Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
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.
92
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.
93
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.
94
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.
95
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

96
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.
97
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?
98
The Mud pile / Re: Watch Glenn Beck; Don't Buy Clorox
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 25, 2009, 01:37:51 pm »
Glenn beck is an idiot... But if Mathews can get away with calling everyone who is apposed to ObamaCare racist, then Beck can call Obama a racist. Its the same stupidity, just expressed by a different extreme towards a different target.

I defer to an older much more conservative Italian, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SztTE6oS2w
99
The Mud pile / Watch Glenn Beck; Don't Buy Clorox
« Last post by Alia on August 24, 2009, 05:14:06 pm »
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_beck_s_advertisers

Quote
Attack on Obama riles Beck's advertisers

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer David Bauder, Ap Television Writer – Mon Aug 24, 10:18 am ET
NEW YORK – Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.

The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that "we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts." The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that it has decided not to advertise on political talk shows.

The shows present a dilemma for advertisers, who usually like a "safe" environment for their messages. The Olbermanns, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Maddows and Becks of the TV world are more likely to say something that will anger a viewer, who might take it out on sponsors.

They also host the most-watched programs on their networks.


"This is a good illustration of that conundrum," said Rich Hallabran, spokesman for UPS Stores, which he said has temporarily halted buying ads on Fox News Channel as a whole.

Beck can bring the eyeballs. With the health care debate raising political temperatures, his show had its biggest week ever right before his vacation, averaging 2.4 million viewers each day, according to Nielsen Media Research.

He was actually on another Fox show July 28 when he referred to Obama as a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network immediately distanced itself from Beck's statement, but Beck didn't. He used his radio show the next day to explain why he believed that. He would not comment for this article, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said.

ColorofChange.org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization's executive director.

"They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it."


It's not immediately clear how many of the companies actually knew they were advertising on Beck's show. Sometimes commercial time is chosen for a specific show, but often it is bought on a rotation basis, meaning the network sprinkles the ads throughout the day on its own schedule. Sometimes ads appear by mistake; Best Buy said it bought commercial time for earlier in the day, and one of its ads unexpectedly appeared in Beck's show.

One company, CVS Caremark, said it advertises on Fox but hadn't said anything about Beck. Now it has told its advertising agency to inform Fox that it wanted no commercials on Beck.

"We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful," said spokeswoman Carolyn Castel.

Besides the unpredictability of the opinionated cable hosts, the rapid pace of today's wired world complicates decisions on where to place ads, said Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Sprint. She said she was surprised at how fast the Beck issue spread across social media outlets and how quickly advertiser names were attached to it.

UPS' Hallabran said the decision to pull commercials "should not be interpreted as we are permanently withdrawing our advertising from Fox." He said the company wants to reach viewers with a wide spectrum of opinions.

Except for UPS Stores, there's no evidence that any advertisers who say they don't want to be on Beck's show are leaving Fox. Network spokeswoman Irena Briganti said the companies have simply requested the ads be moved elsewhere and that Fox hasn't lost any revenue.

She wouldn't say whether Fox was benefiting from any anti-anti-Beck backlash, with companies looking to support him. Some Beck supporters have urged fans to express their displeasure at companies for abandoning their man.

Beck supporters have suggested that retaliation might have something to do with ColorofChange.org's campaign. One of the group's founders, Van Jones, now works in the Obama administration and has been criticized by Beck. But Rucker said Jones has nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.

Beck's strong ratings — even at 5 p.m. EDT he often outdraws whatever CNN and MSNBC show in prime-time — make it unlikely Beck is going anywhere even as the list of advertisers avoiding him approaches three dozen.

But it could mean advertising time becomes cheaper on his show than such a large audience would normally command. Some of his show's advertisers last week included a male enhancement pill, a law firm looking to sue on behalf of asbestos victims, a company selling medical supplies to diabetics and a water filter company.

Rucker said ColorofChange.org has contacted about 60 companies regarding Beck, and is heartened by the response.

"It's causing a certain conversation around Beck, which I think is important," he said.

___

On the Net:

http://www.colorofchange.org

http://www.foxnews.com

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — David Bauder can be reached at dbauder"at"ap.org
100
Welcome forum / Re: Welcome
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on August 15, 2009, 08:56:15 pm »
And its good to have you around, welcome.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]