Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2017, 12:49:15 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
102306 Posts in 2379 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 141
3501  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: December 06, 2013, 08:09:08 AM
Many Jews might argue that the Iran deal is preferable to strikes and outright war with Iran.  Such as Crafty's Stratford Post on the subject.  The twisted arguments are ridiculous as we can all see Iran is hell bent on achieving nuclear weaponry capability.

But as the saying goes we all have our opinions and mine is just one of many.

This picture to me portrays what I have noted multiple times.  The liberal Jews love the Democrat Party and also hate the Republicans more then Nazis.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-defends-iran-deal-hanukkah-celebration-105731643.html
3502  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / WHo is going to protect us? We are all screwed. Most don't even know it. on: December 04, 2013, 08:02:05 AM
Especially the young and dumb.

This is why Sessions is right.  Anyone think Exxon was the corporation to fear.  What about the internet oligarchs?  Who the hell is going to protect us from abuse from them?

The government?  Why the government can't even protect their own websites?

Who is going to protect us from the abuse and evil that exists in all humanity?

I hear nothing from our representatives Pubs, Crats, or Partiers.  Nothing.  As a victim of information technology from organized crime and American Big entertainment business  I want answers. 

I am still hearing dead Freakin silence.  To may ex party Republicans - it ain't just the government we need to fear>
 

******Op-Ed Columnist

Mommy, the Drone’s Here!

By MAUREEN DOWD
 
Published: December 3, 2013 60 Comments

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
. If you aren’t nervous enough reading about 3-D printers spitting out handguns or Google robots with Android phones, imagine the skies thick with crisscrossing tiny drones.

“I know this looks like science fiction. It’s not,” Jeff Bezos told Charlie Rose on “60 Minutes” Sunday, unveiling his octocopter drones.

The Amazon founder is optimistic that the fleet of miniature robot helicopters clutching plastic containers will be ready to follow GPS coordinates within a radius of 10 miles and zip around the country providing half-hour delivery of packages of up to 5 pounds — 86 percent of Amazon’s stock — just as soon as the F.A.A. approves.

“Wow!” Rose said, absorbing the wackiness of it all.

The futuristic Pony Express to deliver pony-print coats and other Amazon goodies will be “fun,” Bezos said, and won’t start until they have “all the systems you need to say, ‘Look, this thing can’t land on somebody’s head while they’re walking around their neighborhood.’ ”

So if they can’t land on my head, why do they make my head hurt? Maybe because they are redolent of President Obama’s unhealthy attachment to lethal drones, which are killing too many innocents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and our spy agencies’ unhealthy attachment to indiscriminate surveillance.

Or maybe they recall that eerie “Twilight Zone” episode where a Brobdingnagian Agnes Moorehead fends off tiny spaceships with a big wooden stirrer — even though these flying machines would be dropping off the housewares.

Or maybe it’s because after “60 Minutes,” “Homeland” featured a story line about a drone both faulty and morally agnostic. The White House chief of staff, wanting to cover up a bolloxed-up covert operation on the Iraq-Iran border, suggested directing the drone to finish off its own agent, Brody.

“I will not order a strike on our own men,” the acting C.I.A. chief, played by Mandy Patinkin, replied sternly. “Hang it up.”

Or maybe I am leery that Bezos, who is also dabbling in space tourism, was looking for a Cyber Monday p.r. coup by playing to Americans’ ranker instincts, hooking our instant gratification society on ever more instant gratification. Do we really need that argyle sweater plopped in our hands in half an hour as opposed to the next day? What would Pope Francis say?

And won’t all the other alpha moguls want their own drone fleets? Howard Schultz will want to drop your half-caf, bone-dry, ristretto, venti, four-pump, sugar-free, cinnamon dolce, soy, skinny Starbucks latte on the front step at 7 a.m., and Tim Cook will want to deliver the latest Apple toys the soonest, and Disney’s Robert Iger will want his drones gussied up like Mary Poppins.

It will be interesting to watch The Washington Post cover new owner Bezos as he takes on the F.A.A. over drone regulations. The agency is drafting rules to let larger commercial drones and airlines share the sky, with an eye toward issuing licenses in 2015, but a handful of states are passing restrictions of their own.

Lobbying for private unmanned drones, Bezos will be aligned with the Motion Picture Association of America, which is working to get directors the right to use drones for aerial shots.

It’s a business taking flight. Experts say there may be as many as 30,000 unmanned private and government drones flying in this country by 2020, ratcheting drones into a $90 billion industry, generating 100,000 jobs. A degree in drone management can’t be far off.

Politico writes that the logistics of drone delivery will be dizzying: “It’s easy enough to drop a package on someone’s front steps, but what if the person lives in a fifth-floor apartment? Amazon wants to launch the service in large urban areas — could a drone collide with a skyscraper?”

Drones are less restricted abroad. Irish filmmaker Caroline Campbell used one to shoot film of Google and Facebook offices in Dublin, telling Wired, “We feel that it is no more intrusive than something like Google Street View.”

Journalists, police and paparazzi jumped on the drone trend. One photographer dispatched a drone over Tina Turner’s Lake Zurich estate to snap shots of her wedding last summer — before police ordered it grounded.

According to USA Today on Tuesday, all sorts of American businesses are eluding drone restrictions: real estate representatives are getting video of luxury properties; photographers are collecting footage of Hawaiian surfers; Western farmers are monitoring their land; Sonoma vintners are checking on how their grapes are faring. As Rem Rieder wryly noted in that paper, Bezos may eventually let his drones help with home delivery of The Washington Post, “but it’s bad news for kids on bikes.”

Law enforcement agencies are eager to get drones patrolling the beat. And The Wrap reported that in the upcoming Sony remake of “RoboCop,” Samuel L. Jackson’s character, a spokesman for a multinational conglomerate that has to manufacture a special RoboCop with a conscience for America (still traumatized by “The Terminator,” no doubt) scolds Americans for being “robophobic.”
3503  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: December 04, 2013, 07:40:34 AM
Answer to the following question is yes.  Half or more of the country will always hate it.  The group that will benefit will love it.  And eventually it will be patched up and we know for sure the Crats will go crazy on the airwaves brainwashing us as to how great it is.   So yes the Pubs need to be ready.  Will they?  History tells us no.

IMO Levin is correct about this too.  Waiting for AHA to collapse on itself is a major mistake.  The Crats won't let it.  It has to be appealed.

****Do Republicans need a Plan B on ObamaCare?

By Jon Terbush 7 hours ago The Week
 
John Boehner may need another playbook.
For years, Republicans have trotted out the same message: ObamaCare is a massive disaster, and the public knows it. And when Healthcare.gov crashed out of the starting gate, that message proved quite resonant.

Yet as ObamaCare begins to turn the corner, Democrats are going back on the offensive, touting the law's benefits and successes in hopes of boosting support for it — and the party — ahead of the 2014 elections. Republicans, meanwhile, have so far stood by the same critiques, betting that the law will still be seen as a failure come Election Day.

Which raises a thorny question for the GOP: What if ObamaCare works?

Undoubtedly, ObamaCare is now functioning better than it was in October. Though problems remain for the exchange site — the back end is still a mess, often sending bogus or incomplete information to insurers — enrollments are reportedly surging through both the federal and state-run marketplaces.

Good news in hand, the White House and congressional Democrats this week launched a campaign of daily pro-ObamaCare messaging to promote the law ahead of the Dec. 23 enrollment deadline for coverage that kicks in Jan. 1, 2014. Their goal is to present a "raw two-sided picture," according to Politico, with "Democrats delivering benefits on one side, and Republicans trying to deny them on the other."

"My main message today is: We're not going back," Obama declared in a reboot speech Tuesday.

If ObamaCare keeps improving, the GOP's "we told you ObamaCare was a mess" pitch could quickly wear thin. And if it does, Republicans will find themselves in need of a new argument or a legislative alternative.

So far, they don't really have either.

On the messaging front, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday repeated boilerplate GOP criticisms that the law was "fundamentally flawed," and that it "continues to wreak havoc on American families, small businesses, and our economy." Other GOP leaders similarly contended that the law was still a problem-plagued failure.

That the message hasn't changed despite ObamaCare's turnaround proves that "Republican complaints of two months ago were purely opportunistic," wrote Jamelle Bouie over at the Daily Beast.

"For them, it just doesn't matter if Healthcare.gov is working, since ObamaCare is destined to fail, reality be damned!" he added. "At most, the broken website was useful fodder for attacks on the administration. Now that it's made progress, the GOP will revert to its usual declarations that the Affordable Care Act is a hopeless disaster."

The GOP has also yet to offer a credible legislative alternative to ObamaCare. Though there are several Republican bills that would reform the health care system, they're generally considered suspect, and none have consensus support within the GOP. Boehner on Tuesday tellingly dodged a question about whether he would even bring up such a bill up for a vote, saying only, "We'll see."

Polls have shown that while voters aren't too keen on the health care law, they're willing to give it a chance. Indeed, the first few months of ObamaCare's disastrous rollout could be a distant memory once coverage and benefits kick in next year.

Which points to another problem for Republicans: Their anti-ObamaCare crusade will be tough to sustain once people begin to see the law's benefits in action. Mother Jones' Kevin Drum sussed out that point, writing, "Once the benefits of a new program start flowing, it's very, very hard to turn them off."

By the middle of 2014, ObamaCare is going to have a huge client base; it will be working pretty well; and it will be increasingly obvious that the disaster scenarios have been overblown…

Given all this, it's hard to see ObamaCare being a huge campaign winner. For that, you need people with grievances, and the GOP is unlikely to find them in large enough numbers. The currently covered will stay covered. Doctors and hospitals will be treating more patients. ObamaCare's taxes don't touch anyone with an income less than $200,000. Aside from the tea partiers who object on the usual abstract grounds that ObamaCare is a liberty-crushing Stalinesque takeover of the medical industry, it's going to be hard to gin up a huge amount of opposition. [Mother Jones]

Republicans have so far committed themselves to staunchly opposing ObamaCare no matter what, even producing a playbook for attacking the law from here to November 2014. But if ObamaCare continues to improve, the GOP might need to draw up a new play — or risk getting burned at the polls****
3504  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: December 03, 2013, 08:04:06 AM
GM,

It is only a depression to those people who are feeling and living the pain.  To guys like Wesbury it really is just a semantics game.

3505  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wow on: December 03, 2013, 08:01:29 AM
This is to me an unspeakable and unforgiveable outrage.  With all the threats and regulations we as providers of health care face with the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act (HIPPA) we now see this:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101225308   angry

Does this not speak to the dishonesty of this administration as well as many other examples?
3506  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / marijauna gossip reposted from health thread on: December 03, 2013, 07:54:22 AM

The Motley Fool

 5 Jaw-Dropping Facts About Legal Marijuana

By Brian Orelli  | More Articles 
November 30, 2013 | Comments (25) 

The legal use of marijuana for both medical use and adult recreational use is on the rise. Here are five facts that might just surprise you about the drug.

 Source: Chuck Coker, Flickr.

1. Marijuana could be the best-selling legal drug. Ever.
According to ArcView Market Research, the national market for legalized marijuana could hit $10.2 billion in five years. Pfizer's (NYSE: PFE  ) Lipitor currently holds the record for prescription drugs at about $13 billion. If ArcView's prediction is correct, it's not hard to see how marijuana could surpass that record in the following year. It's growing from a base of just $1.44 billion this year.

And unlike Pfizer, which saw Lipitor sales crash once generic versions hit the market, there isn't likely to be a cliff that causes sales to drop precipitously, short of having the federal government decide to crack down on state laws. Of course, unlike Lipitor, you can't invest in one company to capture all the revenue.

2. 14 states could join Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana for recreational use
In fact, that's one of the driving forces behind ArcView's growth prediction. The sentiment has shifted recently; a majority of Americans now favor legalization. If they vote the same way they answer poll questions, it's likely that we'll see many more states where marijuana use is legal in the coming five years.

The driving force for the states is the potential revenue from taxes. They want to get their cut, which they don't get on illegal sales now.

It'll be interesting to watch Colorado and Washington as they try to deal with how to tax what many consider to be a drug to help people -- which are typically not taxed -- compared with a recreational drug, which, like cigarettes and alcohol, are typically highly taxed.

3. The government sends out marijuana cigarettes each month
It's part of a study to see if marijuana could help patients with glaucoma. At its peak, there were 30 patients enrolled in the study, which stopped accepting new participants in 1992. Those still enrolled get sent their prescriptions from a special farm on the University of Mississippi campus that provides the drug for medical research.

4. Only 6% of studies on marijuana investigate its potential benefit.
According to CNN's Sanjay Gupta, the other 94% investigate its potential harm. The problem, as Gupta points out, is that it's very hard to run clinical trials on marijuana use since it's still illegal at the national level. While the University of Mississippi farm can provide the medication legally for studies, it's apparently not that all that easy to acquire medication from it.

Researchers also have to gain approval from the NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has a mission "to lead the nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for potential benefits of drugs.

5. The receptor that marijuana activates has been an (unsuccessful) drug target
Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, one of the active drugs in marijuana, is available as a prescription drug called Marinol, developed by Abbott's drug arm, now called AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV  ) , to stimulate appetite and control nausea and vomiting in patients taking chemotherapy. But the drug isn't widely used because it's absorbed by different people at different levels, making it hard to get the right dosage .

Sanofi (NYSE: SNY  ) tried to do the opposite and block the receptor, thus controlling appetite. While Sanofi's obesity drug, Acomplia, was fairly good at helping patients shed the pounds, it had psychiatric side effects including depression. The FDA never approved the drug, and Sanofi had to remove it from the market in Europe in 2008.

*************************************
My thoughts:  On #1   Best selling drug?  Who would grow it and sell it?

On #2  Kind of sad that the driving force for legalization is tax revenue.  Just another example how everything is money.  I guess one could make similar claims for gambling and prostitution where those are also legal.  Alcohol and maybe a sugar tax.  The latter suddenly could be labeled a vice.

On #3 I didn't know the government was sponsoring studies on use of marijuana for glaucoma.  It can lower intra-orbital pressures but my understanding is the affects were too erratic and there are so many better drugs that the use for this is dubious.  I met an eye doctor in Florida who got into trouble with the ATF for testing this.  He claimed they ruined his life and his wife eventually committed suicide over it.  I only know his side of the story.  This was about ten years ago.  He was in his seventies.

On # 4 Old drugs do make comebacks.  Gupta noted that most studies looked at the harms not the benefits.  Remember thalidomide?  The drug given to pregnant women in Europe that led to horrible birth defects?   Just the mere mention of it afterwards gave everyone the shivers.  Now it is a beneficial drug used for other diseases.
 
On # 5 The Sanofi drug did work to help people lose weight but then a suicide was reported and that was that in the US.  I don't know what the experience was in Europe since it was approved there and later taken off their market. 

I left the comments from some other readers here:

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.



Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 5:25 AM, VikingBear wrote:



Legalize everything.

Let the herd cull itself.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Kalamakuaikalani wrote:



Hard to take your article seriously when you title it "5 Jaw-Dropping Facts ....." & then subtitle number 1: 1. Marijuana could be the best-selling legal drug. Ever. ................... It's not a FACT if marijuana COULD BE. It either is or it isn't & THEN, that would be a FACT.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 8:53 PM, glenns45 wrote:



Controlled Substance Act of 1971 signed by a President who was forced to resign or be prosecuted. The DEA was created to make sure the right people were selling the Drugs and supporting the NWO. The Feds are the ones who bring in the drugs this is on public record do some research.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:23 PM, towolf2 wrote:



When it smacks somebody upside the chops, then you know what is a fact and what isn't. That's 35 years as a pro grower speaking. Say hey to The Duke for me!!




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:26 PM, towolf2 wrote:



Which part am I reading? The educated humorous enriching part, or is this the NASCAR Channel. Caught out again.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:53 PM, oldmutt1949 wrote:



5 other jaw breaking facts about marijuana.

1. It has 424 compounds that turns into over 2000 when lit.

2. Those 2000 compounds release numerous poisons including hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide.

3. French Academy of Science using the atomic microscope has shown long term use of marijuana can alter a person DNA ( Science Daily )

4. Total number of people killed in the drug war in Mexico, central and Latin America exceeds the number of U.S. casualties in VIet Nam.

5. A lot of hippies from my generation who smoked this polluted crap are no longer here.

And last but not least their isn't a single study that has confirmed that all the substances in marijuana are safe evident by he emergency rooms a In Denver and other cities kept busy treating kids poisoned by this stuff because their parents are so dumb down they can't provide their children a safe environment.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:59 PM, fixer wrote:



Hemp used to be such a valuable crop that in George Washington's time ,farms we're required to plant a percentage of their fields with hemp.The oil from the seeds was a good lamp oil and the fiber made strong cloth and rope.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:21 PM, southernhippy wrote:



Old mutt is lying his butt off, Just look at old willie Nelson to see the truth, Pot smoking does not affect your age. Off course old mutt is talking about smoking and not one work about eating.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:24 PM, junior wrote:



something else you forgot oldmutt1949, there was talk about leagalizing it in my state. Even if it does become legalized, we were told by the plant manager that if our random pee test revealed any THC we would still loose our job.

This is why I agree with Vikingbear. Let the herd cull itself. The job market may open up so that someday I can find a job where I can afford a pack of store bought cigarrettes




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:32 PM, southernhippy wrote:



BTW mutt lets add some other facts to that mix..

Pot smokers tend to be closer to normal weight...

Higher good cholesterol.

Also lets add the fact that smoking pot don't increase you chances of lung or any other cancer. Not to mention and numerous medical uses of MJ among those would be nausea, seizure control, pain management. So when do we decide when the good outweighs the bad? Almost every war on Pot argument has been debunked, when do you see anything other than hate?

BTW us hippies are alive and well living a great and healthy life style, after all it was us hippies who came up with the who vegetarian thing long before anyone else, peace out...




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:57 PM, imnxtc2001 wrote:



"evident by he emergency rooms a In Denver and other cities kept busy treating kids poisoned by this stuff" Yeah oldmutt, them hospital rooms are just packed with them pot smoking whippersnappers. Too funny! If you have any time between your naps and your shuffleboarding league, you can take a few minutes to look up that marijuana by itself equals the same amount of emergency room visits as OTC sleep medicine. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you may have been mistaken for synthetic marijuana which is extremely dangerous.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:57 PM, OldSkewel wrote:



Oldmutt1949 is NOT lying southernhippy. ANYONE with at least 1/2 a brain knows it is NOT natural OR healthy to take smoke of ANY kind into a healthy set of lungs.

What I find truly ironic is the very same people that use to jump all over big time tobacco companies and the dangers of smoking absolutely sound like hypocrites now touting the oh so many benefits of cannabis which EVERYONE knows the most popular form of use is the SMOKING thereof.

While we're on the subject of cannabis, somebody please remind me, isn't hashish addictive? What, basically; is hashish comprised of...?

As far as the economic impact is concerned, it WOULD make sense to legalize it but that's the ONLY reason and EVEN THEN, the economic benefits would be relatively short term compared to the devastating social and moral impact (especially considering America's children) that would no doubt occur as you just as well can take America's public education school system and pitch it out the window, not that it works that well now but can you imagine what would happen if "chronic" was legalized...?






Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:08 PM, imnxtc2001 wrote:



Just one more observation while I'm still laughing....I'm not perfect with punctuation or grammar, but someone that doesn't smoke marijuana telling me: "jaw breaking" instead of "jaw dropping"...."their" instead "there"....."he" instead of "the"....."a In" instead of just plain out "in" minus the "a" and capital "I".....Geez, I need to smoke a bowl to even make sense of your comment at all.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:09 PM, southernhippy wrote:



Odds of MJ addiction is the same as gambling, Pot has no chemical addiction. You also have the same chance of becoming a workaholic or any other habit that could be considered a bad or good life choice. Pot has been around for more than 10k years and has not stopped any progression of mankind. BTW CBD's that are found in pot are also anti-cancerous, also naturally lowers blood sugars and even can protect the brain in the event of a heart attack or stroke. BTW we are also talking about Eating the plant, y'all do know it's non-toxic and impossible to overdose on right? Y'all are just looking that that lovely drug free propaganda against a persons right to live as they chose too. BTW one other note, Pot does have 5 natural nero keyways in the brain that can open up nero pathways(hence why there is enhanced sight, smells, and creativity.) Pot is indeed a natural product the human mind knows very well. MJ has been demonized for decades for no real reason other than sobriety, nothing else.

I do agree on one Idea though, kids under 21 should not get access and should be treated like booze and advertising should be the same as tobacco when it comes to kids.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:21 PM, imnxtc2001 wrote:



Old Skewel: Is it natural or healthy to drive a car? But you do it anyways don't you? Your trip to the store tomorrow will produce more pollutants into EVERYBODYS air, than one pot smoker can produce in a year. btw....I don't know if you've been asleep the past 50 years, but kids in school(if they choose to)get pot just as easy now, as they would if it was legal and fell under same laws as tobacco. As far as hash...it is basically the same as marijuana, just made from different parts. And the same studies you got your information that it was addictive, are the same ones that say marijuana is also.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:36 PM, HMull81 wrote:



Let’s get a few things right:

First - the problem with legalizing any previously illegal substance isn’t a morally grounded issue; being that most of these substances are vices are not socially accepted when overly indulged anyway.

Second – look up some history and consider why hemp production was ground to a halt in the first place, I’ll give you a hint……

It wasn’t because pothead hippies were overrunning the world with their outrageous free love and open minded way of living, that didn’t come until the 60s.

It is all economic and taxation that has put at spin on what any generation finds acceptable.

It doesn’t matter if you are for or against the legalization of pot, it matters where it would lead to based off of the revenue gained cause face it, the government has stopped doing for the people a long time ago, and if you are current with what is popular; the Kim and Kanye saga get more press than real issues such as legalizing pot, gun law, government debt, and not to forget my favorite government shut down.

I know that if I quit working when I was a soldier in the U.S. Army there were consequences which usually ended with me in a bad kind of way.




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 12:05 AM, allykat7825 wrote:



This will be the first step in finishing off the Regan inspired War against drugs which has cost so many billions over the years. It put the lotteries to shame when the taxes are added up and make many more people happy. Add cocaine to the list and the cartels are a thing of the past, which should please oldmutt. Oldmutt is probably not as old as I am and despite rumors to the contrary, and what many others might think, I still have my wits about me. .




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 1:03 AM, Sniper2013 wrote:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf07aK_5004




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 2:05 AM, uniquelyNzaneSam wrote:



Where oldMutt1949 is investment advice?: anti-pesticidal controls against garden herbivores? Bet on that eliminates most carcinogens' category of compounds. Good alarm oldMutt about marijuana combustion: extreme diarrhea treatment on terminal illness cases will not intrest as much financial and mental risk as combustibles, crack and meth. Expect ascending physical medicine values from home-brewed tea-therapy thereby more versatile prescriptions flavorful hashish gel-capsuled and milligram-tweeked synthetically. Noncombusted eliminates psychological addiction injuring only nervous system like brain damages from psychotropic over-use.

>Behavioral health dermal patches prescribing "thc" will dominate nicotine futures into oblivion. Chemical, money lust, even commercialed availability are not the gateway drugs guaranteeing stupefied economics. Anti-faith religious propaganda misinterpretation-poisoning scorches your love into an emptying black-holes to drain away everyone&thing appreciable. Artificial counterfeits especially joy inducements cannot possibly satisfy longest-term spiritual-nature provisions. Will algebraic naturals ever displace monetary abstracts? Where oldMutt1949 is investment advice?: anti-pesticidal controls against garden herbivores? Bet on that eliminates most carcinogens' category of compounds. Good alarm oldMutt about marijuana combustion: extreme diarrhea treatment on terminal illness cases will not intrest as much financial and mental risk as combustibles, crack and meth. Expect ascending physical medicine values from home-brewed tea-therapy thereby more versatile prescriptions flavorful hashish gel-capsuled and milligram-tweeked synthetically. Noncombusted eliminates psychological addiction injuring only nervous system like brain damages from psychotropic over-use.

>Behavioral health dermal patches prescribing "thc" will dominate nicotine futures into oblivion. Chemical, money lust, even commercialed availability are not the gateway drugs guaranteeing stupefied economics. Anti-faith religious propaganda misinterpretation-poisoning scorches your love into an emptying black-holes to drain away everyone&thing appreciable. Artificial counterfeits especially joy inducements cannot possibly satisfy longest-term spiritual-nature provisions. Will algebraic naturals ever displace monetary abstracts? Someday Where oldMutt1949 is investment advice?: anti-pesticidal controls against garden herbivores? Bet on that eliminates most carcinogens' category of compounds. Good alarm oldMutt about marijuana combustion: extreme diarrhea treatment on terminal illness cases will not intrest as much financial and mental risk as combustibles, crack and meth. Expect ascending physical medicine values from home-brewed tea-therapy thereby more versatile prescriptions flavorful hashish gel-capsuled and milligram-tweeked synthetically. Noncombusted eliminates psychological addiction injuring only nervous system like brain damages from psychotropic over-use.

>Behavioral health dermal patches prescribing "thc" will dominate nicotine futures into oblivion. Chemical, money lust, even commercialed availability are not the gateway drugs guaranteeing stupefied economics. Anti-faith religious propaganda misinterpretation-poisoning scorches your love into an emptying black-holes to drain away everyone&thing appreciable. Artificial counterfeits especially joy inducements cannot possibly satisfy longest-term spiritual-nature provisions. Will algebraic naturals ever displace monetary abstracts? Perhaps after college graduations? How might one economically invest private citizen properties, hide them secure from theft, or accelerate prosperity to make defrauding obsolete?




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 2:50 AM, gareball wrote:



"Only 6% of studies on marijuana investigate its potential benefit.

According to CNN's Sanjay Gupta, the other 94% investigate its potential harm. The problem, as Gupta points out, is that it's very hard to run clinical trials on marijuana use since it's still illegal at the national level. While the University of Mississippi farm can provide the medication legally for studies, it's apparently not that all that easy to acquire medication from it".

If the FDA were to subject ANY drug from Big Pharma to the same skewed testing there wouldn't be a new drug on the market for decades. I'm betting that the drugs 'oldmutt' or 'Old Skewel' take to stay alive would never have passed such rigorous testing, and probably contain more virulent side effects than marijuana ever could.

Step into the 21st century, guys, and realize that it's time to put the idiotic and woefully expensive "war on drugs" to rest. It hasn't, and never will, work.

By the way 'old' fellas.....I'm 64 myself and have been a regular pot user for more than 45 of those years. I'm the picture of good health, thanks to a vegetarian diet, and will probably outlive both of you pot demonizers by a decade, at least. Oh, and 'Old Skewel', hashish IS NOT addictive, it's basically the resin from the marijuana flower and is nothing more than a more potent delivery device for THC. The sum total of what you anti-pot "experts" DON'T know is astounding. Then again, when you rely on anti-pot propaganda for your "facts" you're deliberately being fed a pack of lies designed to keep Big Pharma, the Liquor Lobby, and the 'for profit' prison system in customers for years to come. Try thinking for yourself, for once, and do the research so you'll be armed with REAL facts!


 

 
 
 
3507  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / end of privacy in football on: December 02, 2013, 08:07:41 AM
I guess it could be either electronic surveillance or possibly simply bribing insiders.   Maybe both.
Probably not new.  Just more obvious now.

*****Texans Allege ‘Fishy’ Adjustments By The Patriots

WILL GRUBB, Sports Radio 610

December 1, 2013 5:06 PM

Houston (CBS Houston) - The Texans defense struggled against Tom Brady and the Patriots. But then again, who doesn’t?

After the Texans 34-31 loss, defensive end Antonio Smith made it clear he thought Brady had a little extra help in carving up their defense to the tune of 365 passing yards.

“Either teams are spying on us or scouting us,” Smith said.

The nine-year veteran says the Texans added a new defensive wrinkle this week but the Patriots ’miraculously’  knew it was coming.

“It was just miraculous that they changed up some things that they did on offense that keyed on what we put in this week,” Smith said. “There’s no way. We have not did it ever (sic) before and they ain’t never changed it ever before so it was just kind of fishy.”

In 2007 the Patriots were involved in a scandal commonly know as ‘Spy Gate’ where Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team had to forfeit a first-round draft pick for secretly taping coaches and walkthroughs.

“(Brady) knew what we were doing.” linebacker Joe Mays said.

“It is a specific thing that was important to what we were going to do today that they did all year.” Smith added.

The Patriots deciding to spy on a 2-9 team a week after their biggest win of the season seems like a stretch. But if the allegations are proven true, it would certainly be a major scandal for a Patriots team gearing up for a playoff run.

Get in contact with Will Grubb on Twitter – @WillGrubbRadio – or on Facebook – Will Grubb.*****
3508  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / marijuana gossip on: December 02, 2013, 07:55:17 AM
The Motley Fool

 5 Jaw-Dropping Facts About Legal Marijuana

By Brian Orelli  | More Articles 
November 30, 2013 | Comments (25) 

The legal use of marijuana for both medical use and adult recreational use is on the rise. Here are five facts that might just surprise you about the drug.

 Source: Chuck Coker, Flickr.

1. Marijuana could be the best-selling legal drug. Ever.
According to ArcView Market Research, the national market for legalized marijuana could hit $10.2 billion in five years. Pfizer's (NYSE: PFE  ) Lipitor currently holds the record for prescription drugs at about $13 billion. If ArcView's prediction is correct, it's not hard to see how marijuana could surpass that record in the following year. It's growing from a base of just $1.44 billion this year.

And unlike Pfizer, which saw Lipitor sales crash once generic versions hit the market, there isn't likely to be a cliff that causes sales to drop precipitously, short of having the federal government decide to crack down on state laws. Of course, unlike Lipitor, you can't invest in one company to capture all the revenue.

2. 14 states could join Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana for recreational use
In fact, that's one of the driving forces behind ArcView's growth prediction. The sentiment has shifted recently; a majority of Americans now favor legalization. If they vote the same way they answer poll questions, it's likely that we'll see many more states where marijuana use is legal in the coming five years.

The driving force for the states is the potential revenue from taxes. They want to get their cut, which they don't get on illegal sales now.

It'll be interesting to watch Colorado and Washington as they try to deal with how to tax what many consider to be a drug to help people -- which are typically not taxed -- compared with a recreational drug, which, like cigarettes and alcohol, are typically highly taxed.

3. The government sends out marijuana cigarettes each month
It's part of a study to see if marijuana could help patients with glaucoma. At its peak, there were 30 patients enrolled in the study, which stopped accepting new participants in 1992. Those still enrolled get sent their prescriptions from a special farm on the University of Mississippi campus that provides the drug for medical research.

4. Only 6% of studies on marijuana investigate its potential benefit.
According to CNN's Sanjay Gupta, the other 94% investigate its potential harm. The problem, as Gupta points out, is that it's very hard to run clinical trials on marijuana use since it's still illegal at the national level. While the University of Mississippi farm can provide the medication legally for studies, it's apparently not that all that easy to acquire medication from it.

Researchers also have to gain approval from the NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has a mission "to lead the nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for potential benefits of drugs.

5. The receptor that marijuana activates has been an (unsuccessful) drug target
Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, one of the active drugs in marijuana, is available as a prescription drug called Marinol, developed by Abbott's drug arm, now called AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV  ) , to stimulate appetite and control nausea and vomiting in patients taking chemotherapy. But the drug isn't widely used because it's absorbed by different people at different levels, making it hard to get the right dosage .

Sanofi (NYSE: SNY  ) tried to do the opposite and block the receptor, thus controlling appetite. While Sanofi's obesity drug, Acomplia, was fairly good at helping patients shed the pounds, it had psychiatric side effects including depression. The FDA never approved the drug, and Sanofi had to remove it from the market in Europe in 2008.

*************************************
My thoughts:  On #1   Best selling drug?  Who would grow it and sell it?

On #2  Kind of sad that the driving force for legalization is tax revenue.  Just another example how everything is money.  I guess one could make similar claims for gambling and prostitution where those are also legal.  Alcohol and maybe a sugar tax.  The latter suddenly could be labeled a vice.

On #3 I didn't know the government was sponsoring studies on use of marijuana for glaucoma.  It can lower intra-orbital pressures but my understanding is the affects were too erratic and there are so many better drugs that the use for this is dubious.  I met an eye doctor in Florida who got into trouble with the ATF for testing this.  He claimed they ruined his life and his wife eventually committed suicide over it.  I only know his side of the story.  This was about ten years ago.  He was in his seventies.

On # 4 Old drugs do make comebacks.  Gupta noted that most studies looked at the harms not the benefits.  Remember thalidomide?  The drug given to pregnant women in Europe that led to horrible birth defects?   Just the mere mention of it afterwards gave everyone the shivers.  Now it is a beneficial drug used for other diseases.
 
On # 5 The Sanofi drug did work to help people lose weight but then a suicide was reported and that was that in the US.  I don't know what the experience was in Europe since it was approved there and later taken off their market. 

I left the comments from some other readers here:

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.



Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 5:25 AM, VikingBear wrote:



Legalize everything.

Let the herd cull itself.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Kalamakuaikalani wrote:



Hard to take your article seriously when you title it "5 Jaw-Dropping Facts ....." & then subtitle number 1: 1. Marijuana could be the best-selling legal drug. Ever. ................... It's not a FACT if marijuana COULD BE. It either is or it isn't & THEN, that would be a FACT.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 8:53 PM, glenns45 wrote:



Controlled Substance Act of 1971 signed by a President who was forced to resign or be prosecuted. The DEA was created to make sure the right people were selling the Drugs and supporting the NWO. The Feds are the ones who bring in the drugs this is on public record do some research.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:23 PM, towolf2 wrote:



When it smacks somebody upside the chops, then you know what is a fact and what isn't. That's 35 years as a pro grower speaking. Say hey to The Duke for me!!




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:26 PM, towolf2 wrote:



Which part am I reading? The educated humorous enriching part, or is this the NASCAR Channel. Caught out again.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:53 PM, oldmutt1949 wrote:



5 other jaw breaking facts about marijuana.

1. It has 424 compounds that turns into over 2000 when lit.

2. Those 2000 compounds release numerous poisons including hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide.

3. French Academy of Science using the atomic microscope has shown long term use of marijuana can alter a person DNA ( Science Daily )

4. Total number of people killed in the drug war in Mexico, central and Latin America exceeds the number of U.S. casualties in VIet Nam.

5. A lot of hippies from my generation who smoked this polluted crap are no longer here.

And last but not least their isn't a single study that has confirmed that all the substances in marijuana are safe evident by he emergency rooms a In Denver and other cities kept busy treating kids poisoned by this stuff because their parents are so dumb down they can't provide their children a safe environment.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 9:59 PM, fixer wrote:



Hemp used to be such a valuable crop that in George Washington's time ,farms we're required to plant a percentage of their fields with hemp.The oil from the seeds was a good lamp oil and the fiber made strong cloth and rope.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:21 PM, southernhippy wrote:



Old mutt is lying his butt off, Just look at old willie Nelson to see the truth, Pot smoking does not affect your age. Off course old mutt is talking about smoking and not one work about eating.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:24 PM, junior wrote:



something else you forgot oldmutt1949, there was talk about leagalizing it in my state. Even if it does become legalized, we were told by the plant manager that if our random pee test revealed any THC we would still loose our job.

This is why I agree with Vikingbear. Let the herd cull itself. The job market may open up so that someday I can find a job where I can afford a pack of store bought cigarrettes




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:32 PM, southernhippy wrote:



BTW mutt lets add some other facts to that mix..

Pot smokers tend to be closer to normal weight...

Higher good cholesterol.

Also lets add the fact that smoking pot don't increase you chances of lung or any other cancer. Not to mention and numerous medical uses of MJ among those would be nausea, seizure control, pain management. So when do we decide when the good outweighs the bad? Almost every war on Pot argument has been debunked, when do you see anything other than hate?

BTW us hippies are alive and well living a great and healthy life style, after all it was us hippies who came up with the who vegetarian thing long before anyone else, peace out...




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:57 PM, imnxtc2001 wrote:



"evident by he emergency rooms a In Denver and other cities kept busy treating kids poisoned by this stuff" Yeah oldmutt, them hospital rooms are just packed with them pot smoking whippersnappers. Too funny! If you have any time between your naps and your shuffleboarding league, you can take a few minutes to look up that marijuana by itself equals the same amount of emergency room visits as OTC sleep medicine. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you may have been mistaken for synthetic marijuana which is extremely dangerous.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 10:57 PM, OldSkewel wrote:



Oldmutt1949 is NOT lying southernhippy. ANYONE with at least 1/2 a brain knows it is NOT natural OR healthy to take smoke of ANY kind into a healthy set of lungs.

What I find truly ironic is the very same people that use to jump all over big time tobacco companies and the dangers of smoking absolutely sound like hypocrites now touting the oh so many benefits of cannabis which EVERYONE knows the most popular form of use is the SMOKING thereof.

While we're on the subject of cannabis, somebody please remind me, isn't hashish addictive? What, basically; is hashish comprised of...?

As far as the economic impact is concerned, it WOULD make sense to legalize it but that's the ONLY reason and EVEN THEN, the economic benefits would be relatively short term compared to the devastating social and moral impact (especially considering America's children) that would no doubt occur as you just as well can take America's public education school system and pitch it out the window, not that it works that well now but can you imagine what would happen if "chronic" was legalized...?






Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:08 PM, imnxtc2001 wrote:



Just one more observation while I'm still laughing....I'm not perfect with punctuation or grammar, but someone that doesn't smoke marijuana telling me: "jaw breaking" instead of "jaw dropping"...."their" instead "there"....."he" instead of "the"....."a In" instead of just plain out "in" minus the "a" and capital "I".....Geez, I need to smoke a bowl to even make sense of your comment at all.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:09 PM, southernhippy wrote:



Odds of MJ addiction is the same as gambling, Pot has no chemical addiction. You also have the same chance of becoming a workaholic or any other habit that could be considered a bad or good life choice. Pot has been around for more than 10k years and has not stopped any progression of mankind. BTW CBD's that are found in pot are also anti-cancerous, also naturally lowers blood sugars and even can protect the brain in the event of a heart attack or stroke. BTW we are also talking about Eating the plant, y'all do know it's non-toxic and impossible to overdose on right? Y'all are just looking that that lovely drug free propaganda against a persons right to live as they chose too. BTW one other note, Pot does have 5 natural nero keyways in the brain that can open up nero pathways(hence why there is enhanced sight, smells, and creativity.) Pot is indeed a natural product the human mind knows very well. MJ has been demonized for decades for no real reason other than sobriety, nothing else.

I do agree on one Idea though, kids under 21 should not get access and should be treated like booze and advertising should be the same as tobacco when it comes to kids.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:21 PM, imnxtc2001 wrote:



Old Skewel: Is it natural or healthy to drive a car? But you do it anyways don't you? Your trip to the store tomorrow will produce more pollutants into EVERYBODYS air, than one pot smoker can produce in a year. btw....I don't know if you've been asleep the past 50 years, but kids in school(if they choose to)get pot just as easy now, as they would if it was legal and fell under same laws as tobacco. As far as hash...it is basically the same as marijuana, just made from different parts. And the same studies you got your information that it was addictive, are the same ones that say marijuana is also.




Report this Comment On December 01, 2013, at 11:36 PM, HMull81 wrote:



Let’s get a few things right:

First - the problem with legalizing any previously illegal substance isn’t a morally grounded issue; being that most of these substances are vices are not socially accepted when overly indulged anyway.

Second – look up some history and consider why hemp production was ground to a halt in the first place, I’ll give you a hint……

It wasn’t because pothead hippies were overrunning the world with their outrageous free love and open minded way of living, that didn’t come until the 60s.

It is all economic and taxation that has put at spin on what any generation finds acceptable.

It doesn’t matter if you are for or against the legalization of pot, it matters where it would lead to based off of the revenue gained cause face it, the government has stopped doing for the people a long time ago, and if you are current with what is popular; the Kim and Kanye saga get more press than real issues such as legalizing pot, gun law, government debt, and not to forget my favorite government shut down.

I know that if I quit working when I was a soldier in the U.S. Army there were consequences which usually ended with me in a bad kind of way.




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 12:05 AM, allykat7825 wrote:



This will be the first step in finishing off the Regan inspired War against drugs which has cost so many billions over the years. It put the lotteries to shame when the taxes are added up and make many more people happy. Add cocaine to the list and the cartels are a thing of the past, which should please oldmutt. Oldmutt is probably not as old as I am and despite rumors to the contrary, and what many others might think, I still have my wits about me. .




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 1:03 AM, Sniper2013 wrote:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf07aK_5004




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 2:05 AM, uniquelyNzaneSam wrote:



Where oldMutt1949 is investment advice?: anti-pesticidal controls against garden herbivores? Bet on that eliminates most carcinogens' category of compounds. Good alarm oldMutt about marijuana combustion: extreme diarrhea treatment on terminal illness cases will not intrest as much financial and mental risk as combustibles, crack and meth. Expect ascending physical medicine values from home-brewed tea-therapy thereby more versatile prescriptions flavorful hashish gel-capsuled and milligram-tweeked synthetically. Noncombusted eliminates psychological addiction injuring only nervous system like brain damages from psychotropic over-use.

>Behavioral health dermal patches prescribing "thc" will dominate nicotine futures into oblivion. Chemical, money lust, even commercialed availability are not the gateway drugs guaranteeing stupefied economics. Anti-faith religious propaganda misinterpretation-poisoning scorches your love into an emptying black-holes to drain away everyone&thing appreciable. Artificial counterfeits especially joy inducements cannot possibly satisfy longest-term spiritual-nature provisions. Will algebraic naturals ever displace monetary abstracts? Where oldMutt1949 is investment advice?: anti-pesticidal controls against garden herbivores? Bet on that eliminates most carcinogens' category of compounds. Good alarm oldMutt about marijuana combustion: extreme diarrhea treatment on terminal illness cases will not intrest as much financial and mental risk as combustibles, crack and meth. Expect ascending physical medicine values from home-brewed tea-therapy thereby more versatile prescriptions flavorful hashish gel-capsuled and milligram-tweeked synthetically. Noncombusted eliminates psychological addiction injuring only nervous system like brain damages from psychotropic over-use.

>Behavioral health dermal patches prescribing "thc" will dominate nicotine futures into oblivion. Chemical, money lust, even commercialed availability are not the gateway drugs guaranteeing stupefied economics. Anti-faith religious propaganda misinterpretation-poisoning scorches your love into an emptying black-holes to drain away everyone&thing appreciable. Artificial counterfeits especially joy inducements cannot possibly satisfy longest-term spiritual-nature provisions. Will algebraic naturals ever displace monetary abstracts? Someday Where oldMutt1949 is investment advice?: anti-pesticidal controls against garden herbivores? Bet on that eliminates most carcinogens' category of compounds. Good alarm oldMutt about marijuana combustion: extreme diarrhea treatment on terminal illness cases will not intrest as much financial and mental risk as combustibles, crack and meth. Expect ascending physical medicine values from home-brewed tea-therapy thereby more versatile prescriptions flavorful hashish gel-capsuled and milligram-tweeked synthetically. Noncombusted eliminates psychological addiction injuring only nervous system like brain damages from psychotropic over-use.

>Behavioral health dermal patches prescribing "thc" will dominate nicotine futures into oblivion. Chemical, money lust, even commercialed availability are not the gateway drugs guaranteeing stupefied economics. Anti-faith religious propaganda misinterpretation-poisoning scorches your love into an emptying black-holes to drain away everyone&thing appreciable. Artificial counterfeits especially joy inducements cannot possibly satisfy longest-term spiritual-nature provisions. Will algebraic naturals ever displace monetary abstracts? Perhaps after college graduations? How might one economically invest private citizen properties, hide them secure from theft, or accelerate prosperity to make defrauding obsolete?




Report this Comment On December 02, 2013, at 2:50 AM, gareball wrote:



"Only 6% of studies on marijuana investigate its potential benefit.

According to CNN's Sanjay Gupta, the other 94% investigate its potential harm. The problem, as Gupta points out, is that it's very hard to run clinical trials on marijuana use since it's still illegal at the national level. While the University of Mississippi farm can provide the medication legally for studies, it's apparently not that all that easy to acquire medication from it".

If the FDA were to subject ANY drug from Big Pharma to the same skewed testing there wouldn't be a new drug on the market for decades. I'm betting that the drugs 'oldmutt' or 'Old Skewel' take to stay alive would never have passed such rigorous testing, and probably contain more virulent side effects than marijuana ever could.

Step into the 21st century, guys, and realize that it's time to put the idiotic and woefully expensive "war on drugs" to rest. It hasn't, and never will, work.

By the way 'old' fellas.....I'm 64 myself and have been a regular pot user for more than 45 of those years. I'm the picture of good health, thanks to a vegetarian diet, and will probably outlive both of you pot demonizers by a decade, at least. Oh, and 'Old Skewel', hashish IS NOT addictive, it's basically the resin from the marijuana flower and is nothing more than a more potent delivery device for THC. The sum total of what you anti-pot "experts" DON'T know is astounding. Then again, when you rely on anti-pot propaganda for your "facts" you're deliberately being fed a pack of lies designed to keep Big Pharma, the Liquor Lobby, and the 'for profit' prison system in customers for years to come. Try thinking for yourself, for once, and do the research so you'll be armed with REAL facts!

3509  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Time to prevent elderly from living too long? on: December 01, 2013, 09:36:57 PM
 shocked

My experience in medical care has brought me to the conclusion that care near the end of life does not have to be akin to an all out war fought to keep a patient alive till their last dying breath.   Alternative options such as palliative care or hospice care are ethical, valid, and most importantly humane options for many.   The key word is these must remain as OPTIONS that can be chosen, sampled, refused or changed  with the knowledge that the decision is never binding.   I still am convinced that medical science has as much capacity to reduce costs as well as increase them.  Just think how much death and disease will be prevented when we are better at curing a disease like Hepatitis C.  How about dementia or obesity?   People will live longer and mostly though not always better. 

***************Human Exceptionalism

Life and dignity with Wesley J. Smith.

Time to Prevent Elderly From Living Too Long?

By Wesley J. Smith

December 1, 2013 5:03 PM

Bioethicist Founding Father Daniel Callahan has long supported death panel health care rationing based on age. He has now weighed in against spending a lot on research to delay the aging process.

The transhumanists aren’t going to like this! From, “On Dying After Your Time:”

Even if anti-aging research could give us radically longer lives someday, though, should we even be seeking them? Regardless of what science makes possible, or what individual people want, aging is a public issue with social consequences, and these must be thought through.
Regardless of what science makes possible, or what individual people want, aging is a public issue with social consequences, and these must be thought through. Consider how dire the cost projections for Medicare already are. In 2010 more than 40 million Americans were over 65. In 2030 there will be slightly more than 72 million, and in 2050 more than 83 million. The Congressional Budget Office has projected a rise of Medicare expenditures to 5.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2038 from 3.5 percent today, a burden often declared unsustainable.

Contrary to the transhumanist eschatology, Callahan doesn’t believe that extending the length of lives will also mean extending their vitality. I tend to agree. But he doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches:

Modern medicine is very good at keeping elderly people with chronic diseases expensively alive. At 83, I’m a good example. I’m on oxygen at night for emphysema, and three years ago I needed a seven-hour emergency heart operation to save my life. Just 10 percent of the population — mainly the elderly — consumes about 80 percent of health care expenditures, primarily on expensive chronic illnesses and end-of-life costs. Historically, the longer lives that medical advances have given us have run exactly parallel to the increase in chronic illness and the explosion in costs. Can we possibly afford to live even longer — much less radically longer?

Callahan could have refused that expensive treatment. I don’t say he should have, but no one forced him to spend all that (presumably) public money on care.

He does ask a valid question, I think, about the wisdom of pouring resources into radical life-extending research (at least public money). However he also seems to assert that the elderly be somehow prevented from living longer (my emphasis):

We may properly hope that scientific advances help ensure, with ever greater reliability, that young people manage to become old people. We are not, however, obliged to help the old become indefinitely older. Indeed, our duty may be just the reverse: to let death have its day.

What does that mean? Some kind of Logan’s Run scenario?

Callahan isn’t that type. But he should have specified what he meant. As I read him, he seems to be proclaiming some kind of a moral duty of the elderly to die.

Or it could mean refusing efficacious medical care to the elderly that the younger would be able to obtain. In less genteel hands than Callahan’s, it could mean something even more insidious.

My, don’t those clouds on the horizon look dark?**********
3510  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / One poll that surveys US opinion of a government controlled health system on: December 01, 2013, 08:09:22 PM


http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/poll-gallup-healthcare-insurance/2013/11/25/id/538519
3511  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Warning. The following is obscene. on: December 01, 2013, 07:57:42 PM
I am not sure this is suitable for people with brains:

http://www.alternet.org/visions/noam-chomsky-america-hates-its-poor rolleyes
3512  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The war on the rule of law on: December 01, 2013, 06:11:27 PM
Mr. McCarthy certainly connects all the dots.

Obama is clearly on record as stating "single payer" total government controlled national health system is in his mind the best.

So are probably most if not all of the academic politburo members who are behind the present AHA.  Berwick for example is well known for admiring the British system.

I am not totally convinced the flawed AHA was part of scheme to insure its own failure thus creating the vacuum for the government statists to move in a fill the void as though they were rescuing us with a mandatory single national health system.

It certainly could be.  I just don't know if they are that clever.

I am not sure it would matter if this was preplanned or just bumbling.   

We know they will never stop till they get to their goal of total control over our lives.

One question I have.  I wonder how many Americans would be just fine if we do have a government only health system. 

Socialism, communism, fascism, are not dirty words anymore. 
 
3513  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / one of many economist articles on China on: November 30, 2013, 03:51:15 AM
Crossing a line in the sky

What China’s new air-defence zone over disputed islands says about its foreign policy
 Nov 30th 2013  | From the print edition

ACUTELY conscious that the emergence of new powers on the world stage has more often than not led to war, China’s leaders make much of their plans for a “peaceful rise”. But they often have an odd way of showing it. Take China’s declaration on November 23rd of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) above a stretch of the East China Sea that includes the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands, which it disputes with Japan. This was bound to create alarm in China’s own neighbourhood and tension in its relations with the incumbent superpower. So it calls into question the priority China really places on maintaining peace; or, perhaps, its skill in managing its rise without sparking conflict.

The declaration seemed contrary to at least three stated foreign-policy aims. First, China claims to aspire to a “new type of great-power relationship” with America. But the invocation of an ADIZ—elsewhere in the world a relic of the cold war—was almost bound to prompt some old-fashioned muscle-flexing in response. America quickly reaffirmed that, although it takes no position on who owns the islands, they are covered by its mutual-defence treaty with Japan. Nor did it take America long to test the threat contained in the ADIZ declaration of unspecified measures against aircraft entering the zone without following its procedures. On November 26th two American B-52 bombers based in Guam crossed the new zone without informing China. An American aircraft-carrier group was already in the area, ready for a joint exercise with Japan, simulating a defence of the country from attack.



All this came just ahead of a planned visit to China, Japan and South Korea in early December by America’s vice-president, Joe Biden, intended to reassure both China and America’s allies about America’s strategic “pivot” to Asia. Mr Biden is said to have a good rapport with Xi Jinping, China’s leader. Just as well.

Second, the ADIZ has done great damage to China’s fairly successful recent efforts to reassure its neighbours of the benevolence of its intentions. China and South Korea, for example, have been getting on well lately—helped in part by shared resentment of what they see as Japan’s refusal to confront the evils of its wartime past, and its intractability over territorial disputes. Yet the ADIZ, which also encroaches on areas claimed by South Korea, prompted the government in Seoul to express regret too. And it created a bone of contention with Taiwan, with which relations have steadily improved in recent years.





Both Mr Xi and Li Keqiang, the prime minister, made well-received tours in South-East Asia in October, drawing attention to their reliable presence at a time when Barack Obama had cancelled a trip. China’s importance as an economic partner overshadowed the disputes it has with four regional countries over the South China Sea. But the ADIZ to the north suggests it is only a matter of time before China feels able to enforce one there as well. That China’s new aircraft-carrier and other warships were this week headed for exercises in the South China Sea was a reminder that China claims almost the entire sea and is ready to bully rivals—notably, of late, the Philippines—that stand up to it.

Third, and most broadly, the assertiveness over the specks in the East China Sea makes a mockery of the 35-year-old policy adopted by Deng Xiaoping of “strategic patience” or “hiding one’s brilliance”—which implied concentrating on developing the economy before throwing China’s weight around. Yet more than ever, China needs a stable global environment. A Communist Party central-committee meeting earlier in November promised a series of ambitious but high-risk economic reforms.

So it is possible that the announcement of the ADIZ was a blunder, an ill-considered overreaction to Japan’s threat to shoot down unmanned aircraft entering its airspace. Chinese foreign policy has sometimes seemed unco-ordinated and oddly insensitive to the consequences of assertive nationalism. But in this case all the relevant arms of party and government were surely on board. And at the party meeting, Mr Xi seemed to have consolidated his own power over decision-making with the announcement of a new national-security council to take charge of the management of internal and external threats. Even so, China may have miscalculated in some ways: in including South Korean-claimed airspace, for example, or in including aircraft not just approaching China, but merely crossing its ADIZ; or perhaps in thinking that such a zone was enforceable at all.

Yet the ADIZ dovetails with China’s long-term strategy for the islands. Since Japan’s government “nationalised” three of them (buying them from a private owner) in September 2012, China has stepped up incursions in the sea and air around them. Having contested Japanese sovereignty over the islands for decades, it has set out to undermine Japan’s claim to exercise administrative control. The ADIZ is a natural extension of this.

On the way up

The aim is to cow Japan, knowing that its government is under pressure from business to improve ties with the country’s biggest market, and believing that, as China rises inexorably, Japan is in long-term decline. China also hopes, some Chinese scholars suggest, to raise the diplomatic and military cost to America of its alliance with Japan, partly by provoking Japan into belligerence of its own. Then America might exert pressure on its ally to meet China’s demand, which is deceptively reasonable: for Japan to concede that the status of the islands is disputed.

An even more fundamental explanation of China’s apparently reckless behaviour is that nothing in its commitment to a peaceful rise is meant to trump the safeguarding of its national sovereignty. Mr Xi emerged from the party’s meeting appearing all-powerful. But no Chinese leader can afford to look weak on an issue, such as the disputed islands, that China has framed as one of its own sovereignty. He will find it hard to back down.
3514  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: November 27, 2013, 07:40:38 AM
Mark Levin actually discussed this same topic on his radio show yesterday 11/26/13.  He agrees with me completely.  It can be downloaded from his website.

There are many computer programmers here who cannot find jobs and whose wages have been stagnant.  So we need endless immigrants to compete endlessly keeping wages low while cost of living keeps going up. 

That said, the real point is FINALLY we have a prominent Republican speaking to the unfair power of the extreme wealthy.  We are all for people to become wealthy.  I am.  I wish I was one.  But when they then start getting benefits the rest of us don't that they use to tell the rest of us what to do and setting policy for their own ends, then we have a problem.  That is what the phrase "1% ers" is about.  Finally s few Repubs speaking about this.  I believe if more did then we would win by a landslide.
3515  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "tweaking" - our lives on: November 27, 2013, 07:36:55 AM
More from the technocrat elites.  So we know that reducing the speed limit would save lives just by lowering the speed limit to a total crawl?  So now we make a city of several million slow down even more because statistically we might save some lives.  Why not get rid of all the cars?   Then the 98 % would be 100%?  Why do they decide when where how much?   Again the liberals making everyone suffer for some haze stats.  No one should ever die (except when they approve - death panels).  Every single thing must be studied and data has not become basis of all our laws, how we must live our lives.  It will NEVER end.  First the world has to give into delayed red lights.  Then we have the disability thing that inconveniences 98 % for the few.  Now millions must slow down for a relative tiny theoretical gain.   No end.   There really is no compromise. 

****Council Working to Reduce Speed Limit on City Streets

By Jill Colvin 11/26 4:03pm

The New York City Council hopes to pass legislation that would reduce the speed limit on most residential and side streets to 20 miles per hour, Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced today.

“We are actively working on that bill and our goal is to pass it before the end of the year,” Ms. Quinn said during an unrelated press conference this afternoon before the month’s final council meeting. “We’re actively working on it right now.”

The bill, introduced by Councilman David Greenfield, is aimed at reducing serous pedestrian injuries and traffic fatalities. Last year, 148 pedestrians were killed in traffic accidents and crashes.

“We are working to fine-tune this life-saving legislation that will slow down automobiles on narrow residential streets. I am hopeful that we can get consensus on this important legislation, which will literally save lives once it is enacted here in New York City,” he said in response to the speaker’s comments.

But there are complications. The city’s Department of Transportation has argued the proposal would conflict with state law, which only allows limits that low if other traffic-calming devices are used. Last Friday, Councilman Jimmy Vacca, chair of the council’s transportation committee, told WNYC the bill was being “tweaked a little bit” and that members were “aiming for 25 miles per hour on narrow, one-way streets.”

Currently, the speed limit on most city streets is 30 miles per hour, unless otherwise posted. The new regulations would be a boon to advocates–including those who installed their own 20-mile limit signs in Park Slope this week–but have drawn grumbles from some drivers who feel the city’s notoriously gridlocked streets are slow enough.

According to the group Transportation Alternatives, pedestrians have an 80 percent chance of surviving being hit by a car traveling 30 miles per hour and a 98 percent chance of survival if the car is traveling 20 miles per hour.

The measure is just the latest of several recent efforts aimed at making streets safer for pedestrians. Later today, the council is expected to pass another bill, introduced by Councilwoman Debi Rose, aimed at slowing speeds near public and private schools. The rules would require the city to install speed humps near at least 50 schools.

“Speeding is the number one cause of deadly crashes in New York City and we must do everything we can to prevent fatalities,” Mr. Quinn said in a statement touting Mr. Rose’s bill.

A spokeswoman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not immediately comment on whether the mayor supports the bill.


Follow Jill Colvin on Twitter or via RSS. jcolvin@observer.com****
3516  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I cannot believe it on: November 25, 2013, 11:22:06 PM
For possibly the first time ever - I agree and appreciate Chuck Schumer's comments:

"The disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.).

I hope it isn't the last time he stands up.  We will see.  Will Hillary jump in and pretend to be Israel' savior?

Iran leaders have concluded what we on this board concluded over a year ago, if not over two years ago. 

Obama has already decided to let Iran go nuclear with a "containment" strategy.   He played Netanyahu for a sucker.  He had to "contain" Israel first.
If we could see it certainly the mullahs were laughing all the way to uranium mine.


3517  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes! on: November 25, 2013, 11:05:03 PM
This is what I want to hear from Republicans.  This is what most of America wants.   We don't need the bums in DC or the bums in academia who are the technocrat communists telling us who to let into OUR country.  And the masses don't want to hear Freaking CEOS of big corporations running their political mouths off about how we need more immigrants to fill their coffers with low waged positions.   We, the people decide who comes here God Damn it!  Millions of Americans are unemployed and we have these big companies sending jobs overseas and demanding more immigrants come here to compete and drive down wages even more.  How about we get rid of 50% disability and unemployment and these  same big shots hire and train some of them.

We cannot keep bringing them on in.  We are displacing our own.

Now finally a Republican speaks up for Americans and tells the Google Microsoft Facebook GE oligarchs to shut up.  He is not their tool.  He was elected by us, not them, to serve us, not them.   That is the ticket for '16 folks.  The very first time I hear a Repub say what I have been saying for months if not years.  

If we don't want a country that is 50% on the dole - we cannot have a country controlled by 5%.  The 5% cannot get special privileges.  Those on the dole cannot get special benefits.  They ALL, top and bottom must play by the same rules.

We lower taxes but they don't get all the breaks most cannot get.  Fair and square from bottom to the very top.
The Republicans must shed the party of the rich image. They are the party for all Americans.

grin grin

Go Jeff, the MAN:

*****Sen. Sessions slams Obama, CEOs on immigration

3:51 PM 11/25/2013

Neil Munro
White House Correspondent

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions wants wealthy CEOs to butt out of immigration policy.

“America is not an oligarchy… A Republic must answer to the people,” Sessions said today, in a direct response to President Barack Obama’s latest effort to get wealthy California CEOs to increase their support for his unpopular push for increased immigration.

“Congressional leaders must forcefully reject the notion, evidently accepted by the president, that a small cadre of CEOs can tailor the nation’s entire immigration policy to suit their narrow interests,” Sessions declared in a populist statement that contradicts the media’s image of Republican coziness with CEOs.

Sessions’ statement was released shortly before Obama used a San Francisco speech to ask friendly high-tech CEOs in California to revive his failing effort to pass an immigration-boosting bill.

The bill has been blocked by top GOP leaders in the House, who are trying to balance donors’ demands for more workers with voters’ demands for more jobs.

Obama has been working with top CEOs since summer to push the Senate’s immigration expansion that would welcome 30 million immigrants, plus millions of temporary guest workers, over the next decade.

That influx would import roughly one immigrant or guest-worker for every American aged 11 to 21, or one immigrant for every American teenager in 2012. Current law allows 1 million immigrants and 700,000 guest workers to enter the country each year.

The push is being supported by numerous billionaires, including New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Fox News’ Rupert Murdoch and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.

Since 2007, progressive and business groups have spent more than $1.5 billion on advocacy and lobbying to pass an immigration bill, despite massive unemployment, stalled salaries and negative polls. Other business groups have been pressured by the federal government and progressives to provide rhetorical support for the push.

Obama’s alliance with the wealthy CEOs is mutually beneficial. The CEOs would gain because high immigration will lower many Americans’ salaries and boost shareholders’ value. Progressives would gain a lock on political power once immigration boosts the number of government-dependent voters.

Sessions, however, is working alongside various U.S. groups to raise Americans’ wages by lowering immigration.

Polls shows Sessions’ populist low-immigration, high-wage pitch is popular, but his allies have far less less money or media coverage than Obama and his allies.

On Nov. 21, Sessions held a press conference in D.C. with Americans4Work, where he slammed CEOs who demand more immigrants.

“These business people do not get to set the [immigration] policy for the United States of America. They do not represent the United States of America, they represent their special interests… [and] I represent 4 million Alabamians and 300 million Americans,” Sessions said.

Sessions was backed up by Jan Ting, a law professor at Temple University, who told the conference that the current high-immigration, low-wage economy is “Blade Runner with food stamps.”

“Blade Runner” is a 1982 science-fiction movie in which most Americans are jobless and trapped in a violent, poverty-stricken nation.

After two decade of low-skill and high-skill immigration, California’s middle class is shrinking, and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is expanding.

The Americans4Work group has no “anger or animosity towards any immigrant,” said Thomas Broadwater, the group’s president. “Instead, we are fiercely and passionately pro-American.” The group gets no donations from business.

But Sessions acknowledged that many senators echo industry’s talking points when they’re asked by Americans about the issue.

“So many of my colleagues in the Senate, when they’re out campaigning, when they’re asked about immigration, without much thought, they say things like ‘I believe in immigrants, we’re a nation of immigrants, we’ve got to end this lawlessness, and I‘m for fixing the fence and the border, but really, we need more immigrants,’” Sessions said.

“They have not thought through the implications of the economic condition of America at this time,” Sessions told the press conference.

“The fundamental question we need to talk about is what would be the right [level] of immigrants.. [and] who it is we should give priority to,” he said.

“We’re a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation… [and] we have a responsibility, a moral duty, to our citizens, to make their lives better, and we’re not doing a very good job,” Sessions said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/25/sen-sessions-slams-obama-ceos-on-immigration/#ixzz2livunNrF*****
3518  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / bronx 1848 on: November 23, 2013, 10:18:13 PM
thought to be oldest photo of house in NYC.  1848.
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/11/16/behold_the_oldest_photo_ever_taken_of_new_york_city.php
3519  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination. on: November 23, 2013, 09:25:43 PM
Maybe the leaders of Iran and Israel and Saudi Arabia can form a band.  How about a middle east rap gang?   They can curse each other out with rap lyrics.  Someone I know can write them and maybe win a Noble Peace Prize.
3520  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: November 23, 2013, 09:19:17 PM
CD,

I can't get to article.

Can you post the article itself?
3521  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 22, 2013, 11:00:25 AM
In response, to Doug and Crafty on Cruz and Rubio and Cristie...

I actually like Jindal though we noted how poor his performance of the State of the Union rebuttal a couple of years ago was .

But he might get better.   If Cruz is as smart as reported he could improve.   As for Paul he lacks something.  He is just to clinical for me.  He seems like a one trick guy.  The debt the debt the debt.  True as to its paramount importance but He can't seem to appeal beyond that.   Yes he went to a Black College and was given a little credit for trying.  His presentation to them was less than what even I could have done.

Rubio is very good.  But he has to figure out how to deal with ruthless Democrats.  Like obnoxious Schumer who stated he was "fond" of Rubio in a subtle condescending put down.  (like he was speaking of his grandson).

3522  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / from the history thread with '16 comparison on: November 22, 2013, 10:51:51 AM
BTW,

Dick's radio show is excellent.   I am not sure if it is national.  He pissed me off with his dead wrong prediction for the '12 election.  Yet he is extraordinarily insightful and does have very interesting talking points which I do not see or hear anywhere else.   I think we should continue to listen to him.

Interesting history lesson on how Truman got elected.  The democrats today are going to try the EXACT same strategy.   Balkanize the country pull on female heart strings, play up the rights issue for Latinos Gays and all the rest.  Then pass as many bills in the Senate.  Maybe as Harkin calls change the rules to all legislation in the Senate, then sit back and call Congress the "do nothing Congress" as the economy flounders.   All the while The grafter Clinton crew will be all over the media map drumming into our heads like the mediocre pop songs today over and over again how she is for getting things done and working with the other side.   Bill will be out there reminding us how the economy was better (thanks to a boom in tech - all which crashed just months after he left) and how he crossed the aisle to fix Medicaid (he was kicking and screaming and did so only when the polls instructed him to).

Perhaps the Truman '48 election is the going to be redacted in '16.   I am also going to post this on the 2016 thread where I think the analogy is quite strong.
3523  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: American History on: November 22, 2013, 10:49:51 AM
BTW,

Dick's radio show is excellent.   I am not sure if it is national.  He pissed me off with his dead wrong prediction for the '12 election.  Yet he is extraordinarily insightful and does have very interesting talking points which I do not see or hear anywhere else.   I think we should continue to listen to him.

Interesting history lesson on how Truman got elected.  The democrats today are going to try the EXACT same strategy.   Balkanize the country pull on female heart strings, play up the rights issue for Latinos Gays and all the rest.  Then pass as many bills in the Senate.  Maybe as Harkin calls change the rules to all legislation in the Senate, then sit back and call Congress the "do nothing Congress" as the economy flounders.   All the while The grafter Clinton crew will be all over the media map drumming into our heads like the mediocre pop songs today over and over again how she is for getting things done and working with the other side.   Bill will be out there reminding us how the economy was better (thanks to a boom in tech - all which crashed just months after he left) and how he crossed the aisle to fix Medicaid (he was kicking and screaming and did so only when the polls instructed him to).

Perhaps the Truman '48 election is the going to be redacted in '16.   I am also going to post this on the 2016 thread where I think the analogy is quite strong.
3524  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / third post on: November 22, 2013, 01:20:43 AM
Two amazing photos.  One the first known action battle photo ; 1870  I presume during the Franco Prussian war.  To the right is one soldier apparently at the moment he is shot.

Another photo from 1847 showing American troops in Mexico.

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/06/12/how-early-photographers-captured-historys-first-images-of-war/

Now we see war and death in our living rooms all the time.
3525  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / second post on this thread on: November 22, 2013, 01:12:18 AM
Some interesting photos circa Mexican-American War 1847.  The bottom one is reportedly the burial site of Henry Clay's son killed in the war 1847 age 36.  He served a term in Congress from Kentucky:

http://www.cartermuseum.org/interact/notes-from-underground/photo-of-the-week-mexican-american-war
3526  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / The original Alaskan gold rush on: November 21, 2013, 10:36:47 PM
http://klondike-history.discovery.com/?__utma=17607724.1495179485.1385094074.1385094074.1385094074.1&__utmb=17607724.11.9.1385094240646&__utmc=17607724&__utmx=-&__utmz=17607724.1385094074.1.1.utmcsr=yahoo|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=discover%20channel&__utmv=-&__utmk=49219558#chapter2
3527  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A different view of dirty Harry's move on: November 21, 2013, 07:49:35 PM
Just as I figured.  The charts on CNN are part of the Democratic propaganda machine trying to convince that the Republicans are unprecedented in their obstructionism.
I was looking for a Conservative take and this so far fits the bill.  MSM cannot be trusted.  Reid's move is all about the Dems prospects for '14 having gone down in the last few weeks:

*****Are Republicans really blocking Obama’s judicial nominees at ‘unprecedented’ levels?

By Eric Pfeiffer 1 hour ago
    
President Obama addresses the nuclear option during a news conference on Thursday (AP)

When  President Obama gave his blessing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to invoke the so-called “nuclear option,”  he said the effort by Republicans to block his nominees was “unprecedented.”

"Today's pattern of obstruction, it just isn't normal," Obama said. "I support the step a majority of senators today took to change the way that Washington is doing business."

However, that’s only partially true.

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal. But when it comes to judicial nominees – the process that sparked Senate Democrats to approve the nuclear option on Thursday – he’s really just suffering from a historically negative trend going back more than two decades.

According to congressional data, former President George W. Bush actually had a lower percentage of circuit court nominees approved during his time in office than Obama.

And when it comes to the amount of time it takes for circuit court nominees to get approved, Bush and Obama are actually in surprisingly close company, with Bush fairing slightly worse. (See chart)

Obstruction of judicial nominees first became a regular practice during President Clinton’s time in office, and the amount of time it takes for a nominee to be approved skyrocketed during George W. Bush’s presidency.

According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.

President Obama also didn't fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved.

Interestingly, H.W. Bush is the only president during this period who had fewer court vacancies at the end of his first term than he did at the beginning. However, Obama is the only president who suffered an increased vacancy during his first term without more court positions being created.

But in recent years, it’s the amount of time it takes to get a nominee approved where the most radical change has taken place.

For example, during Reagan’s first term, it only took 45.5 days for one of his nominees to get approved. That number escalated only marginally over the next 20 years. But by the time George W. Bush was in office, the number skyrocketed to 277 days. Obama has fared slightly better than Bush, with his nominees taking 225.5 days to get approved. But historically speaking, it’s still a severe departure from most presidencies.

Obama’s district court nominees have also suffered from extended confirmation delays. Again, Reagan’s nominees breezed through, with just a 28-day waiting period during his first term, compared with 215 days for Obama.

So, at the end of the day, Obama’s experience may not be quite as unique as he wants the public to believe. But if the nuclear option does reverse the historical trend of obstruction, it’s a move that future presidents, both Republican and Democrat, will likely be thankful for.*****
3528  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Militarization of local police department. on: November 21, 2013, 07:14:33 PM
I guess this thread is as good as any.  I couldn't find a law enforcement thread and it doesn't quite fit under military issues:

http://www.belgrade-news.com/opinion/columnists/john_w_whitehead/article_f21c8780-515d-11e3-9f97-001a4bcf887a.html#user-comment-area
3529  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: November 21, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
CNN today had there guests on.  Tobin and the WH correspondent.  The latter, I cannot think of his name was claiming Reid did this because too many Obama judicial nominees were being blocked and of course they proceed to show charts that it is far more than in previous Presidents.

It seems more than coincidence that Reid does this NOW just as the Dems political fortunes have dropped since the Obamacare debacle.

Got to ram through as many liberals into the Fed Court system as possible in case they lose.  It always seems like the Dems are the ones to elevate the dirty nature of the fighting.

How many filibusters have there been all together not just judicial nominees?
3530  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 20, 2013, 09:29:54 PM
I have a dream.

The mainstream Republicans - the half asses - actually get behind someone like, well, Cruz.  And instead of tearing him down they start pile driving timbers as groundwork under him behind the scenes.

Work with him; groom him; he could be our chosen spokesperson. 

But alas I turn on the tube and I see Rove.  I hear Jeb Bush.  I hear the ridiculous nonsense about Christie (who could be more selfish then Clinton).  (At least Clinton was more or less a dedicated Democrat - what has Christie done for Republicans?).  These guys are not the answer.   What great ideas has Bush ever come up with?   Christie is not a big idea guy.
3531  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ - beware on: November 20, 2013, 09:18:55 PM
"The country needs a new national strategy for a viable future—a coherent set of ambitious goals that will serve, as John F. Kennedy said in announcing the race to the moon, to "organize and measure the best of our energies and skills."

Well we have had a turn towards fascist style socialism.   What do our Wall Street friends from the WSJ now have in mind for us?

Now that many of them have been bailed out?

Tell us Mr. Galston.  What is the strategy?

"Unless immigration increases dramatically, the U.S. workforce will expand only one-quarter as fast as it did in recent decades."

More immigrants?  to fuel the work force?  and cheap labor for you guys?   and more competition to drive/keep wages down even more for the majority that are not employers?

Sounds like my politics of health care post noting Ezeikel Emanuel getting on his soap box calling for a gloried setting of goals for our health care future.

We kind of had that too.  Free health care, or cheaper, better quality and everyone is covered.  Sounds great huh?

Levin was discussing Paul Gigot interviewing Paul Ryan and basically asking him about another government shutdown.  Gigot did it in a very MSNBC way.  Something like, how are you going to prevent another shutdown......  As Levin pointed out, the WSJ is all about Wall Street.  The rest of us can go grovel.

I think he is right. 

3532  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: November 20, 2013, 08:50:34 PM
"If we investigate, subpoena evidence and compel testimony on the rest of these irregularities, we will find the 'Nixon tapes and much worse."

How can "we" do this?
3533  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: November 20, 2013, 07:22:33 AM
Rush reminded us he predicted the unemployment rate would magically dip below 8 well before the election.  In fact I remember him saying this.  I doubt that there was not one listener who did not agree with his prediction.  I also doubt there was not one listener who also did not agree with his insinuation that the "books would be cooked" to achieve this "magical" number.

The MSM is silent. 

"oh these are career government officials"

as though their integrity and honesty is above reproach.

Unfortunately there are no Nixon tapes of Obama and/or his henchman Axelrod  to be discovered.

I guess only then could we speak of impeachment.  Like the mafia.   It is hard to connect the evidence to the masterminds pulling the strings.
3534  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: November 19, 2013, 06:48:26 PM
Dick Morris called Clinton's comment a "brilliant political" move.   
I am not so sure.  Someone else pointed out that such a public criticism is walking a tight rope for the Clintons.
Hopefully Bill will do for Hillary in '16 what his big fat mouth did for her in '08. 
Remember this?  The MSM seems to ignore history but it precisely this that cost Hillary the primary against the ONE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNkYDHUsQOM
3535  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: November 19, 2013, 06:33:19 PM
Your right of course.  But,

it is not the lies that will undue Brock full of crock.
It is only when more of us get hit in the wallet then get checks that will make the difference.

I guess we are seeing this now with the drop in poll numbers with the AHA thing.  Now and only now. 

Unfortunately, truth and honesty doesn't seem to mean as much these days.

IF it did we wouldn't even be listening to Bill Clinton.  Yet we have to hear his opinion on the MSM to this day.

3536  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politically (In)correct on: November 19, 2013, 09:28:07 AM
Just saw my South African niece yesterday.  She was married to my nephew for several yrs.  Had to fight to get her green card, hire an immigration attorney and only recently gained citizenship.  Interestingly she has dual citizenship (not recognized but the US).   I asked her if she considers herself "African American".  She said she is.  But she doesn't use that label.  She knew of another white African who used that on an application and literally got into big trouble for "falsifying" and trying to get a break for being a minority.

I think he should hire a lawyer and bring this up to the Supreme Court.   I wonder if he could find one who would do it for the publicity and the political statement it would make.

If only she were Latino.  Then she could claim "how dare anyone question my being here you bigot!". 
3537  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: November 19, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
I was trying to post an article from Journal Of American Medical Association but I cannot do it since I am not technically a member.  I get their journal sent to me for free because I am on some sort of list.

It is Donald Berwick the lead politburo guy who was the lead shover of this monstrosity down all out throats complaining about the politics involved (how dare the phrase "death panels").   There are other articles as well from politburo.  Not as bitter and obnoxious as well.  Emanuel with another one suggesting we need a leader who announces something akin to JFKs we will be on the moon in 10 yrs. or perhaps Nixon's war on cancer etc.  but suggesting we apply the same unified goal of fixing health care.  I am not adverse to this in theory but I don't want it being a gigantic politburo led government take over of 1/6 of our economy.

I wish their articles in the med journals were posted to public forums. 

They are mostly (not all) Columbia types.  All the professor elites who are smarter wiser nicer more humane then the rest of humanity. 
3538  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: November 17, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
As long as Dems can keep offering 51% of voters more Christmas or Hannukah gifts the issue of honesty is only a secondary issue.

I guess the Republicans will have to convince 51% that they are the one's paying for the gifts.  Not receiving them.   It is sad this is what it has come down to.

Hillary is going to use the "women's" angle like a battering ram.
3539  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: November 17, 2013, 05:41:10 PM
The part annoying to me is AHA was not a problem with any of these people who thought it would others who would have to pick up the tab.  You know.  Soak the "rich".   No problem taking money from some to give to them.  Now that they are going to have to pay more, and only now, it is a problem.  It is not the lying.  It is now they are adversely affected:

****Breitbart Logo

17 Nov 2013, 10:07 AM PDT  39  post a comment 

Campus Reform: Students at Bowie State University assailed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on Thursday after administrators cancelled a low cost school-wide health care plan due to new regulations in the law. Many students told Campus Reform that the now cancelled plans, which provided coverage for just $50 per semester, were the only insurance they could afford.

 "I can't afford anything right now," one said. "I can't even afford my loans."

 "We don't have that money," said another. "We can barely afford books."

 Several students said that they felt they had been let down.

 "It's stupid and it's Obama's fault," one said. "You haven't done anything, Obama, and I'm disappointed in you."

 "What it was hyped up to be, was that it was supposed to solve a lot of problems and help a lot of people, and its not really doing that," said another.

 Many students had no idea the plans had been canceled, which was announced only in an email to their school addresses.

 In a statement to Campus Reform, Bowie State said it was confident that Obamacare would fill the void left by the canceled plans.

 "Most students are now able to be covered under their parent’s health plans up to age 26 at no additional cost and new affordable coverage is becoming available through the Maryland State Insurance Exchange System," it read.

 Campus Reform conducted the interviews with student Eugene Craig III, who first wrote about canceled plans in an article in the school's alternative newspaper, The Bulldog Collegian. ****
3540  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: November 17, 2013, 02:17:44 PM
Why do I have to supplement their education?  I know a lot of New Jerseyens feel the same way.  No one ever asks us.   Just shoved down our throats by politicians bribing for votes and a Democrat party looking for power.  Always at my expense.  And how dare anyone use the phrase "anchor baby".  How dare we? huh

N.J. bill to offer in-state tuition, financial aid to immigrants in the country illegally gains momentum

DREAM_act_photo.JPG

Giancarlo Tello, an undocumented immigrant who came to New Jersey from Peru with his parents at age 6, pays out-of-state tuition at Rutgers-Newark. Tello, the campaign chair for New Jersey United Students' Tuition Equity for DREAMers, today joined advocates to push for a bill to offer in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants who went to high school in New Jersey. (Matt Friedman/The Star-Ledger) (Matt Friedman/The Star-Ledger)

Matt Friedman/The Star-Ledger By  Matt Friedman/The Star-Ledger   
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on November 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, updated November 17, 2013 at 7:50 AM

TRENTON — After a decade-long effort by advocates, a bill that would charge in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants who grew up in New Jersey appears well on its way to landing on the governor’s desk.

The state Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee today voted eight to three with one abstention to approve the measure (S2479), which advocates say will affect tens of thousands of New Jersey residents.

“This community has waited long enough. Let’s not look for excuses to say no. Let’s look for reasons to say yes,” said Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who has lent his name to the bill as a prime sponsor.

The bill now heads for a vote in the full Senate on Monday, where it’s expected to pass. Assembly leaders say they expect to pass it soon as well.

Under the bill, undocumented immigrants who attended high school in New Jersey for three or more years, graduated, and filed an affidavit saying they plan to legalize their immigration status as soon as legally possible would be able to get lower in-state tuition rates at New Jersey’s public colleges and universities.

The undocumented immigrant students would also be eligible for state financial aid under the Senate version of the bill. Incoming Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson), a Cuban immigrant, said today that he expects the Assembly version will incorporate that aspect — which had been part of a separate bill —as well.

Advocates said it doesn’t make sense for the state to provide K-12 education to undocumented students — which federal law requires — and then refuse to treat them the same as citizens once they graduate.

“After having educated these students from kindergarten through twelfth grade, what purpose does it serve to penalize them by not allowing them to better themselves?” said Frank Argote-Freyre, president of the Latino Action Network.

In-state tuition is available to undocumented immigrants in 16 other states.

Giancarlo Tello, 23, immigrated to New Jersey from Peru when he was six years old. He didn’t find out he was undocumented until his sophomore year in high school, when his mother told him he could not apply for a driver’s license. Now, he attends Rutgers-Newark part-time and pays out-of-state tuition.

“If you consider me a fellow resident of New Jersey, if you believe I deserve an education, a chance at the future, then I urge you all to vote yes on this bill,” Tello told the committee.

Three elected officials from cities with large Hispanic populations — Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, Perth Amboy Mayor Wilda Diaz and Plainfield Mayor Adrian Mapp — were also in Trenton to push for the bill.

“We all agree that in order to break that cycle of poverty that exists in this country and exists in places like Jersey City, it really starts with investing in education,” Fulop said at a press conference before the committee meeting. “To invest in a child’s education K through 12 and then turn your back on them is really foolish.”

All eight Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the legislation. And Gov. Chris Christie — while refusing to answer detailed questions about the bill — has indicated he supports the idea. Nevertheless, three out of the committee’s four Republicans voted no, while one abstained.

State Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) said she abstained because a loophole in the bill could allow out-of-state residents – regardless of their immigration status – to qualify for in-state tuition if they attend private high school in New Jersey. She also said New Jersey residents could move to other states for years, then return and qualify for in-state tuition because they went to high school here.

“I don’t want to vote against the bill. I’m just going to abstain today and hopefully by the time we get to the floor Monday we can find a resolution for those two issues,” Beck said.

But state Sen. Joseph Pennacchio (R-Morris), who voted no, said he didn’t think it would be fair that “a struggling family of American citizens in a neighboring state would pay more than an undocumented student.”

Only one member of the public testified against the bill. Pat DeFilippis, a New Jersey representative for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, read a letter from the organization’s state and local director, Dale Wilcox.

“Many New Jersey schools, colleges and universities are experiencing severe budget shortages as a result of the weakened economy and the state debt crisis,” read the letter, which was addressed to Christie. “Granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens would only serve to further damage and strain delicate budgets and impose additional burdens on New Jersey taxpayers.”

Christie's action on the bill is uncertain. He worked hard to appeal to Hispanic voters and won 51 percent of their votes in his re-election last week, according to exit polls.

State Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex), a prime sponsor of the bill, said the governor had not disclosed to her any decision on the measure.

This story has been edited to reflect the correct bill number. It's S2479, not S2468
3541  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Benghazi and related matters on: November 14, 2013, 11:01:29 AM
Doug,
"Honesty" in government is low on the list of many Americans political imports.

Lying has become a no big deal - unless it affects an individual's bottom line.

It is more than ever all about the money.

To me honesty is even just as importance as competence.

That is the one thing I respected about Jimmy Carter.   At least I believed he was honest.

The left certainly doesn't care about honesty.  Look at the Clintons.  Look at Brocks deceptions.  40% will defend them no matter what.  Another 10 - 15 % jump on board as soon as they get the money train offered to them.

I certainly don't know how we can have a government that is not honest.  No matter what they say, no matter when, one never knows if it is the truth or not.  I agree.  How can anyone not think that is a problem?

It suggests to me many people in general are dishonest.  It also proves what I learned.  When it comes to money forget about all else.  Family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and the rest.

That is the reason Dems have lost some support.  Not the lying.  Just the fact that more people than expected are having to pay more.  That's it.  All about the freaking money.
3542  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: November 14, 2013, 10:50:37 AM
My impression is that  most people are coming to the conclusion there is a global warming affect though what to do about it is in question.

I don't know what to think.

On this board we tend to only post the deniers point of view.   In some places I read just the opposite.  They conclude it is fact and anyone who disagrees is corrupt, stupid, or a crazed denier.

Again I don't know what to think.
3543  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination. on: November 13, 2013, 09:18:32 PM
unbelievable. eom

right out of Columbia University.
3544  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Is Devotion to the Constution destroying Democracy? on: November 12, 2013, 07:49:24 AM
Constitution Check: Is devotion to the Constitution destroying democracy?

National Constitution Center
By Lyle Denniston 2 hours ago      
Lyle Denniston looks at a claim that interpreting an old document, like the U.S. Constitution, is a doomed attempt to apply outdated legal principles.


theconstitutionTHE STATEMENT AT ISSUE:
“Professor Neuborne describes this dysfunctional democracy very well, but he does not give the real reason for that dysfunction – the reverence for the United States Constitution.   Each of the Supreme Court’s iniquities he lists is based on the interpretation by five of nine high priests of increasingly irrelevant documents written by wealthy white men in an unimaginably different and distant world.”

 – Michael Gorman of Chicago, a native of Great Britain, as quoted in The New York Times on November 10.  He was one of several writers engaging in a dialogue with New York University law professor Burt Neuborne over the professor’s complaint about harm done to American democracy by a series of modern Supreme Court rulings. The full exchange can be read here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-democracy-gone-awry.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1384171630-7yEFDKkFT5rO5TOK1yVMsA

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

One of the fundamental issues that deeply divides the nine Justices now serving on the Supreme Court is the proper way to interpret the Constitution’s meaning for today’s world.  Some of the Justices believe that the key is the “original meaning” of the document – that is, as it was understood in 1787.  Others believe that the document is a “living Constitution” that is adaptable to changing times and thus acquires new meaning from time to time.

No one expects that disagreement ever to be finally resolved. At the same time, all of the Justices agree that the Constitution embodies enduring principles, and that it is the duty of judges in this country to apply them.  Even a sincere devotion to those principles, though, is bound to produce disagreements about their contemporary meaning.

What is often misunderstood about the process of constitutional reasoning is that the Constitution itself does not provide all of the necessary answers to any legal problem that turns on enduring principles.  No document, and certainly no legal document, can always be understood by its literal meaning.  Words are means of expressing ideas, and the same words can mean different things to different judges.

Take, for example, the words of the First Amendment, declaring that “Congress shall make no law….”, etc.  Does that mean that the Amendment only restricts Congress in the use of its powers?  The Supreme Court interpreted it that way – until 1925.   In the decision that year in Gitlow v. New York, the Court began applying the idea that at least some parts of the Bill of Rights restricted the powers of state governments, too.  (Some scholars say that this process actually got its start in 1897.)

That process has continued, off and on, since then.  Most recently, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms,” when understood as a personal right to have a gun, applied to state and local gun control laws, too.

What’s the explanation for that process?  The Court interpreted the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process” – two words that are inherently indefinite – to embrace certain fundamental rights, so that the states and local governments, as well as Congress, had to respect and enforce them.

At a more basic level, this process also reflects the very nature of law.  Law is the means by which a society keeps order, and a society would be in constant anarchy if the people could not count on the law being relatively stable. If law is developed in a sound way, that stability reflects how a well-ordered society should be run, by more or less common agreement.

But stability does not mean that legal principles are frozen in time.  There was a time, for example, when petty theft could bring a death sentence.  As more civilized ways of resolving property disputes developed, and as community policing brought more civic order, such punishment was seen as too harsh.  In American constitutional history, this kind of changing perception is reflected in the way that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” has evolved over time.  As one example, it is now unconstitutional to execute a minor even for murder.

As the British native Michael Gorman suggests, in his comment quoted above, some critics of American constitutionalism seem to believe that interpreting the old document means a doomed attempt to apply outdated legal principles.

But even in his own native land, there is such a thing as the “British constitution,” embodying fundamental legal norms, even though it is not written down in the same way as the U.S. Constitution is.   Law in Britain is the accumulation of the “common law,” as it has been developed by judges over time, supplemented by parliamentary legislation.  British courts still respect some parts of the Magna Carta, even though it dates from 1215.

And, for the past four years, Britain has been imitating – to a degree – the U.S. model of a Supreme Court.  The United Kingdom Supreme Court was created by an act of “constitutional reform” in 2005, and began work four years later.  Its power to overturn laws is not as extensive as that of the American court, but it does have significant power to determine law for Britain.

The very idea of a supreme court, of course, is that, somewhere in government, the power to interpret basic legal commitments and promises must be lodged.  The American experiment, now more than two centuries old, shows that this power of interpretation should not be left to the elected political branches.

Perhaps one can attempt to dismiss devotion to the constitutional idea of judicial review as sentimental “reverence,” but it is more properly understood as a good faith belief in abiding principles of justice and equality.   Perhaps more importantly, it has shown that judicial power can be exercised along with democratic government.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 55 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.
3545  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: November 11, 2013, 07:46:46 PM
"‘We’re talking about 5 percent of the population.’"

If Clinton said this he would respond that he was talking about the total *World* "population".  Hence no lie.   No big deal.

Next.   

3546  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 10, 2013, 10:14:27 PM
Judge Andrew Napolitano, Canceled Fox Host, Tells His Fans To Stop Angry Emails


 Posted: 02/14/12 11:54 AM ET  |  Updated: 02/14/12 12:13 PM ET  

 
   
Judge Andrew Napolitano is trying to calm his outraged followers after the cancellation of his Fox Business show.

The low-rated network axed "Freedom Watch," along with the rest of its prime-time lineup, last week.

Ever since then, Napolitano has had to send repeated messages to his fans to stop bombarding Fox News with angry emails.

In his latest note, posted to his Facebook page on Monday, Napolitano sounded a note of optimism, even as he sternly told his team to cut it out:

In television, shows are cancelled all the time. Two of my former shows have been cancelled, and after each cancellation, Fox has rewarded me with more and better work. This cancellation--along with others that accompanied it--was the result of a business judgment here, and is completely unrelated to the FreedomWatch message. It would make a world of a difference for all of us, if you would KINDLY STOP SENDING EMAILS TO FOX. I am well. Your values are strong. I will continue to articulate those values here at Fox. But the emails many of you are sending are unfairly interfering with my work and that of my colleagues here. The emails even violate our values because they interfere with the use of private property. I have accepted the cancellation decision with good cheer and a sense of gearing up for the future. You should as well.
As a favor to me, and as I have asked this past weekend, PLEASE STOP SENDING EMAILS TO MY COLLEAGUES AT FOX ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF FreedomWatch; and please stop NOW.
3547  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: November 09, 2013, 09:16:55 AM
As Doug points out "after the obligatory belittling of Republicans, and now Bamster is safely elected, and AHA is law, and Hillary now has opportunity to distance herself and is being set up for her coronation, and we get opening phrases such as, "to be fair", and "on balance" the left now sort of makes some sort of back ended "Obama has to take his lumps".

Importantly the Repubs will have to devise strategy to deal with Hillary in the future.  Not simply keep up the same barrage against Obama the same way.
Hillary's mob is already figuring ways to spin this to her favor.  The total difference between her and Obama is she will pretend to compromise, she will pretend to give on certain issues (era of big gov is over) and not be steadfast in your face double downing ideologue - even though she is.   The Republicans always thought they had the goods on Clinton and he most of the time could successfully spin it around take credit and walk away laughing. 

In any case back to Bamster's comrades in arms:

IT'S TIME FOR OBAMA TO TAKE HIS LUMPS
Cynthia Tucker
By Cynthia Tucker 9 hours ago
     
President Obama deserves forbearance on the bungled rollout of his health care initiative. After all, Republicans have dedicated themselves to sabotaging the law -- withholding funds required for a smooth inauguration, harassing the experts hired to explain the law to consumers, and even threatening the National Football League when Obama asked teams to advertise it to their audiences.

Millions losing health plans under Obamacare. Did president mislead? Christian Science Monitor
Obama Tells Americans Losing Coverage: 'I'm Sorry' ABC News
Republicans Allege Obama Deception on Health Plan Cancellation ABC News
Obama promises to "smooth out" health care Associated Press
Why some individuals are losing their health plans under ObamaCare The Week (RSS)

Still, Obama deserves all the blame for the deception that may be the biggest threat to his signature legislative achievement -- and his legacy. He must have known better when he told Americans repeatedly over the past five years that they could keep their insurance policies if they were happy with them. As countless policyholders have learned over the past few weeks, that's simply not true.

Early on, the president was careful in his descriptions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Speaking to a joint session of Congress in 2009, he said, "If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." The veracity squad at Politifact rated that statement "true."

But as Obamacare, as it is now widely known, picked up a dedicated and vociferous group of critics, the president grew careless. In countless speeches in the last three to four years, he dropped the nuances: "If you like the (health insurance) plan you have, you can keep it."

Just as more Americans were beginning to pay attention to a mandate that will go into effect in 2014, that flawed description became Obama's mantra. Now, as insurers send out cancellation notices, many consumers feel betrayed. And that includes some of Obama's most loyal supporters.

Writer Peter Richmond, who has purchased his health insurance through a small group affiliated with a local Chamber of Commerce in upstate New York, was stunned to learn recently that his insurer was dropping the group.

"(Obama) spoke so vehemently about our being able to keep our coverage. ... I feel betrayed for the first time by (this) president. ... I resent it a great deal," he said.

At a recent congressional hearing, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a liberal Democrat from Maryland, weighed in, contending that the cancellation notices were creating a "crisis of confidence" about Obamacare. She's right.

On balance, the cancellation notices are affecting a relatively small group of Americans -- those who don't get insurance from their employers but who purchase it in the individual market. They represent about 5 percent of the population. There are no exact figures on the number receiving cancellation notices, but experts have given estimates ranging from seven to 12 million people.

To be fair, many of them will be better off. Obamacare has virtually abolished their old "bare bones" policies, some of which didn't even pay for hospital stays. With subsidies, many consumers will be able to buy far superior health insurance policies for less money. Kaiser Family Foundation health care expert Larry Levitt told CBS News that "the winners will outnumber the losers."

Still, there are many customers who are experiencing genuine rate shock. They will be stuck paying a higher premium for health insurance policies they may not have wanted. That's bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that Obama misled them.

At the moment, Obamacare is a morass of confusion: dysfunctional websites, lies spread by its critics and even deceptive practices by some insurance companies. That's all the more reason that Americans need to be able to trust their president to tell them the truth about his health care overhaul -- even if some of that truth is unpleasant.

Obama needs to stand up and admit that he misled consumers about keeping their health care plans. He needs to take his lumps and promise to give the public straightforward and truthful answers.

If he keeps prevaricating, he will be doing as much damage to Obamacare as its harshest critics.

(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)
3548  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama effectively lifted Iran sanctions enforcement months ago on: November 08, 2013, 08:27:05 AM
Lead article on Drudge.

Treasury simply stopped enforcing companies that do business with Iran.  I assume the House and Senate Committees that deal with this were in the dark.

The government departments are simply ordered to do his bidding behind the scenes.

This makes Iran Contra look like peanuts.

Of course the shysters will be out en masse denying this is the case. 

And Hillary will be doing polls and devising her distancing strategy behind the scenes.

She will campaign for stronger ties with Israel and the Hollywood hypocrites will be flooding her with money.   Now the liar in chief is safely in for the second term they will shift their support to the next one.

All the while we are going to have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. 
3549  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: November 07, 2013, 11:31:07 AM
Time to legalize pot, prostitution in NJ.  Legalize them and tax them and keep the business and government tax base here.  Screw NY.  We have been getting screwed by NY ever since I can remember:

( I say this with tongue in cheek.  I guess the prostitution money could go to health school lunch programs, and pot could go to pay for the half of the population that gets it "free".  Maybe free mammograms or something and that would also double to secure the chick vote.)

*****Why New York casinos could crush Atlantic City

Richard Cummins | Lonely Planet Images | Getty Images
 New Yorkers have approved an amendment that will allow seven casinos to open in the state, including one to three in the New York City area in seven years. And that could sound the death knell for Atlantic City, already struggling under the weight of regional competition.

Atlantic City should be "very concerned," said Chad Mollman, an analyst who covers casino and hotel stocks for Morningstar. "New York City is the biggest feeder market in Atlantic City. There is a question in terms of the viability of Atlantic City in the long term."

Resorts was the first legal casino on the East Coast when it opened in Atlantic City in 1978. A lot has changed since then.

"Atlantic City's time has come and gone," said Harold Vogel, the CEO of Vogel Capital Management and the author of the bedrock textbook "Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis." "It was second after Nevada, and it was a special place in a small location. It had 10 good years when it was pretty unique, but then we got Indian casinos, and then gambling in Pennsylvania."

(Read more: Stronger than the storm? Maybe not Atlantic City)

Part of the rationale for opening casinos in New York has been that it will capture gambling money that has been going to Atlantic City and other places.

The New York Daily News reported that Gov. Andrew Cuomo made the case for the casino amendment by telling the press, "New Jersey has casinos. Connecticut has casinos. Pennsylvania has casinos. We literally hemorrhage people from the borders who go to casinos. I think it will keep the money in this state and I think it is a major economic development vehicle for the Hudson Valley especially and for upstate New York."

If New York money stops crossing the southern border, Atlantic City is in big trouble.

Richard "Skip" Bronson, the chairman of U.S. Digital Gaming and the author of "The War at the Shore," which chronicled his effort to build a luxury Mirage Resorts casino in Atlantic City, said New York casinos will make a bad situation even worse.

"There are only so many gambling dollars in the pot," Bronson said. "And there has been a massive proliferation of casinos throughout America. It's a form of real estate, and like any form of real estate, it goes through a cycle: Demand, saturation, and then glut. A place like Atlantic City has too many casino hotels and too many rooms. This is a fact of life."
Play VideoRoll the dice on a casino?
Is now the time to be on casino stocks? With CNBC's Melissa Lee and the "Options Action" traders.If Atlantic City does slip into further decline, Caesars Entertainment could be deeply affected. The company owns four casinos there (Bally's Atlantic City, Caesars Atlantic City, Harrah's Atlantic City and Showboat Atlantic City), which have been a serious drag on earnings. The company lost $761 million in the third quarter, largely because of a massive write-down of Atlantic City assets.

"We continue to have a negative outlook for casino companies in the U.S. due to what we're seeing in regional casino markets, and Caesars is the most exposed to regional casino markets," Mollman said. He rates Caesars shares sell, and estimates their fair value (similar to a price target) at $9.

Yet, despite the fact that New York casinos are likely to hasten the demise of Atlantic City, Caesars donated $100,00 to the New York Jobs Now Committee, which supported the pro-casino amendment.

Caesars did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

(Read more: Science says casinos could make Wall Street riskier)

Of course, ignoring potential New York City casinos might be impossible.

"There isn't a gaming company in America that isn't paying attention to New York, and there's not a gaming company in America that's not interested in having an opportunity in New York," Bronson said.

New York casinos could still face an uncertain future because of the extent of regional competition.

"In an oversaturated market, now there's a much higher risk for people who will have to build up these casino palaces, and it's not clear that they'll be at all successful," Vogel told CNBC.com. "This is how markets fall apart, and this is how you have bankruptcies."
—By CNBC's Alex Rosenberg. Follow him on Twitter @CNBCAlex.****
3550  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / How in tarnasion is this possible? on: November 07, 2013, 11:04:58 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/ligament-found-human-knee-142502691.html

I don't know how a "new" ligament could be rightfully "just" discovered.  With hundreds of thousands, millions of knee surgeries and replacements and MRI etc.

I wonder if the new ligament is simply being re categorized as being separate from the lateral collateral ligament and not perhaps a sporadic separate head of the same ligament.

If I run into any orthopedic guys I'll get their opinion.
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 141
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!