Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Welcome forum / Hello
« Last post by TOLAROscipii on August 29, 2009, 08:53:27 pm »
I thought since i could not help you I would help make this place more popular by joining


so what goes down here?
92
Local News / Letter to Christy Mihos
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 28, 2009, 09:29:45 am »
Quote
As a voting independent - moderate citizen of Massachusetts I'm very interested in candidates apposing incumbent Deval Patrick who has been a disaster for the commonwealth. However while I agree with and support most of your stated positions I'm slightly annoyed by two of them.

1. Wind farms

2. Casino gambling

I view alternative domestically produced energy as necessary for future economic growth and think tide and wind farms in the cape are absolutely vital to reducing long term energy costs. I haven't heard any compelling arguments against them and I'm left wondering why you appose this.

I view gambling as a victimless activity that will persist whether we chose to recognize it or not. I don't believe its the governments place to legislature morality, and I believe allowing casinos to open in Massachusetts will prevent the loss of revenue to existing casinos in Connecticut which is a drain on our economy.

I'd like to make it clear that I am voting in the gubernatorial election, and I will vote for whoever holds the position closest to mine without regard for party affiliation. I hope that will be you, but its too early to tell.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Giuliano Theodore Taverna
93
Local News / Massachusetts gubernatorial race 2010
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 28, 2009, 09:28:41 am »
So far is incumbent democrat Deval Patrick vs republicans Charlie Baker and Christy Mihos

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3homepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Agov3

http://charliebaker2010.com/

http://www.christy2010.com/pages/policies.cfm

I intend to question all candidates directly to challenged their stances on issues that I feel they have the wrong position on, and I will post any responses I may get. In addition I will follow the campaign and post updates, including who I intend to vote for when I have decided.
94
Big Government - Authoritarian / Re: My Problem with Universal Health Care
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 28, 2009, 09:22:05 am »
That's a brilliantly well thought out assessment and I agree wholeheartedly. I think there is a lot of confusion over the concept of universal health-care.

Health-care insurance by definition is designed to pool risk to cover things that may or may not happen such as a car accident or the need for a major surgery. It was never intended to cover regular hospital visits or chronic diseases.

The idea that people should have access to regular hospital visits is something that can be explored, but we shouldn't confuse that with insurance when the two are incompatible.

In addition I think any system should have clear exemptions for lifestyle choices, studies indicated half off all health problems in the united states today are related to lifestyle choices, obesity and smoking being two of the most obvious.
95
The Public Forum / Re: Haircut help
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 28, 2009, 09:16:40 am »
I've been getting that opinion a lot, I think that is what I am going to end up doing.
96
The Public Forum / Re: Haircut help
« Last post by Alia on August 27, 2009, 10:03:55 pm »
I like your old cut. But then again I like nerdish things so you should probably discount what I say outright if not do the opposite.
97
Big Government - Authoritarian / My Problem with Universal Health Care
« Last post by Alia on August 27, 2009, 09:59:24 pm »
I believe there's one glaring problem with universal health care that stands above all others as what should be the cause of discontent.

And that is Fault, and Reason. Perhaps it is unthinkable to simply let people die, but this idea adds a premise as it moves along toward universal health care, and that's the premise that it doesn't matter how a person came to their ailments. I don't find it unthinkable to let smokers die of cancer, I find the alternative unthinkable: To make those who sacrifice to live well pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars associated with treating lung cancer. Why, I could throw myself off a cliff and the rest of the taxpayers could fit the bill for all my rehabilitation therapy.

There has been a lot of talk of rights, as in, health care should be a right. I don't necessarily disagree. However, I think the terminology is being twisted; health care is a need, not a right. Having what one earns is a right. It seems that in this country, when need and right cannot both be met, need wins out no matter the circumstance. Once a person decides to smoke, and gets cancer, the need of that person for medical care always will come into conflict with the rights of all others, since it is very unlikely that a given individual will have the means to pay for the care himself. Therefore he must steal - here I term it stealing because it is taking without earning no matter who endorses it - the money from others.

So need wins over rights. This in itself is not a bad thing, at least not in every case. From childhood, children might be exposed to one of the warm, fuzzy Disney movies like Robin Hood, or Aladdin, which includes a scene in which the main character steals bread to feed the poor, which is portrayed as "good" as are the infamous actions of Robin Hood. So as a whole, our society accepts that Need > Right. However, that opens the door to a whole new issue: Irresponsible creation of need. Those who need health care because they are irresponsible clearly fall into this category, and it's a large category, inclusive of such disreputable beings as the injured drunk driver, the cancerous smoker, the victim of an extreme sports or thrillseeking accident, those who attempt suicide, the AIDS-infected, and the perpetually pregnant. I don't know if I could here mention obesity or not.

Those who are ill because they are irresponsible must be left to die, or pay for their own mistakes. When that happens I will be for universal health care.
98
The Public Forum / Haircut help
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 27, 2009, 04:34:21 pm »
Should I go back to my old haircut?

My old cut



My current cut

99
Global / Senator Edward M. Kennedy died today.
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 26, 2009, 09:19:51 pm »
Now reasonable people can disagree on the legacy of the man. But he was a well liked successful politician who served the people of Massachusetts for decades and his continuous reelection implies a deep sense of satisfaction from his service to the state.

A service will be held Saturday in mission hill, President Barack Obama is going to give the eulogy.
100
The Mud pile / Obama, petrodollars, and Soros?
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 26, 2009, 09:15:46 pm »
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/18/good-news-obama-backs-off-shore-drilling/

Quote
Good news: Obama backs off-shore drilling! Update: A Soros connection?


This should be good news for the Drill Here, Drill Now contingent, right?  The Obama administration has committed $2 billion in loans to exploit offshore oil resources in hopes of extracting a major new source of petroleum.  Despite the White House pursuit of a cap-and-trade scheme to limit the use of fossil fuels, the new field could help bring lower energy prices, and their support of this exploration of American resources shows their flexibility on energy policy

Wait — did I say American resources?  That’s true, but only in the South American sense http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html (via Gateway Pundit): http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/team-obama-funds-oil-drilling-project.html


    The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

    The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas. …

    But it still doesn’t allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won’t allow at home.

This seems odd in several ways.  For this particular administration to offer billions in loans to a foreign oil company makes a mockery of a number of Obama talking points.  First, why does Petrobas need loan guarantees to pursue its exploration?  As the WSJ notes, it is a very large corporation, which should have the resources to get to the oil on its own.  Obama, who has ripped American corporations for their supposed subsidies in American tax policy, now wants to use an empty Treasury to give cash to a Brazilian oil company.

Next, Obama keeps insisting that we cut back on our use of fossil fuels.  He and his allies in Congress have blocked exploration of American oil fields off both shores for decades, and Obama insists that we would only keep enabling our oil addiction if we started drilling off of our own coasts.  Yet he has no trouble committing $2,000,000,000 of our money for Brazil to drill off its own coast.

Here’s a proposal: Let American companies do what Obama is paying Brazilian companies to do — drill offshore.  We won’t have to pay them money or float them any loans to do it, either.  In fact, we will make money off of the leases, while the effort creates hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the US, creating more tax revenue rather than emptying out the Treasury.

Update: Who else besides Obama has taken an interest in Petrobras?  Hmmmmmm: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.V5sgGzdsQY

    His New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras, as the Brazilian oil company is known, according to a filing today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Soros bought 5.8 million of the company’s U.S.-traded preferred shares.

    Soros is taking advantage of the spread between the two types of U.S.-listed Petrobras shares, said Luis Maizel, president of LM Capital Group LLC, which manages about $4 billion. The common shares were 21 percent more expensive than preferred today, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. …

    Petrobras preferred shares have also a 10 percent additional dividend, said William Landers, a senior portfolio manager for Latin America at Blackrock Inc.

    “Given that there will most likely never be a change in control in the company, I see no reason to pay a higher price for the common shares.” Brazil’s government controls Petrobras and has a majority stake of voting shares.

This story is from last Friday.  Is it a coincidence that Obama backer George Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ offshore operations?   Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Now, I have some doubts about the credibility of all this info... but its plausible enough to beg the question, who's pulling the strings here?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]