waitforufo

With regard to Obamacare you write. Look you don’t need to convince me or anyone else that the law passed is a piece of crap. So why did Obama sign it? The only thing I can figure is that he and his majority congress wasted his first two years creating that turd so if he didn’t sign it he would have no accomplishments in his first two years. A veto would have shown that he had some courage at least. Now we have a bad economy and a lousy health care plan. Nice attempt at trying to blame conservatives and Republicans. How many voted for it? The Democratic party owns that law and everyone knows it. The middle class don’t need a safety net, the poor do. The military provides significant employment opportunities to young poor people. It’s part of our safety net. S-Corporations. You know those corporations that file their tax returns as individuals making over 200k per year. Democrats call them the rich. Naw, like Bascule things aren’t currently going your way. To conservatives Obamacare was a new low. What I don’t get is why liberals consider Obamacare a Democratic party accomplishment. We all know you wanted a single payer health care plan.

Conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive, less taxing government. Liberals want a larger, nanny state government of larger taxes as long as they are not the ones taxed. Republicans tell the people that they are conservatives, but the Bush years are a great example of how they are not. Evidence Democrats often vote with Republicans. In the last election cycle many conservatives punished the Republicans by staying away from the polls or even voting with the Democrats. What was their reward? Obamacare. So now the conservatives are flocking back. Is this really a surprise? Just as an aside, the best way to prevent the creation of large social programs is deficit spending. When debt is high, large social programs seem foolhardy. This is why Republicans don’t have a problem with deficit spending. In addition to the above, the government simply can’t afford to give the middle class money through social programs. There is just too many of them. Somehow the Democrats occasionally convince the middle class that this isn’t true. Then the middle class see their tax bills go up with little or no personal benefit, so they switch back to the Republicans. Simple again. Finally unemployment is high. Republicans are the party of business, or at least perceived to be so. Businesses aren’t hiring so people what to improve the business climate. So they vote Republican. Simple again. This is not a new low. It’s same as it ever was. Bascule, you just don't like the current phase of this cycle.

This bashing of Republicans is just silly. Democrats control both houses of congress. They have 60 votes in the Senate. This is there law and theirs alone. If it was a bad bill Obama should have vetoed it and sent it back to his own party to fix. Glad to see you admit that exempting people from this bad law is the right thing to do. Can we all get an exemption?

This is a ridiculous and idiotic idea. Why would anyone in their right mind ever invest in producing and then sequestering a valuable commodity for no use whatsoever? Who would pay for such nonsense? Who would elect or reelect a person that promised to raise taxes, impose levies, or impose regulations that produced a unusable pile of wood?

I have been an electrical engineer for 25 years. I have worked on radar systems and cellular telephone. Electrical engineering jobs however are rather cyclical and concentrated in large cities. I have seen many electrical/electronic engineers leave the field during my carrier. College friends of mine that majored in civil engineering however are all still working in engineering. In the US, civil engineering jobs always seem to be available. Not only that, they are available everywhere, from rural counties to major cities. Civil engineers tend to make less money to start, but with time they catch up. Also civil engineers find it easier to work as independent contractors.

On a happier note, perhaps Obamacare doesn’t need to be repealed. Perhaps the whole country can just be wavered out of the program.

Just trying to hold President Obama to his promises. Don't you think that is fair? "Here's a guarantee that I have made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor." - Obama

Well, it looks like it’s not all smooth sailing for Obamacare. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip I wonder if they would have granted these wavers if the election was not less than a month away. Imagine the news reports about 116000 fast food workers and 351000 school teachers losing their insurance because of Obamacare. Notice that the story doesn’t say they won’t lose their insurance in the future. I just says there will be other options in 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits.

I didn’t notice that they also changed the video from my first posting. They added little explanation boxes to their little “comedy.” If it’s such an effective comedy, why does it need explanation? Perhaps adding a laugh track would have been more effective. To me, this is just very poor propaganda. The little box explanation additions just make it worse. Generally propaganda like this is aimed at bolstering true believers. Is this what true believers want? Do they want to kill those that disagree with them and do so in a very violent and degrading way? More likely it’s a threat to those that disagree or don’t care. You know, nice nice, but this is what you will get if you don’t fall in line. Imagine if this type of comedy was used to encourage immigration enforcement.

I noticed that they updated their pseudo apology to a real one. Particularly now that their financial supporters are complaining. Loss of money always makes true and sincere feelings come out. http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

In an effort to sway public opinion toward action on climate change, the organization 10:10 produced the following mini-movie. Based on public reaction they pulled it with a pseudo apology. http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure Way to win the hearts and minds of skeptics 10:10.

Gee, maybe I missed some of the more important event of September 11, 2001. I don’t recall those flying airplanes into the trade towers shouting “Big Macs are great” or “Lox & Bagels are great”, nor do I recall them shouting “Naked Chicks are great.” I seem to recall something like “Allah Akbar” which I thought translated to “God is Great” or “God is the Greatest.” These new translations totally change my perspective on Islam. I guess there is a lot I need to learn about this religion that promotes misogyny, disfigurement for minor crimes. and second class citizenship for all non believers.

What makes it ridiculous? Did they expect people to be happy about it? Did they think it would go unnoticed? No one builds such a structure without the intention of making a statement. Ignoring the obvious does not make it indiscernible.

Americans enjoy many rights. My favorite aspect of these rights is that they let us express our opinions clearly and in so many ways. By building this mosque so near the former world trade center site those Muslims supporting the construction are sending a clear and intentional message. They obviously take pride in the events of September 11, 2001. They are willing to spend millions of dollars to convey that pride. The building of this mosque is intended to be intentionally offensive to non Muslim Americans and particularly insensitive to the victims of 9/11 and their families. It says a lot about Muslims, or at least those Muslims supporting its construction. Of course they have the right to build the mosque, and I hope they do. It will confirm my opinion about them.

Obama had to fire McChrystal. A general is responsible for his staff. Their comments are his comments particularly when talking to reporters on the record. Since they were speaking so freely, they gave the impression that their comments were common in McChrystal’s inner circle. McChrystal’s comments were not so benign either. If Obama had not fired McChrystal, the military would have lost all respect for Obama, or at a minimum had their disrespect confirmed. With regard to the selection of Petraeus. I found t that to be a bit of a surprise. Isn’t he “General Betrayus”. That’s what Obama’s best friends at MoveOn.org called Petraeus. In fact they just removed “General Betrayus” information from their website after Obama selected Petraeus. While Obama was a Senator the Senate voted to condemn MoveOn.org for their NY Times “Betrayus” advertisement, but Obama chose not to vote even though he was in chambers. Also while Senator Obama publically chastised Petraeus for is poor command abilities as demonstrated in Iraq. So if he wasn’t any good then, why pick him now? Instead of picking Petraeus, Obama picked McChrystal. I seem to remember that he wanted someone more aggressive who could bring the war in Afghanistan to an end quicker. I also remember him taking quite a bit of time to make the selection. Well aggressive people are often brash as well. They also surround themselves with brash people. So now Obama has had to replace his personal pick to run the war in Afghanistan. This says something about his ability to pick military commanders and his ability to command the military. One thing that can be said for sure at this point. The Afghanistan war is now Obama’s war.

First, with regard to your analogy I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. I think a more accurate comparison would be if mister helmet wearing safety guy just happened to notice mister breakneck wiped out at the bottom of a gully. Since he’s the person who calls 911 he should be the person that should pay for the ambulance ride, surgeries, hospital care, rehabilitation, bike repairs, and a new helmet. Perhaps some physiological counseling just in case mister breakneck is now afraid to ride a bike. Oh yea, perhaps when the ambulance crew shows up they should work mister safety over a bit just to make sure he understands pain. Second, I’m not sure why I should answer your question since you did not answer mine, but let me try anyway. My preference would be to let people live with their choices. I’m a bit of a libertarian that way. The people that need protecting are the ones that made the correct choices, not the dead beats. If social security goes broke no one should get any money. If they need to scale back on payouts that should apply to everyone in an equal percentage regardless how small or how large their payout is. Those that get the bigger payouts paid in more and deserve them. It should matter if they are already sitting on a large pile of cash. If some people don’t have enough money for the bare essentials of life, well that’s what why we have welfare. While on welfare people should be constantly pushed into work. With regard to shared impact, explain to me how those that made proper choices get to share in the big house that the poor chooses live in. How do they get to share in the BMWs the poor choosers drive. How do they share in the nice vacations the poor choosers took. What you are suggesting is that we should all be poor choosers because the government will bail us out in the end. Well that’s why we have 13 trillion dollars of debt. There are only two ways to deal with that debt. Either you find the money or you don’t pay it. If you can’t see a money grab in that 401k to annuity conversion your blind. More likely you don’t have too much in a 401k or IRA so your more than happy if the government grabs somebody else’s money. We all let this happen? Where was I when these decisions were being made? When did I encourage someone to buy a house they couldn’t afford, or take out a second mortgage so they could go on vacation or buy a BMW?

Let me put it this way. Say you have two people that grew up in typical middle class families in the same town at the same time. They both went to the same college and majored in the same subject. Up on graduation both got similar jobs making similar pay. Both have similar debt resulting from student loans. So both are typical young poor people. Now one of those people aggressively pursues their carrier. This requires personal and family sacrifices such as moving around the country and time away from home due to business travel. This person is also rather frugal, always living below their means. They save money both inside and outside retirement savings accounts like 401k an IRA programs. This person is not a wizard of wall street, they just put their money in mutual funds and money market accounts. Also they don’t take extravagant vacations, or buy high end cars. Also they build equity through home ownership. They buy modest homes and never take out home equity loans. Eventually they pay off their mortgage. The other person takes a different route. They play it low key at work because they don’t like too much work stress. They stay in the same town for much of their life. The do however like to take nice vacations, drive nice cars, and live to the fullest extent that credit will let them. They save no money and refinance their homes whenever their home goes up in value. Now both of those people are living there own version of the American dream. They are indeed pursuing their own happiness. I wouldn't have it any other way. So now our country can’t afford to pay off its entitlement debt. The first person is upset because he paid into the system with the promise of a payout. He paid for something that he thinks he now owns. He expects to receive it. But he has his own money so he will get by. The second person more than upset. That person is desperate. His pursuit of happiness has left him lots of good memories but no wealth. So now one of these people is rich and one is poor. So explain to me how you are going to solve the entitlement problem without making the first person pay more or get less than the second person? If you can't do that explain how the oposite is fair?

Israel would rather have Hamas spend its money on the items included in this aid then have them spend it on weapons. Why is this difficult to understand?

With regard to converting IRA and 401k programs to government annuities read the following. http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/proposed-regulation-could-require-401k-investment-in-government-annuities-54520.aspx http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_OBAMA-DEMOCRATS-LOOK-AT-TAKEOVER-OF-401K-IRA-ACCOUNTS-TO-FINANCE-GOVERNMENT/blog/1716156/78592.html?null http://moneymorning.com/2010/01/27/retirement-plans/ http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/coming-soon-substituting-government-annuities-for-your-401k/ A am making an argument about an individual’s right to their property. I’m not quite sure what ‘pool’ you are talking about but I’m sure I don’t want to be in it or pay for it. Why would I want to pay for something I get no benefit from? Not paying what was promised eliminates debt. Stealing peoples savings can pay for debt. You need to come to understand that all these entitlement programs are simply Ponzi schemes.

With regard to entitlement programs, we need to tell people that they won’t be receiving the benefits that they paid for throughout their lives. The reason they won’t be receiving these benefits is because the people they elected into government already spent the money. By spending the money, those that paid already got all the benefits that they will ever get. At that point the people can be told your welcome. Then you can tell them the good news. Well we can’t just pull the plug on things like Social Security. But since we can’t afford these programs, we can only pay out part, and only to people that are broke. So all you people that paid in all your lives and made sacrifices to save for retirement will get nothing. Now don’t go whining about that. If bad people like you would have spent all of your money and kept your credit card balances high we wouldn’t be in the tough economic times we are in now. This is all your fault. Besides you have money so quit your complaining. Oh, by the way we will let you know at what age you can retire. Perhaps we will make you get a physical first. Also, we need to explain to people with IRA, 401k and such retirement savings programs that we have a great new program. This great new program will convert retirement savings programs into a government guaranteed annuity. This program will be backed by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam, but this time he really means it. You will soon receive a friendly letter from your Uncle Sam that your retirement savings plan no longer exists and that now at an age determined by government you will be receiving a check based on your needs as soon as you have spent all the rest of your money. Finally we can tell the people that hence forth and forever more entitlement programs will be forbidden. We can have civics lessons that explain to people that they are not entitled to the earnings, wealth, or property of others. Earnings, wealth, and property belong to the people that own them. It is their natural right to do with their property as they choose. We can also teach the people that if their fellow citizens are kind enough to help them in any way, and they choose to accept this help, that they should do so with humility. That humility should include obeying any rules and restrictions, regardless how arbitrary, their benefactors place on the generosity they are providing.

What happens when you run out of money? You spend Germany’s money. As Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. The people of Greece are murdering people in the streets because the working people of Germany are unwilling to provide for the working people of Greece in a manner to which they have become accustomed.

By “bad” I assume you mean tragic. Zygotes re-integrating by chance certainly wouldn’t be wrong or evil. If a person dies by accidentally falling down a flight of stairs that’s tragic but not wrong or evil. If someone dies as the result of being pushed down of flight of stairs that’s tragic as well as wrong or evil. So are Zygotes re-integrating by chance tragic? If one could prove that pre integrated Zygotes were persons, well then perhaps to them it would be. I guess it could also be tragic to the world since the persons not created by the individual Zygotes were lost to us. If you never came to be, would it be tragic? I certainly enjoy your point of view. When life begins is certainly an important discussion to have when debating abortion, but let’s not forget that abortion ends a pregnancy.

Was the re-integrating caused by a willful act by an outside person? If not then there is no moral dilemma. If someone intentionally brought it about, then you have a potential morality issue.

Okay, I’ll bite, but I’m not sure this passes the above test. When I was a child and I lost something my mother would tell me to say a prayer to St. Anthony and I would find it. For Catholics, St. Anthony is the patron saint of lost things. We have a saint for everything. There is even a silly little rote prayer/rhyme I was taught to say. It goes like this. “Dear St. Anthony quick come round, there is something that’s lost and must be found. “ You are supposed to say this three times and then mention the item lost. Now as a man nearly 50, this all seems rather silly. My intellect tells me that following this ritual must unblock some aspect of my subconscious that is keeping me from finding this lost item. My faith however tells me that this prayer works. When I say this prayer, I say it out loud in a rather silly childish sing song way thinking I can’t really be doing this. Almost immediately afterwards I find the lost item. Often times it is someplace I know I looked and right out in the open. Like someone put it there for me to find. I feel stupid admitting this. My 24 year old son, who since 15 has claimed to have no faith at all, now claims to believe in nothing but St. Anthony. He says that stupid prayer works. He says it also helps if you skip while you say it. And to think I had to endure years of his eye rolling every time I said it. I know, it’s idiotic, but that’s faith.

All posts in this thread seem quite consistent with modern philosophy. Philosophy that began with Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”. His “I think, therefore I am” probably would have been better stated “I doubt, therefore I am” since he arrived at his conclusion by proving the one could not doubt away their doubt. A classical philosopher however would consider this all gibberish. Classical philosophy attempted to discover the true nature things, and in particular the true nature of human beings. I think most modern people abandon the concepts of classical philosophy because we find them too restricting. If human beings have a true immutable nature, then we should all attempt to discover that nature and then create an environment in which that nature will thrive. A modern philosopher however would say all that true immutable nature talk is bunk. We are what we believe, and therefore if we all agree, we can thrive in any environment we choose. That sounds much more liberating. Well, unless the classical philosophers are correct. As an example, I had a lemon tree in my back yard when I lived in southern California. It was great. I had fresh lemons year round. Having come to California from the Northwest, I never knew how many uses there were for lemons when lemons were free. Now I live back in the Northwest. I wish I had a lemon tree in my backyard today. Unfortunately it is not in the nature of a lemon tree to live in the Northwest. No matter how hard I believe that lemon trees can live in the Northwest, by belief won’t make it so. Perhaps we human beings are much the same. The only difference is we keep planting ourselves in poor environments and pretending whatever we believe is true.