EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 11:11 AM) I'm not going to defend that Grayson ad, but really...that ad is only a new low once you've decided that every ad a Republican ever ran is automatically ok. That kind of personal crap has been run for years, and the Right has won race after race using it. The left shouldn't be using it, but neither should the other side. That's the whole point. I didn't mean that ad per se was the worst, but that he is. While it might be 'refreshing' for him to speak his mind, it sure doesnt' help the general tenor of things around Washington. He called Gibbs Bozo the Clown, wanted to have critics arrested and jailed for 5 years, the 'republicans want you to die quickly' thing you mentioned and even called a female advisor to the Fed a 'K-Street whore' (and not one peep from women's groups about that). And as usual, he projects his actions onto others, claiming what he does is mirroring what Republicans do. http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_poli...five-years.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/weekinre...nhorn.html?_r=1

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 09:50 AM) The 'Taliban Dan' ad Grayson put out is probably least honost/most hilarious ad i've ever seen. pretty much sets the bar at a whole new level. Grayson himself is a new low. That guy really takes the cake.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) How much influence does $199 buy? How much influence does $87.5 million buy? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1761790288.html

Harry Reid, savior of the WORLD!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SOoBOsZBU8...player_embedded

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 20, 2010 -> 05:47 PM) So... I ask my fellow Busterites... and let's see if this can stay non-partisan for a bit... what to do about it? What's the solution here? Didn't even make it to page 2 before Balta jumped that shark.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 11:55 AM) I prefer Jan's message She would fit right in with the SEIU. When she loses her seat, she should go try for a union job.

Presented without comment.(for now) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBzjLnO-e3o...player_embedded

if I had the cash, I would try it. I play in roving tournaments at Chicago Charitable Games all the time, and we have a game at my house every 6 weeks or so. Good luck.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 06:29 PM) Because then 95% of that money that was saved gets spent on new houses bank fees, the people turn 60-65 and discover they need a surgery that costs 100x more than they have to spend on it, and either they wind up suffering in poverty or they wind up with their hands out to the government. If you think I'm exaggerating here, I'm not and the evidence is quite clear; prior to Social Security and Medicare, the Elderly had by far the highest poverty rates in the country (>25% in the 60's to 13% in the early 90's). What drives us insane is people who want the government off their back except for all the things that benefit them. Everything else is clearly unimportant except my Medicare. But we do have social security and medicare now. So why would a MSA be a bad thing? If people withdraw for non-medical reasons, the almighty government makes sure to get its huge slice right off the top, not bank fees.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 12:16 PM) Health insurance does seem like a total ripoff. But I'm an idiot, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about but anyways.... 1) I have no idea what my health insurance even covers. There could be a clause in my coverage that, in lawyer speak, says I explicitly agree to never file a cliam. I don't understand any of the BS in that policy. 2) If I actually get seriously ill would they pay? I've worked with the insurance industry enough to know that they would do everything in their power to avoid payment. The only person I know that actually got really sick and had health insurance got screwed. They basically found a loop hole in her coverage and told her to f*** off. 3) From, let's say 22- 40 years of age, if you don't seriously sick you will have saved a s*** LOAD of loot if you had all that health insurance premium. You could save it away for when you get old and do need it. I could easily amass $200k. 4) Once you have your mass amount of money saved, you can get care wherever you want. You don't have to pay super high US health care costs if you don't want. More options, go to Germany or something for major stuff. i had a boss several years back that developed a staph infection and almost died about 6 or 7 times over a 3 month period. He ended up paying about $15k out of pocket, but his insurance covered the remaining 500k. We used ours to have surgery on my sons shoulder, cost us $1100, insurance paid the remaining 14k. I had a vascectomy, paid $50 (and yes, went to a hospital, not a back alley!) insurance covered the rest. Wife had appendix removed, no cost to us. As for #3, only way you would actually SAVE that s***load for later would be if you did a MSA. problem is, most people that do without, use that scratch to go on vacation, but a new car, etc, then get screwed when they really do need it. but Dems have been trying to get rid of MSA's for a while now.

When I was at Office Max 6 months ago, the policy available was about $600 a month for myself, wife and 2 kids. it was an OK plan, not a great one, but not terrible either. I have no idea what, if any, Omax contributed.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 03:58 PM) Everyone you listed has criticized him much more harshly [bP excluded]. And they all deserve every ounce of criticism they get, in addition to Obama's gentle prodding once and a while. Have you ever even heard of Richard Nixon? P.S. claiming we all think Obama is a messiah is not a response that wins debates, or true. So you are saying that Obama = Nixon? They seem to be the only 2 Presidents in recent times that have gone after private citizens, companies, etc the way they do. Even Clinton had more class than Obama shows when dealing with whoever is at the top of his 'enemies' list. The President is supposed to lead by example, not act like a spoiled bully.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 02:55 PM) Which is the exact myth that he quoted...that oil in U.S. waters is being drilled by Cuba and China. The whole reason why Cuba comes into this at all is that it's close enough to Florida that you can legitimately whip up scared people by saying they're taking our oil. wHOA WHOA WHOA, I did not ever specify where the drilling would be, you just assumed it. And Cuba could drill in the gulf, close enough to American waters that the oil deposits could be on both sides. I know that currently nobody is doing that, but it is being talked about and when oil becomes expensive enough it will be done, by someone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 11:47 AM) Is it worth noting that this claim has been repeatedly established and admitted to be false? I didn't say they are, I said they will, if we don't. Sooner or later they will need it, and if it is there, what is going to stop them from taking it?

I loved Rocko's Modern Life

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) I agree that you have to be careful how things are implemented, and when. Immediately internalizing externalities to the cost of gasoline, for example, would be economically catastrophic if done all at once. So you have to go at it from different angles, and do it over time. But to me, there is a win-win scenario available here. You can remove all tax breaks and incentives currently given to oil companies and their like, add in some other money, and make real investments (pretty big ones) in alternative energy sources. Instead of penalizing people for polluting, you make it cheaper and more reasonable for consumers to make the switch to alternatives over time. This has the benefit of creating new, growing businesses in cutting edge areas, which I think is huge for the US, but also allows the economy to make the shift in a healthy way. I disagree on the drilling though, I don't think we should be spending a single taxpayer dime on any new drilling, and I don't think we should be allowing licensure to any new fields for development. Because you can't make this work if you incentivize going backwards. I agree with the removing of the tax breaks. But if we don't drill in some areas, China, Cuba, etc will. We still need to drill in the meantime. The part about making it cheaper for consumers to switch is key. Same goes for recycling. I had to search a long time to find someone to come and recycle my used paper without me having to pay them to do it. The ones that were no cost to me wanted to leave HUGE dumpsters in the back, and I don't have that room either. Finally found a place that would leave a small garbage dumpster size container and even pays me a few bucks. Not much, but lunch for the office.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 07:29 AM) I wanted to save this one for last and turn it around on you: How long are you willing to ignore that the status quo is not sustainable? That "do nothing" means our standard of living is going to drop. That we'll continue to have more and more droughts and floods and record highs and lows around the world. That power plants will have to run at lower capacity because their cooling water is too hot. That acidification of the ocean isn't a real problem. That nitrogen runoff into lakes, rivers and the oceans isn't killing the base levels of the food chain for those ecosystems. That the garbage island in the Pacific is only going to keep growing and keep killing marine life and birds. How long are you willing to ignore that many of the industrial practices of the 19th and 20th century are incredibly destructive to the environment and that continuing these actions will result in long-term costs and harm for people? How far are you willing to mortgage the standard of living of future generations so that you don't have to change now? You see, I have never said 'do nothing'. Ever. While I have championed more drilling, I have also said we need to come up with alternative fuel sources, and use the ones we have now such as nuclear power. I applaud the people trying to discover those alternate sources, but will hate it when they are forced upon everyone if they are not ready. When companies pollute, I want them punished, not a slap on the wrist. Likewise, I want the EPA to be reigned in in certain areas. Like one of their new proposals to classify DUST as a pollutant for farms. I recycle, and just started a recycling program at my new job for all of our waste paper. It is good that you are doing your part and not a total hypocrit like so many people are. But short terms costs do have to be considered otherwise we will all revert to third world status whether we want to or not. Nobody will be able to afford the $10 gas, or to pay for the food which will be super expensive due to increased farming costs, transportation costs, etc. As for the 'rest of the world already addressing this', yeah, well, they at least give it lip service. How many countries met thier Kyoto goals? And how come China and India are always exempt from these things? China burns more cola than the US, yet they are correcting the problem? I don't think so.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) The overwhelming paradigm in climate science is that the planet is warming and that humans are responsible for a significant portion of that. The first part of that there is some evidence for. The second part is very much open for debate. Animal farts supposedly do more harm than people. Maybe the bovines should institute a cap and trade on gaseous emissions. Lets go your route for a sec. Assume that everything you say is correct. What would you have us do? Are you ready to pay $10 a gallon for gas? Ready to eat crappy food once they decide that commercial farming is bad for the earth? Watch people starve since without commercial farming we wont be able to feed everyone? Or transport the food to where it is needed without truck, or trains? Institute population controls because humans are bad for the planet? Give up your car? How about your computer, since all that electricity has to be made from some kind of fuel. And would these restrictions only be for the US, or would China, India, Europe etc. also have to go along? How far are you willing to lower your standard of living in order to accomplish what you want the world to do? And after you answer that, why haven't you done it already? Why wait for the government to force everyone else to do it. If it is so right, what are you waiting for? Do it now, do your part.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 06:12 PM) Also AD, let's follow your theory that this is about publish or perish. Part of finding subject matter and theories to explore for scientists in any field, is breaking ground. At this point, since the vast, vast majority of science sees climate change is real and at least partially anthropogenic, simply restating that fact isn't breaking new ground. So, your theory actually points to scientists NOT wanting to go along with the wave. Instances of intentional mistatement are rare at best. I don;t pretend that all climate scientists are on the take. Likewise not all are in it for the good of mankind. To ignore the money aspect of it entirely is stupid. To say that is can't or won't effect how people view data or direct their research is ignorant. I don't claim that it is a sole motivating factor for all, but very few can say that they don't think about getting that next grant. As for giving you (not you, NSS) links, i will not. For every link I post about scientists getting caught manipulating the data, you wil post something saying they didn't. For every scientist I link that is against it, you will link someone saying they are a crackpot and doesn't know what they are talking about. When I post how only a handful of scientists actually signed onto a UN study that said hundred signed, you will say that is false and that hundreds DID sign. For every study you show that was peer reviewed, I can show that it seems like the same group of 'peers' always reviewing each other. Michael mann was 'cleared of fraud, but by his own university who had also peer reviewed his works. For every case where someone refuses to disclose their data, you will show a link where they did disclose it, again to the same subset of 'peers'. A fruitless exercise that will result in me getting suspended before we are thru.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:37 PM) Here's an interesting read on that resignation. Our response to your point is yeah...a handful of papers have gotten things wrong. We've backtracked on about 3 things out of many thousands of pages in the IPCC report. Basically 3 paragraphs out of thousands. Too much money involved? You apply that standard to the side that says climate change is real but you don't acknowledge that there's a fair amount of money devoted to making it look like climate change is up for debate. Which has more money, the National Science Foundation or Exxon? I could go on but I have other stuff to do., Publish or perish. Same holds true for your research. If you start off to prove climate change is real, you had better do that or you can kiss your grant money goodbye. No incentive there to fudge data, forget about those few reporting station over there, make a program to interpret the data that has formulas inside it that would make a programmers head explode, but give you the results you want and/or attack the character of anyone that speaks out against you instead of what they are speaking about.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:24 PM) I find it ironic that this is now an issue, while no one on the other said cared about voter fraud days ago. Nor the foreign contribution Obama got during his campaign thru his website.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) You are basing this assertion on what exactly? One case of misrepresentation? You're aware there have been countless studies done in this field by thousands of scientists around the globe? What proof do you have that your blanket statement is true in any way? You may only see one if you have your head buried in the sand. I don't deny the fact that there are some changes noted. I dispute the severity of them and the honesty of most of the people delivering them. Too many agendas and too much money involved. Yet you seem to not see, or care, that many of the most vocal proponents for your position either lied, exagerated or rellied on data that was not entirely accurate, and what is worse, don't care that they did so. I found this an interesting read. http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/re...ysical-society/

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) Those last two sentences are supposed to be in green right? I forgot, he walks on water and shoot pixie dust out his ass, heals the sick, has no evil bones in his body and makes women faint in his mere presence.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) Well that's a bit much - most petty? Anyway, the real solution to all of this is real campaign finance reform, which seems unlikely. This is one of the few true failings of the Constitution, leaving the financing of campaigns in the hands of the campaigners. Not that I blame the framers, because they probably couldn't have forseen this, but its a serious hen house problem that needs to be addressed. Can you think of any other President that has verbally attacked people like Obama has? He has lashed out as Joe the Plumber, Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts by name, BP (well, they deserved most of that), Sarah Palin, now the Chamber of Commerce. 'Can't I just eat my damn pancakes?' Who is next?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:14 PM) I don't think he was saying Balta is lying, he was talking about the method of discussion at the margins. But maybe I misunderstood. YEs. When climatolgists get data showing a half degree rise, they start cherry picking and ignoring data unitl they get a 4 degree rise because that sounds scarier. They been caught doing stuff like that so many times that anyone who was sceptical to begin with just doesnt' believe anythign they say anymore.