in this country, but the United States making the decision as a government not to buy drugs in bulk and therefore to bid down the price that pharmaceutical companies can charge.

David Cutler: The lowest prices for pharmaceuticals, and a variety of other medical devices and payments to physicians, are in government plans. So Medicaid gets the best prices on pharmaceuticals. In terms of physician payments, Medicaid payments are the lowest. Medicare payments are above that and private payments are above that. The more leverage the buyer has, the lower the price they get. That’s true in every industry. In health care, the United States doesn’t utilize that leverage as much as other countries do.

Paul Solman: Okay, so that’s two and what’s the third reason?

David Cutler: The third one is Americans receive more medical care than people do in other countries, not so much in terms of doctor visits, but if a person has a heart attack in the United States, they’re much more likely to get open heart surgery than they are in most other countries.

Go back to Canada. In all of Ontario there are 11 hospitals that can do open heart surgery. Pennsylvania has roughly the population of Ontario and it has a bit over 60 hospitals that can do open heart surgery. So there’s no way you can operate on as many people in Ontario as you can in Pennsylvania even if you operated around the clock.

Paul Solman: But that means that the people in Canada or in Ontario have to wait longer right?

David Cutler: Sometimes they wait longer. What’s much more common is that there’s a lot of gray area where it’s not clear if you need the open heart surgery or not, and in the U.S., people will get it and in Canada, they don’t. The interesting thing about it is that life expectancy or one-year mortality after a heart attack is the same in the two countries.


Is The Rise of Costs Inevitable?


Paul Solman: Are medical costs going to inevitably go up because there will always be new technologies and new technologies are always expensive?

David Cutler: Technology is the underlying driver and there will always be some of that, which is why health care will not be like other industries in terms of always, always going down in price.

On the other hand, there’s so much waste in the system — our best guess is that about a third of medical spending is not associated with improved outcomes — that for the next 15 to 20 years people believe that costs could be stable or falling as a share of the economy without cutting into necessary services — just by eliminating the things that are not necessary…

What we’ve done in Massachusetts is we’ve said, don’t just give people very high cost-sharing in general; do what’s called tiering it — that is, tell people that if you look for basic levels of care, you’re not going to face very high costs, but if you want to go to the teaching hospital for the routine procedure, you’re going to have to pay a lot for that. And we mandate that insurance companies have to tell people the price of any service. So if your doctor says you need an MRI, you can go on the computer and your insurance company’s website and figure out exactly your cost sharing at each place where they would do the MRI.

Paul Solman: So that will provide comparison shopping.

David Cutler: That’s on the demand side. Give people more skin in the game and give them the information so they can do real shopping.

Paul Solman: More skin in the game, meaning higher co-pays?

David Cutler: Higher co-pays. We know that people respond to co-payments and they like cheaper care. So the hope is to steer people to less expensive sites. We’ve also pushed very strongly that insurance payments to doctors and hospitals and other care providers not be based on volume (so-called “fee for service”), but instead be value-based payments.

So say, here’s a person with coronary artery disease. Pay a fixed amount for that person and let the medical professionals figure out how to treat that person, not with the incentive to do more and earn more, but with the incentive to figure out how to do what’s right and keep them from using very expensive services.

Paul Solman: But doesn’t that provide an incentive or a prod to the provider to stint on the services, stint on the MRI, say, that I might otherwise get?

David Cutler: What that’s being coupled with is a very aggressive approach to measuring quality. … Really what we’re doing is two things: one is on the demand side trying to make people smarter consumers, and the second is on the provider side, eliminating the monetary incentives to do more testing and procedures. Instead, let’s move to a system that says, “do what’s appropriate, make the patients better and you’ll get rewarded for it.”


What If I Want a Certain Procedure?


Paul Solman: Well it sounds ideal, but I just keep thinking that I’d want to go to the dermatologist every six months, say, just to check out every possible discoloration. I’m a little crazy that way, but also, I feel, maximally prudent.

David Cutler: A lot of provider organizations are putting the doctors on a salary basis. Let’s gather our doctors together to figure out what the evidence says is right. If the literature is clear, let’s make sure we do that 100 percent of the time. If the literature is not clear, let’s go through our records and see how we can do better. If the patient then wants more, then say, “Okay, fine, you can have that, but you’re going to pay a little more because that’s not what the literature says is necessary in your case.”

Paul Solman: Well, of course, presumably my insurance company is already trying to do that.

David Cutler: Typically they’re very bad at it though, and when they tell the doctors they’ve imposed this, it goes poorly.

Paul Solman: So right now, I go to a dermatologist on a regular basis — I’ve always had some skin difficulties, but I’ve never had a melanoma — and that’s covered by my insurance. You’re saying, hey, if I’m a little paranoid with regard to discolorations, fine, let me go, but then I ought to pay to do that?

David Cutler: Increasingly, I believe insurers will make you pay more for care that you want to do that’s not medically necessary.

Paul Solman: Well medically necessary by what standards?

David Cutler: Care that’s ordered; that’s not following some accepted standard. You see this in certain parts of the country where the insurers say, “We’ll pay only a fixed amount for a knee replacement. We’ve determined that high quality knee replacement can be had for $8,000 nearby you. So we’ll give you $8,000. Now if you want to go to someone else who charges $20,000, fine, but you’re gonna pay the extra $12,000.”

Paul Solman: And my insurer did that recently with regard to a bronchial inhaler and said, “No, you can’t get that one; you can only get this cheaper one.”

David Cutler: Exactly, it’s what they’ve been doing with drugs for quite a long time. The generic version is very cheap; the branded drug is much more expensive.

In a lot of parts of the country, they’re just saying, “Look, if you want this service at all, you’re going to pay a lot of money.” The trend in health care nationally is to put more and more on the patient.****
171  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: January 31, 2014, 08:16:23 PM
Crafty what is your take on the Beck mea culpa on Megan Kelly recently?  Someone asked me this and I said I have no idea.
172  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / expanding on GMs post on: January 31, 2014, 08:47:54 AM
GM,

Yes the economy is improving for the few, and not the wealthy.  Like Forbes said, my father taught me one can make far more money recommending stocks than investing in them.  Wesbury knows he can make far more money giving advice than following it.

In health care the big businesses are getting wealthy.  There is huge consolidation, huge squeezing of smaller guys and increased demands on all the workers.  I believe it is the same every other segments of the economy.  I don't recall in my lifetime seeing the gap from the very rich to the vast majority of Americans expanding any faster as it has under this President.

Yet the Republicans seem totally unable to articulate any consistent messages to reach those same "vast majority of Americans".   The ineptitude of the Republican leadership (in what is not any longer my party) is breathtaking.

I have no motivation to vote.  Why bother?  Should I vote for the big government Republican or the outright liberal?  Little difference.  They are all giving the citizens country away.

Victor David Hanson was on Marc Levin last PM.  He more or less agreed the immigration cave in is quite likely the end of the ball game for America as we knew it.  He doesn't understand why Republicans cannot reach out to the  majority of citizens and connect. 

All I can say is many talk show hosts blow away any political articulators in the repub leadership.

As of now I will stay home and not vote period.  I didn't bother to vote for Christie either.  I don't like him and he has done nothing for me or the bill payers in NJ - nothing.

173  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The top headline news "search" on Yahoo news. on: January 31, 2014, 08:34:56 AM
Does anyone actually believe this is the top news search on Yahoo at this time.  There has to be some computer generated volley of contrived searches to get this promoted to the top so people will read this.  A form of advertising.  Does anyone believe anyone would otherwise care about this persons appearance on some up coming program?  I wonder how many other things we read on news is similarly so.  I wonder if Yahoo is paid for this or just the financiers behind this person have paid people to generate hits to promote this to the top:

https://news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVw1gs.tSP0IAU5lXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0NTc0NGpzBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMyMl8x?p=Dianne%20Wiest&fr2=cosmos
174  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / A short synopsis of Gandhi's main ideology on: January 31, 2014, 08:18:13 AM
http://www.indianchild.com/mahatma_gandhi.htm
175  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Quote on Gandhi by Einstein on: January 31, 2014, 08:14:26 AM
“On the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi's 70th birthday. "Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth.”

― Albert Einstein

Gandhi was murdered by Hindu extremists.

Gandhi - one of the greatest human beings to have walked the Earth.

(I will add we do not see anything like it today in American leaders.)
176  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / $1.49 on January 6, 2003 on: January 31, 2014, 08:03:33 AM
Now near $1200.   I wonder if even one person bought then and still owns now?   Lets see $1000 then now ~ $775,000 now.   The dreams stock markets are made of:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=PCLN+Interactive#symbol=pcln;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;
177  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: January 30, 2014, 11:45:19 AM
"“It’s been frustrating because of the extremism of Tea Party Republicans,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview on Wednesday."

Yes.  A scumbag to the very end.   His beloved Democrat party.  Good riddance.  But as Levin says, there is no end to those right behind him ready to fill in and reclose ranks as the Socialist movement "marches forward".
178  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2nd post on: January 30, 2014, 11:34:57 AM
From drudge but I think he is right.  Immigration leniency is bad for American workers.  Look we can always scour the world and find people who will do any work whatsoever for less than someone who is already here.  Allow them in by the tens of millions and at the same time raise the minimum wage.  It is all crazy.

****Sessions Warns House GOP: Immigration Bill Is Bad Politics, Bad Policy

Offers a better way forward.

11:18 AM, Jan 29, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER

Yesterday afternoon, before President Obama's State of the Union Address, Senator Jeff Sessions' staff hand-delivered to each Republican member of the House an important memo on the so-called immigration reform bill being debated on Capital Hill. The 3-page document, written by Sessions, argues that pushing the current immigration legislation forward is bad politics, bad policy, and that there's a better way for Republicans.

Sessions believes House Republicans are at risk of falling into President Obama's trap. "[A]ccording to news reports, House Republican leaders are instead turning 2014 into a headlong rush towards Gang-of-Eight style 'immigration reform,'" writes Sessions. "They are reportedly drafting an immigration plan that is uncomfortably similar to a 'piecemeal' repackaging of the disastrous Senate plan—and even privately negotiating a final package with Democrat activists before consulting with their own members."

It's bad politics, Sessions writes. "In the rush to pass an immigration bill, there has been a near absence of any serious thought about the conditions facing American workers. The last 40 years has been a period of record immigration to the U.S., with the last 10 years seeing more new arrivals than any prior 10- year period in history. This trend has coincided with wage stagnation, enormous growth in welfare programs, and a shrinking workforce participation rate. A sensible, conservative approach would focus on lifting those living here today, both immigrant and native-born, out of poverty and into the middle class—before doubling or tripling the level of immigration into the U.S.

   
 
 

 
179  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: January 30, 2014, 10:55:13 AM
"Israel was not suckered.  It has been let down-- but don't think they did not see it coming."

Agreed.  And I would add, not only let down but foiled from taking action themselves and possibly "drawing the US in".

180  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: January 30, 2014, 10:18:53 AM
"Anyone think this wasn't the plan all along?"

Bush was hamstrung in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I don't guess (because I really don't know) that he would have allowed this otherwise.  I certainly don't thing Rumsfeld or Cheney would have.  I admit myself I didn't see this back in '03.  I was for bombing Iraq and now I admit it was a mistake though all those horror stories coming out of Saddam's tortured country were hard to read and think how can we just sit here and allow this to continue.  Yet after all America has done for Iraq the killing still goes on and Iran was unchecked.  We should have been bombing Iran's nuclear facilities all along IMHO.  Now while still not too late, there is no will.

As for Obama he certainly couldn't care less about Israel or Jews.  The American military does seem to have concluded 'containment' is better than pre-emptive attacks fro some years now.

Any talk of "military action is still on the table" was and has been just PR crap.  It never was "on the table".  Obviously Iran's leaders saw through this for the past decade.

Israel has been suckered.  I guess we can only hope for an outcome similar to the Cold war.

 
181  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: January 30, 2014, 10:11:49 AM
THis guy Priebus really sounds like a person who has been bribed [to say this stuff].  Bought off by business interests?  

I'm with Coulter.  I have no clue how any Republican can try to argue having tens of millions more immigrants who vote Democrat to attain benefits confiscated from people who have lived here longer and doled to them is good for the party, country or present day US citizens.  I just have no clue.

*****RNC’s Priebus: ‘General consensus’ that something big has to happen on immigration

By David Sherfinski

The Washington Times

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said Wednesday that there’s a “general consensus” in his party that something big needs to happen on overhauling the country’s immigration laws and that more specifics would be unveiled this week at House Republicans’ annual retreat.

“I think politically speaking it’s a mixed bag, but the question is whether or not it’s something we have to do as a country, and I think that’s what’s trumping the political answer,” Mr. Priebus said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “You see in our party, whether it’s [Kentucky Senator] Rand Paul, who’s called for massive immigration reform, or [Florida Senator] Marco Rubio, I think you have general consensus that something big has to happen.”

Mr. Priebus said House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has pledged to come up with a set of principles at the party retreat this week and the principles would be shared with the press “as soon as it was done.”

“So that’s a commitment from the Speaker of the House, and there’s a commitment among the most conservative members of our party and the most moderate members of our party that it’s something that we have to get serious about, and I think you’re seeing that,” he said.****

182  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: January 30, 2014, 09:52:48 AM

Many chronically ill Americans unable to afford food, medicine

Reuters
By Allison Bond 42 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - One in three Americans with a chronic disease such as diabetes, arthritis or high blood pressure has difficulty paying for food, medications or both, according to a new study.

People who had trouble affording food were four times more likely to skip some of their medications due to cost than those who got plenty to eat, researchers found.

"This leads to an obvious tension between 'milk' or 'med,'" said Dr. Niteesh Choudhry, who worked on the study at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "If you have a fixed income, should you treat or should you eat?"

The findings are based on data collected by the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, a questionnaire that offers a snapshot of the U.S. population as a whole. Nearly 10,000 people age 20 and up filled out the survey and reported having one or more chronic illnesses like cancer, asthma, emphysema or a psychiatric illness.

Among those participants, 23 percent took their medication less often than prescribed because of the cost, 19 percent reported difficulty affording food and 11 percent said they were having trouble paying for both food and medications. In the end, about one in three had trouble affording food, medication or both.

These rates are high but are similar to figures found in previous studies, said lead author Dr. Seth Berkowitz, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Yet the link between difficulty paying for food and for medications is a novel one.

"The idea of tradeoffs that people might make (between buying medications or food) is something we haven't seen before," said Berkowitz.

The researchers also found that patients who had difficulty paying for both food and meds were 58 percent more likely to be Hispanic or African American.

With each additional chronic illness the patients reported, their risk of having a tough time affording those items went up by 56 percent, according to the findings published in The American Journal of Medicine.

Finally, people having trouble affording medications and food were 30 percent less likely to have public, non-Medicare insurance like Medicaid, and about 60 percent less likely to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC. This program provides supplemental food and healthcare referrals for certain women and children up to age five.

By removing some of the financial pressure from people struggling to afford food, assistance programs like WIC may also help them afford their medications, Berkowitz said.

For that reason, for people struggling to pay for either food or medications, the authors recommend looking into eligibility for food assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and WIC, along with community support services like food banks.

When it comes to medications, there may be cheaper alternatives or assistance programs for the medication a patient is already taking.

"The most important thing people can do is talk with their doctors about it," said Berkowitz.

It's also important for people to be honest with their doctor if they are unable to afford enough food, since that may affect which medications and dosages are best.

"If you are eating very irregularly, a medication that might be perfectly safe when you are eating regularly could cause low blood sugar," or other complications, Berkowitz told Reuters Health.

If patients don't bring up the fact that they are struggling to afford medications or food, Berkowitz said, the doctor won't know to adjust medications accordingly.

He said people should "not be embarrassed or ashamed" to bring up the topic with their doctor.

SOURCE: bit.ly/1evzX7V The American Journal of Medicine, online January 21, 2014.*****

*****""This leads to an obvious tension between 'milk' or 'med,'"  Only a liberal could say this. 

""The most important thing people can do is talk with their doctors about it,"

Is this guy putting me on.  Patients have always complained when they can't afford health care.

""The idea of tradeoffs that people might make (between buying medications or food) is something we haven't seen before," said Berkowitz."

How old is this fool.   This has always been the case.  How about people who always seem to afford cigarettes or booze when they want to yet are always short for more important stuff.   Oh this never happens. 

This is the problem with Ivy league liberals.  This was not a "study".  Did tax money go to fund this stuff?
183  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: January 30, 2014, 09:27:40 AM
Newt, like recently Barbara Bush heap praise on Bill Clinton.  With Republicans like this we have NO chance.
184  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Isis on: January 30, 2014, 09:21:41 AM
Correction.  The chart was what I meant to post:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ISIS+Interactive#symbol=isis;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;
185  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I signed. Thanks. EOM on: January 29, 2014, 06:25:53 PM
I signed.
Thanks.
186  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Too late; ball game over on: January 29, 2014, 06:15:37 PM
Iran can now break out if it chooses to do so.   shocked  cry

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-now-has-nuclear-breakout-capability-us-intel-reports/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
187  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / R.I.P. Nine year old hero on: January 29, 2014, 06:04:33 PM
True love for family.  Teachings of a 9 yo boy:

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-boy-hailed-saving-6-honorary-firefighter-211520670.html cry
188  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Isis!Wow!OMG! on: January 29, 2014, 11:51:30 AM
I haven't paid attention to Isis in years.  I remember when anti- sense was all the rage late 90's.  Then fell out of favor after it didn't work.  I recall posts on the old DMG board on this.  Now look at it.  Hindsight is everything in the stock market.  I recall my uncle telling us the story of how his friends advised him to buy into resorts international in the 70's which was the first Atlantic City casino approved by the regulators.  He thought it too risky.   His friends made millions.  He then added, "everything I did in the stock market was wrong...."

I am not sure if I every bought ISIS but I know I watched it for years.  I look at this and weep:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ISIS+Profile
189  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Keystone Pipeline limbo on: January 29, 2014, 11:07:56 AM
The war on our friends continues.  Not unlike the war on America:

*****By Charles Krauthammer,   Published: January 23 E-mail the writer
 
 Fixated as we Americans are on Canada’s three most attention-getting exports — polar vortexes, Alberta clippers and the antics of Toronto’s addled mayor — we’ve somewhat overlooked a major feature of Canada’s current relations with the United States: extreme annoyance.

Last week, speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Canada’s foreign minister calmly but pointedly complained that the United States owes Canada a response on the Keystone XL pipeline. “We can’t continue in this state of limbo,” he sort of complained, in what for a placid, imperturbable Canadian passes for an explosion of volcanic rage.
 
Canadians may be preternaturally measured and polite, but they simply can’t believe how they’ve been treated by President Obama — left hanging humiliatingly on an issue whose merits were settled years ago.

Canada, the Saudi Arabia of oil sands, is committed to developing this priceless resource. Its natural export partner is the United States. But crossing the border requires State Department approval, which means the president decides yes or no.

After three years of review, the State Department found no significant environmental risk to Keystone. Nonetheless, the original route was changed to assuage concerns regarding the Ogallala Aquifer. Obama withheld approval through the 2012 election. To this day he has issued no decision.

The Canadians are beside themselves. After five years of manufactured delay, they need a decision one way or the other because if denied a pipeline south, they could build a pipeline west to the Pacific. China would buy their oil in a New York minute.

Yet Secretary of State John Kerry fumblingly says he is awaiting yet another environmental report. He offered no decision date.

If Obama wants to cave to his environmental left, fine. But why keep Canada in limbo? It’s a show of supreme and undeserved disrespect for yet another ally. It seems not enough to have given the back of the hand to Britain, Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic, and to have so enraged the Saudis that they actually rejected a U.N. Security Council seat — disgusted as they were with this administration’s remarkable combination of fecklessness and highhandedness. Must we crown this run of diplomatic malpractice with gratuitous injury to Canada, our most reliable, most congenial friend in the world?

And for what? This is not a close call. The Keystone case is almost absurdly open and shut.

Even if you swallow everything the environmentalists tell you about oil sands, the idea that blocking Keystone would prevent their development by Canada is ridiculous. Canada sees its oil sands as a natural bounty and key strategic asset. Canada will not leave it in the ground.

Where’s the environmental gain in blocking Keystone? The oil will be produced and the oil will be burned. If it goes to China, the Pacific pipeline will carry the same environmental risks as a U.S. pipeline.

And Alberta oil can still go to the United States, if not by pipeline then by rail, which requires no State Department approval. That would result in far more greenhouse gas emissions — exactly the opposite of what the environmentalists are seeking.

Moreover, rail can be exceedingly dangerous. Last year a tanker train derailed and exploded en route through Quebec. The fireball destroyed half of downtown Lac-Megantic, killing 47, many incinerated beyond recognition.

This isn’t theoretical environmentalism. This is not a decrease in the snail darter population. This is 47 dead human beings. More recently, we’ve had two rail-oil accidents within the United States, one near Philadelphia and one in North Dakota.

Add to this the slam-dunk strategic case for Keystone: Canadian oil reduces our dependence on the volatile Middle East, shifting petroleum power from OPEC and the killing zones of the Middle East to North America. What more reliable source of oil could we possibly have than Canada?

Keystone has left Canada very upset, though characteristically relatively quiet. Canadians may have succeeded in sublimating every ounce of normal human hostility and unpleasantness by way of hockey fights, but that doesn’t mean we should take advantage of their good manners.

The only rationale for denying the pipeline is political — to appease Obama’s more extreme environmentalists. For a president who claims not to be ideological, the irony is striking: Here is an easily available piece of infrastructure — privately built, costing government not a penny, creating thousands of jobs and, yes, shovel-ready — and yet the president, who’s been incessantly pushing new “infrastructure” as a fundamental economic necessity, can’t say yes.

Well then, Mr. President, say something. You owe Canada at least that. Up or down. Five years is long enough.

 Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. ******
190  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: January 29, 2014, 09:55:21 AM
"Intellectuals’ obsession with income statistics — calling envy “social justice” — ignores vast differences in productivity that are far more fundamental to everyone’s well-being. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg has ruined many economies."

And last night we just had a President who will force this upon us whether we like it or not.

Someone should tell him, "hey we won" [Congress].    cool

Why so many in the media insist he is a "nice" guy I do not know.
191  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Republicans again show their ineptitude on: January 29, 2014, 09:49:26 AM
 shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked:  From Forbes:

Matthew Herper
Matthew Herper, Forbes Staff

I cover science and medicine, and believe this is biology's century.

1/28/2014 @ 4:14PM |185,868 views
 
The Proposed Republican Replacement For ObamaCare Is A Big Tax Hike

Sen. Orrin Hatch (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Yesterday, three Republican Senators — Tom Coburn (Okla.), Richard Burr (N.C.), and Orrin Hatch (Utah) – put forward a plan to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. They call it the Patient CARE Act, and my colleague Avik Roy says it is “the most credible plan yet” offered by the GOP.


Senate Republicans Develop The Most Credible Plan Yet To 'Repeal And Replace' Obamacare  Avik RoyAvik Roy Forbes Staff

   ObamaCare Raises Health Insurance Premiums, Especially For The Young  Matthew HerperMatthew Herper Forbes Staff

   The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare  Chris ConoverChris Conover Contributor

Except the Coburn-Burr-Hatch plan (read it here) amounts, among other things, to a big tax increase. The main way that it remains budget neutral is by making employer-provided health insurance plans, which are currently not taxed, partially taxable as income. In fact, this income replaces income that, under ObamaCare, comes from taxing companies, including the tax on medical device companies paid by firms like Medtronic  and Stryker .

This fact has not escaped the notice of some prominent health reform allies. “It is a huge tax increase on workers without any confidence that they will be able to afford health insurance in the future,” says Bob Kocher, a partner at venture capital firm Venrock who previously worked in the Obama administration.

It is “essentially a very large Republican tax increase,” says Ezekiel Emanuel, the Diane V.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania and another former Obama advisor. “It’s quite clear the plan is to put a bigger burden on middle class Americans.”

Here’s what the Senators propose: right now, health insurance is not taxed as income. This is arguably the original sin of the U.S. healthcare system, which has insulated consumers from health costs and allowed prices to skyrocket. During World War II, wages were frozen but pensions and benefits were exempted; in 1943 the Internal Revenue Service ruled that these benefits weren’t taxable, either.

Many health economists believe this is a bad thing, because it shields people from paying their own premiums, and Coburn, Burr, and Hatch deserve credit for tackling this head on. But that doesn’t make this any more politically workable – or appealing to those of us who get health insurance through our employers.

They write:


Therefore, our proposal caps the tax exclusion for employee’s health coverage at 65 percent of an average plan’s costs. The value of employer-sponsored health insurance would be capped and indexed to grow at an annual rate of CPI +1.

Taxing 35% of the average plan – and more than that for plans that are above-average, as half are, could amount to a substantial tax. Tying the growth of the tax-exempt portion of the plan to the Consumer Price Index would also limit the cost of plans, pushing cost-saving measures.

How big a tax might this be for an average American family? Ezekiel has some numbers. The average employer health plan for a family of four costs $16,351, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the employer covers 72% of that, or $11,772. Thirty-five percent of $11,772 is $4,120.35. The employee’s share of the Social Security and Medicare payroll tax is 7.65%, or $315.21. Assuming this family of four is in the 25% marginal income tax bracket, that would add another $1,030.09, for a total tax increase of $1,345. (For more from Emanuel, see this Times piece.)

Up to 300% of the poverty line, there would be subsidies to help people buy insurance. It’s not immediately clear how these compare to the subsidies offered by Obamacare; they don’t look greater.

Removing a bunch of corporate taxes so that the middle class can pay more seems like a political non-starter, even given the public backlash against Obamacare. This plan would likely mean that more people would lose insurance, or be forced to go to smaller networks of doctors. Those are the same criticisms levied against the Affordable Care Act.

Another notable thing about the proposal is how much of the ACA it keeps: it gets rid of state healthcare exchanges, but it keeps the basic structure of trying to keep people in the insurance system (in this case by making pre-existing conditions something that insurers can’t use against you until you fail to sign up for coverage – and then you get slammed) and of paying subsidies to help poor people get insurance. Allowing less comprehensive benefits and allowing insurers to charge five times as much for their sickest and oldest customers as for their youngest and healthiest, compared to three times under Obamacare, could lower the cost of insurance for young people and get more of them in the system.

“The plan makes specific proposals worthy of serious consideration- although I doubt it receives it at this moment,” says Ronald Williams, the former chairman of Aetna. “Perhaps in the future it could be the foundation of serious conversations which could lead to bipartisan evolution of the current bill.”

What the plan does emphasize is the degree to which any plan to reform the insurance system can seem like a zero-sum game – the money has to come from somewhere. For insurers involved in the ObamaCare exchanges, like Humana, Molina Healthcare, and Centene, the legislative roller-coaster ride may be far from over.

Senator Hatch’s office did not return a request for comment.
192  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Flu map CDC; One can run but one can't hide: on: January 28, 2014, 10:00:56 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/usmap.htm
193  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Chris Christie on: January 28, 2014, 09:50:32 PM
Thanks to Christie we are only number two among states in the Democrat party extortion racket:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2014/01/28/10-Worst-States-Taxes-2014?page=1
194  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Will starbucks get into the pot business? on: January 28, 2014, 08:35:48 PM
Sativa or Indica?   Say what?  In my day (I heard rumors) it was Mexican, Jamaican, Columbian, Panama Red, Thai sticks, Hash, or Hash oil.  Somewhat in that order, so I was told.

I think the THC content was at most 2 to 10 %.  Only oil was more.  Now the THC content in the run of the mill stuff is more.  A lot more.

From the Economist:
 
****Marijuana legalisation

High time

Colorado embarks on an unprecedented experiment
 Jan 11th 2014  | DENVER  | From the print edition

Sativa or indica?

FOR reasons as hazy as a cloud of Sour Diesel smoke, the number 420 is cherished by America’s stoners. So it was fitting that on January 1st, 420 days after Coloradans awoke to discover that, along with Washington state, theirs had become the first jurisdiction in the world to vote to remove the criminal prohibition on recreational marijuana, around 40 state-licensed pot shops flung open their doors to all-comers. Four-hour queues snaked along the streets of Denver and other cities. Swamped by newbies, many from out of state, shop staff toiled to explain the difference between sativa (which delivers a “cerebral”, energetic high suited to daytime use) and indica (a depressive effect; better consumed late).

“Should’ve done it 40 years ago!” growls a middle-aged man making his first purchase at Medicine Man, one of Denver’s biggest retail outlets. (A home-grower, he later confides that he got bored smoking the same old strains.) For optimists, the votes in Colorado and Washington suggest that America’s war on drugs is finally winding down. The casualties have been legion: 750,000 people are arrested each year for marijuana alone; the subsequent blotted records can derail lives. Some 40,000 people languish in prison for pot-related offences. Murderous gangs fill the supply gap created by prohibition.

Public opinion appears to have reached a tipping point. Most Americans now favour legalisation; something that was unthinkable a generation ago (see chart). Advocates have waged savvy campaigns, gaining footholds by legalising marijuana for medical purposes (so far in 20 states and Washington, DC) and presenting a clean-cut, besuited image worlds away from the tie-dyed stereotypes. More states may free the weed before long.

Yet legalisation is just the beginning of a process, and Colorado and Washington have taken different routes. Colorado has built on the foundations of its medical-marijuana system. Until October (and 2016 in Denver) only medical-marijuana operators may receive licences to serve recreational customers, which is why many of the shops that welcomed newcomers on January 1st have names like Citi-Med and Evergreen Apothecary. (Retailers exult that they are no longer obliged to speak of “medicine” and “patients”.) During this time Colorado’s retailers must grow at least 70% of the marijuana they sell.

Washington, by contrast, is creating a recreational market from scratch; this is why its shops are not expected to open until May or so. It will have a three-tier system, with separate licences for cultivation, processing and retail. The state will determine, Soviet-style, consumers’ annual needs in advance and cap overall production. The fate of its medical system, more chaotic than Colorado’s, is uncertain.

Under federal law, marijuana remains illegal. The feds have pounced on dispensaries in states with badly run medical systems. But in August the Department of Justice suggested it would let the experiments in Washington and Colorado proceed if they did not impede eight “enforcement priorities”, including stopping pot from being trafficked by gangs, sold to minors or smuggled into other states.

Worryingly for Colorado, its record in these areas is not stellar. Plenty of teenagers are getting their hands on medical marijuana procured by adults. Police in neighbouring states such as Kansas complain of Coloradan marijuana flooding border areas. Colorado has a fat rule book and most dispensaries are well run, but they can do little about customers passing pot to children or taking it across state lines. And in Colorado (but not Washington) anyone may grow up to six marijuana plants without a licence.

Legalisation may prompt people to smoke and eat more marijuana. Prices for recreational pot are comparable to those in the illicit market ($55-$60 for an eighth, according to Darin Smith of the Denver Kush Club, a retail outlet). Some non-tokers will surely be tempted to take up the habit now that they need not deal with intimidating criminals in dark alleys; others may get high more often.

The ill-effects of marijuana, including cognitive impairment and a risk of dependency, are fairly well documented (though more research would help). Around 20% of users account for 80% of consumption; as Mark Kleiman, an analyst, points out, it is in a profit-seeking industry’s interest to target these problem users. Set against this is the genuine pleasure that smoking or eating marijuana brings millions of adults. Moreover, increased marijuana use may turn out to be a net positive for public health if, as some studies suggest, it replaces some consumption of alcohol—a far more destructive drug by most measures.

That is not the only reason for officials to welcome legal weed. Hefty excise and sales taxes will boost state coffers. In Colorado the Department of Revenue oversees regulation; this, says Sam Kamin, a law professor at the University of Denver, is good news for the industry, for “marijuana may not be addictive, but money certainly is”. The costs of enforcement—including 22 field inspectors—will be more than covered by the fresh revenue.

Perhaps the biggest sign of change is that even foes of legalisation accept the need to try to make it work. All-out drug warriors are hard to find in Colorado. For their part, campaigners now focus on technical matters. For example, many pot businesses struggle to obtain basic financial services because banks fear violating federal money-laundering rules. Colorado’s experiment will doubtless hit many hurdles along the way, but if it looks like working, others will copy it.
195  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: January 28, 2014, 08:21:41 PM
"On this WD story, I think our side would do better focusing on the fact that her older, rich husband stayed home to raise the children, and the day after he paid off her tuition loans, she dumped him.  EVERYONE, man and woman, knows that what story reveals is as revolting as it is revealing."

Excellent point.   Is this the kind of person one wants as their leader?  If she could do that to her husband and caretaker of her own children just think what she could do to an electorate. 
196  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: January 28, 2014, 08:11:30 PM
"I have previously predicted:  
a) She won't run.  
b) If she runs, she won't be the nominee.
c) If she is the nominee, she won't win.
d) When this proves true, it will appear so obvious in that I won't be able to brag about this prediction."

Doug,  

I will personally pay for an ad in the WSJ the moment this comes true giving you credit for knowing it before anyone else.  The Dog Brothers' version of Nostradamus! grin

I am rooting for you.
197  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: January 27, 2014, 05:54:44 PM
Hillary' biggest regret are the deaths in Benghazi?

What a stinking slime bucket she is.  After lying before an election and trying to hide behind a cover-up NOW she expresses her regrets.

And of course her slime-ball supporters will be defending her from now on saying, " what more do you want?"  "She expresses her regrets".  "She is taking responsibility".

This is not taking responsibility!  If there is a God she should not get away with this. angry

Doesn't American deserve better than this?  Selfish lying scum bucket. 

Not another 8 years of this please. 
198  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Another Clinton election theme now emerging on: January 26, 2014, 07:12:30 PM
Besides the babe factor I just started hearing about this so called "split" in the Democrat party between, guess what, and get this, the "moderate" Clinton camp and the "progressive" Obama camp.   The coronation continues:

http://www.ksat.com/news/politics/Post-Obama-Democratic-divide-grows/-/2567674/24124676/-/xxd1wl/-/index.html
199  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: January 26, 2014, 11:36:43 AM
Crafty has suggested we keep Huckabee in mind.  I like this concept from Mike.  The RNC really has NO clue what they are doing.

https://news.yahoo.com/mike-huckabee-wants-republicans-to-fight-back-on--war-on-women--rhetoric-215125924.html
200  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs on: January 26, 2014, 11:05:39 AM
"Let them smoke all the pot they want, maybe they will get less done!"

I would rather this then a new giant divisions of the DEA, ATF (Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ? marijuana?) regulating everything about it along with hoards of State government bureaus, and endless cottage industries designed for now better purpose then to make money off the expanded bureaucracy and how to circumvent it.

Just make it legal already.  Enforcing the law as it is now is and has been a farce anyway since the 60's.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 76
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!