taks

bad day for missouri sports fans... ugh. it's like sticking needles in my eyes to turn on ESPN right now. anyway, i also decided that i can't go camping this weekend BECAUSE IT IS SNOWING!!! woohooo!!!! mind you, i don't mind the snow, but it's going to be crappy and cold and misty and crappy (yes, twice as crappy) all weekend so camping would be a miserable experience. maybe next weekend. in other related news, loveland ski resort opened yesterday (er, tuesday maybe?) and a-basin opens tomorrow. earliest opening ever... yet we're supposed to have a mild winter? i'm thinking not... we shall see. either way, copper opens november 6, which is my mountain! skis will be on order (2008 nordica afterburner) as soon as i get paid for the contract i've been working. woohooo!!! taks

**** hoc ergo proctor hoc. tsk tsk. CA is indeed 4th, but FL is down at 12th now and 1st is MI, which did not play much of a part in the housing crisis. CA and FL also have some of the most burdensome overall taxes in the country. in other words, they didn't abide by the federal recommendation/requirement to give out bad loans to people that couldn't afford them. hmmm... seems i said that was part of the problem how long ago? taks

because he tends to agree with you... yeah, whatever. as if you have some relative knowledge base to draw from. sorry, michael moore films don't count. taks

that's called the laffer curve and it has nothing to do with economic growth, and everything to do with revenue generated for the government from income taxes. given that you got the basic concept wrong, not a whole lot of credence to your comment here, either. you are right that it is not as simple as "more money in your pocket means more sales," but that's a pretty good summary. yeah, zero progressive (income) taxes. pretty simple, actually. taks

mkreku, you do realize your post sort of lends evidence in favor of my point, right? yeah, yeah, this is sort of a reading comprehension plus situational awareness, i know, a bit much to ask from the juniors around here. taks

no, i'm not ignorantly missing the point. the simple point is that if someone is not capable of giving consent, then there is no consent and it is, by any definition, rape. read the above sentence. taks

it would depend upon how the law is written. mentally impaired people are legally incapable of giving consent, so it is the same situation as a child. someone in a coma is physically incapable of giving consent, so it might be different. gromnir is a lawyer, he may know more. taks

no, it is not. consent cannot legally be given by a minor, period. since it is a legal standard you are arguing, you need to use legal definitions, volourn. taks

that's just silly, volourn. statutory rape is rape because children are not legally capable of giving consent due to their (implied) lack of maturity. hence, sex with a minor is sex without consent. this also applies to those that are mentally impaired, though i do not know if this applies to those incapable of giving consent for some other reason, e.g., being in a vegetative state. not all jurisdictions call it statutory rape, btw. taks

with a few exceptions, i tend to prefer hershey chocolate products anyway. taks

wow... carp finishes with 5 SO innings giving up only 3 hits for a win... 13-0. i guess that's fitting given the cards pitchers gave up 13 runs in the previous two games against cinci. sheesh. oh, carp also hit a grand slam. killer night. hopefully 17-4 with a league leading 2.24 ERA is enough for mr. young. taks

yeah... i guess since polanski got cheated out of the "prize" of a virgin his crime is not as heinous. taks

hmpf. the cards are playing like they want to watch the majority of the post season from the cheap seats this year. taks

i think you should go back and reread what purkake i both said. not once did either of us claim anything was "provable." in fact, we boith mentioned the concept of an untestable hypothesis. don't lecture us on what is and is not science, please. poizymon is the only one that even used such a word (prove), and i've seen nothing to indicate he is an engineer. and, FWIW, your last bit about engineers is what is known as an argumentum ad-hominem. taks

went to the harry potter movie in the imax... 3D in all its glory. i liked the movie, probably because i never read the books. my son... eh, not so much. too long i think. anyway, the 3D was a waste - only implemented in the first half hour and nothing throughout the rest of the movie. shoulda just taken the glasses off. imax is cool, but i recall the DLP picture being nicer. the theater was empty, of course, because this film is two months old. a hot dog, fries, biggest popcorn bucket i've ever seen, and what must have been a gallon of coke (john had dots) probably set me back $50-$60 for the three of us. oh well, it's been a while since i've been to the show and i had fun. oh yeah, it did end kinda funny. i've heard that if you know the book, the ending is screwy. didn't hurt me any, just seemed sort of unexplained. taks

i'm 3-0. i've predicted that the rams will lose each of their first 3 games. in fact, i'm going to predict the rams lose all 16 this year. bet i'm in the 90% range when it's all said and done. my gawd, even detroit is better this year and they lost 19 in a row. taks

not according to every cost study that has been done to date. not only will it not be less expensive, there won't be as much to go around (rationing). remember, i was replying to the previous quotes... i don't think i directly quoted this one. OK. which i do not believe to be true, and most of the cost studies support my opinion. unless, of course, you think obama knows what he's talking about. this, btw, is part of the reason they're in a mad dash to rewrite these plans because it leaked out how high the true costs will be. oof. yes, "what's the point" is the question. that seemed contrarary to your other statements, but i understand where you were going with it now. every single study done by someone other than a direct political beneficiary of UHC. granted, if you stick to CNN, MSNBC, or any of the standard MSM avenues for your sources of information, you might not hear about any of these other studies. even the CBO has said the numbers being touted by the white house are not even close to correct. in fact, even obama's advisers have said it is "when," not "if," taxes get raised. i'd call that a freudian slip. FWIW, we know socialist is more inefficient (not so much "government run," but typically the two are synonymous) simply because there is no mechanism to adjust for supply and demand. the profit motive of capitalism is what makes it efficient, and that does not exist in a socialized system. taks

to which i answered "taxes will be higher," i.e., the amount of money spent on taxes will necessarily be higher than the amount of money spent on premiums (unless, of course, we have significantly less actual coverage, but that's all part of the rationing problem). uh, no, you said: to me, that sounds like you are arguing that there will be some sort of savings... unless you meant something different than you said. my comments have directly followed everything you've said, exactly. maybe you missed a few of them? taks

so. so. proof, please. again, some proof. sigh... is it the food, or is it the quantity of food? please be very specific and try to demonstrate an understanding of science when you reply. so what? that means we can grow signficiantly more food in a smaller space, i.e., we are more efficient growing food now than we were in the past. this is a good thing since it also brings costs down, making foods more affordable. i don't know where you get your information but organic foods don't have any provable health benefit. certainly if it was provable we'd have heard about it repeatedly. taks

um, no. just because that's the point doesn't mean that's what will happen. do you really think medicare and medicaid were expected to be as big as they are now? go back and read the history on those two government aid programs and tell me exactly how much savings they provided. where do you get there won't be a difference? ultimately, taxes will be much higher. that was my whole point about "efficiency." are you actually arguing government programs will be more efficient? wow, i'm just amazed. taks

uh, that's 24 hours without the help of drugs. taks

at least he's not arguing theories that were disproved 100 years ago. apples and oranges since neither the FDA nor the EPA redistribute income in any manner. both have, however, unconstitutional powers that need to be reigned in. i'm sure you could. it is easy to repeat the same old talking points ad infinitum. and one of these days, i'm hoping, you'll come up with an intelligent reason that is not a parrot of the same old disproved talking points. there's a reason words have definitions, it is so intelligent people can communicate with one another using the same language. the definition of liberty is very clear. you, on the other hand, need to redefine liberty since it clearly does not work with your ideological beliefs. who is being naive? you clearly do not understand basic economic theory. anyway, either you have liberty or you don't. it is a simple concept: liberty means you do not have a right to infringe on another's liberty. it is not actionable, i.e., it does not demand that another will provide for your liberty, only that you cannot infringe upon his. as soon as you argue that one should be forced to provide for another, you immediately violate this very simple concept. it is no longer liberty, but privilege. nice how you twist it that way, but you have to because there is no rational basis to your argument. no, it's what works vs. what doesn't view, individual rights vs. privileges. you can rephrase it how you like, but that's what the argument boils down to. at least xard had the balls to finally admit it, in spite of his silly ranting. why don't you show some balls and at least use the proper language to frame your argument. taks

um, you do realize, of course, that there will be no "savings." maybe individuals don't have "insurance premiums," but the money to pay for this has to come from somewhere. you can't just suddenly *poof* and the magic money fairy pays for these things with her magic wand. maybe some on the lower end of the income scale will come out ahead, this is income redistribution so it is expected, but they aren't the people buying third cars or second houses. the people spending money on "luxuries" are the ones that will have to have their taxes increased to pay for the everyone else, so if anything, they won't be able to afford their "luxuries" as easily as before the UHC taxes. shifting the burden to the government does not remove the burden and, in fact, it will increase the overall burden do to its inherent inefficiency. is anyone actually going to argue that government programs are more efficient? if so, have you not looked at the half of our medical expenses that are already covered by the federal government, particularly medicare/medicaid? c'mon, let's try to be realistic. i don't think this has ever been proven, though accountability is certainly lost. when you don't have to pay for your own care, you don't care about get the best deal, i.e., you are less efficient and tend to go in for treatment at every turn (which raises a whole host of other issues). taks edit: where is everyone getting this idea that insurance is that expensive? my policy (for john and i) is not enough to afford a 3rd car, 2nd house, or anything even remotely close. maybe a used car for a few grand, or a big shed in the back yard...

i should point out here that overall, this argument has little to do with the government taking money from you, it's how they do it and what they use it for. the primary responsibility of the government in a capitalist society is to protect its citizens' rights. that requires military, police, fire, other protection services. whithout these things you have anarchy, which, as with other ideal systems, cannot work in reality. while you will (and should) have to pay one way or another, it is not a contradiction because you are paying for yourself, not everyone else, i.e., it does not result in a redistribution of wealth nor do you sacrifice your individual rights. not everyone that thinks such things are groovy do so out of laziness. certainly al gore is not lazy, nor barack obama. for some it is greed, for some it is power, for others (the majority) they simply cannot fathom that anybody would have a different set of moral values than they do. these people think it is "the right thing to do," therefore, so must you - you are immoral, and narrowminded* for believing differently. hehe, the best line i've heard recently came from george reisman: the right to life does not imply the right to force someone else to keep you alive. taks *i do not think that means what some in here think it means.

i don't need any pins and needles with a magic number of 1 and 10 games to play. this is a rare feeling with st. louis teams (well, lately at least). of course, they're IN TOWN right now so i may have to hop on a bus to denver (well, my car) to watch them tomorrow or sunday... hmmm. taks