Y2HH

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 25, 2010 -> 08:16 PM) We need to live in f***ing caves. Without fire, because that would add carbon to the atmosphere. Instead, let's b**** about pollution from our computers, discounting the fact that the amount of pollution created just to manufacturer computer components is insane, not to mention powering them. Oh, and let's drive our cars everywhere, too...since they have improved MPG, it's ok to drive now! It's having your cake and eating it, too...which is what I do. I mean why would I want cake if I couldn't actually eat it? When this movement fades away (after they scam billions upon billions of dollars) while lowering the worlds carbon footprint by a whopping 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% in 20 years, you will simply stop hearing about it from all the people who did nothing but talk about it the entire time it was going on. By then, they'll have latched onto the next anti-something movement which is sure to come, and if we don't solve that, our grandchildren will have to pay for the damage we are doing! It's like the vegetarian you all know in your lives that wears leather shoes or a leather jacket.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 07:12 PM) Awww, come on now. It just depends on your straw man. Bingo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 01:53 PM) But you've spent the last few months telling us that one solution to the health insurance cost issue is allowing states to offer plans into other states, the sole motivation of which is to allow one state to offer a plan that undercuts the minimum coverage requirements of another state. I spent the last few months telling you that? No, I did not. A possible suggestion to help control insurance premiums was to open state lines to increase competition as the law WAS, not how it is, nothing more. And it also wasn't the "answer" to the health care woes of this nation. I was pretty clear, multiple times, when I said reforming insurance would do nothing to reform healthcare and control costs. And it's not. When it comes to the bill they passed, any suggestions I or others may have had are now meaningless and cannot be applied. They were only applicable to old law, not new law. Such suggestions have NO bearing anymore, the laws are completely changed. Before this bill, there was no such thing as "minimum required coverage", so there was no way I could have possibly said anything related to that. But thank you for trying to take a snipping of what I said out of context and apply it to the new system of laws.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 11:34 AM) Except if im not mistaken there are required minimums for coverage, including limits on copays and deductibles IIRC. I'm not sure what minimums exist, or how they can weasel around them yet. But those same types of minimums exist on car insurance, but if you've ever been in an accident, you'd know that those minimums aren't enough to protect anyone but those who don't have anything to lose and just "want to be within the law". For example, minimum car insurance is something like 25,000/35,000. The same exact thing will happen with health insurance now.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 10:14 PM) I can read and comprehend just fine, thanks, and you need to stop with the line-toeing. Also, your response here is a non-sequitur that doesn't appear to have anything to do with your unhinged rant before. I think. I hope. I managed to decipher "I am better and smarter than your foolish asses" from it but that's about it. I still have no idea what you're talking about. See that's where the disconnect is. I'm not claiming to be better nor smarter than any of you, I merely see things differently. Agree to disagree as they say. I'm fine with that. I can see why people might think what you said about me (about being smarter/better than you)...but on my side of the fence, I see it the same way from every one of you. Now if you can't see why I'd think that, then I guess I can't see why you'd think that, either. Funny enough, but this "I'm smarter/better thing" is a two way street, and all of you are standing on it with me...just in a different lane.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) The problem is, though, that we end up paying to treat these people anyway. If they aren't insured, you pay for it through higher medical costs for yourself when these patients default on their treatment, or the state or federal government ends up picking up much of the check through charity care programs. So it's ok as long as private companies are the ones picking up these tabs? Higher medical costs will still be coming, because private businesses can't just swallow these losses, they will pass the expense onto you. This bill will do nothing to rectify the rising costs of medical care, which I've said, and repeated, from the start. The flaw in this design is so easy to spot, I'm surprised anyone could miss it. Here is what will happen. Insurance is now mandatory (or will be), so you will either pay a fine, OR have insurance. Simple. Now you will see a sudden rise in "Eagle Man" health insurance companies, with the basic idea as follows. Our dirt cheap insurance will not actually protect you, all it will do is "cover" the fact that you are REQUIRED to have insurance. So buy our 2$ a month insurance, which will make you "legal". Now...when you get sick, or need actual care, be it last minute or not...you call a REAL insurance company like Blue Cross and drop the first months premium -- they cannot deny you -- and since you were legally covered by our crappy insurance, they can't deny you based on the lawful mandate that you needed to have insurance. So. Buy our crappy insurance just so you can be "within the law". But when you need claims paid, go buy REAL insurance, since they cannot deny you anymore. After they pay off your bills...drop them, and come back to our "within the law" insurance plan. Follow me? Rinse...repeat. In the end, that will spell disaster, and accelerate rising medical costs.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 16, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) I truly do not understand a word of this. Reading it, I feel like that 3-4 seconds of total disorientation right after you hit your head really hard on something. Really wasn't that hard to understand for anyone with a reading comprehension level above the 10th grade. All I see here is the same crap I've seen throughout my life. Younger people growing into idealists that are going to solve all the worlds problems by worrying about everything, but doing almost nothing about it. History repeating itself all over again. What will it be in 10 years when this blows over, I wonder? 50's/60's - Fallout shelters? 70's - Global Cooling 80's - Nuclear War/WWIII 90's - Global Warming/Airborne AIDS Virus? 00's - Terrorists/Climate Change (Can't call it GW anymore)/Some sort of Flu/sickness (Swine, West Nile, Bird Flu, etc.) 10's - Absolute worldwide disaster of some sort/2012 20's - ??? Boring.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 16, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) it was a bad explanation. How was that a lead into a serious discussion? Hey guys haha here's some really unfunny stupid statement mocking a serious problem hahaha oh WHAT WHY ARE YOU NOT JUST LAUGHING AT HOW UNFUNNY IT WAS ohhh i am so much better than you, you guys are extremists. Yes, that's exactly what it was! My explanation was quite clear. And you're response is -- sadly -- exactly what I expect.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2010 -> 01:35 PM) I guess I don't see the point of post 1726 then. You purposefully laid out some s*** to provoke people who might actually take the environment seriously which you don't. It'd be akin to me posting something in an abortion thread to mock those who are pro-life just to get a rise out of them and say "See. I just wanted to show people how you'd react irrationally". I explained quite clearly what it actually was.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2010 -> 12:21 PM) I thought there were rules in the buster for trolling. There probably are. But that wasn't really my intent here. I have no problems with serious discussions on things, but when extremism creeps into the equation, from either side, it automatically enters the realm of 'pointless to discuss'. And I've noted that talking to modern day environmentalists (i.e. the global warming crowd), it's an exercise in futility. They don't want to have a serious two-way discussion. They just want you to acknowledge they're right, everyone else is wrong, and so long as you think just like they think, you're good to go!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2010 -> 11:53 AM) Yup. We're just like Al Qaeda. You aren't "just like" them in the "I'm going to blow up innocent people" regard, but the extremest view on environmentalism IS just like theirs is on religion or hate. I proved that with this thread. By taking an opposite, yet TOTALLY ridiculous stance that embraces the anti-environmentalist movement, I should have been brushed aside as someone joking around, but what I got was equal and OPPOSITE positions to my position, which were JUST as ridiculous. The difference is, I'm not the one taking this subject seriously. Those responding to me ARE taking it seriously. TOO seriously. Such as someone replaying to me with the picture of a starving Ethiopian. My point was made. And it was made well.

Seriously. Some of you and your very extremist crap on the environment makes you no better than any other extremist in this world. Settle down.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) To be fair...if you're eating a normal, American, processed food diet...how many things you eat do you really know what they are? That's not to be fair at all. In the case something is cooked versus raw, especially meat, I tend to care a lot more. And while you can print lies on a packaging, you can get sued for it. You can't sue a fish retailer who sold fake fish to a sushi restaurant and then fed it to you for 25x the price it should cost, since it's not real. Now take into considering it's raw, and some meat is UNSAFE to consume raw, including some species of fish. These are two very different things. It's fair to say we will all eventually die, slowly or otherwise from our American diets -- despite the fact we live longer now than ever before. But that aside, eating something like raw fish can kill you, and kill you fast. While I assume the greens I eat from my local market are indeed whatever they say they are -- it wouldn't be so safe if they were selling nightshade and calling it parsley to a person that doesn't know the difference. One may be loaded with pesticides which can kill you over a span of 80 years...the other will kill you that day.

This weather has been awesome. Once again, I welcome global warming with open arms. f*** snow. f*** cold. And f*** penguins.

When I was a kid, the cement protected me from injury... Oh, wait.

There area lot of great Sushi places -- but the more time goes on the more weary I am of eating it. There are only "so many fish in the sea", as they say, and sushi grade fish is not the same as regular grade fish. The problem is, as the worldwide Sushi boom took effect -- and it has -- there are less and less deep sea sushi grade fish out there to catch, so they're moving into the shallower waters and harvesting those as the new sushi grade, only they're not. They're a cheaper grade/dirtier meat that's being passed off as the real deal. Just like Red Snapper is fake in just about 95% of the restaurants that serve it -- INCLUDING big name/fancy/expensive places. When it comes to fish, you have to be really careful, especially when it's raw. I think the risk of food borne illness from Sushi is rising, but still nothing I'd really worry about. Yet. Story: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/379403,...sushi10.article They took DNA samples from sushi restaurants around Chicago serving "red snapper", only it wasn't. What really stands out is that out of 14 restaurants tested...ZERO were serving the real deal...and they didn't even know it. From article: "The newspaper had DNA tests done on sushi described as red snapper or "Japanese red snapper" bought from 14 restaurants in the city and suburbs. Not a single one was really red snapper." Far be it for me, but if I'm consuming something that's raw, and potentially dangerous -- I want to know what the f*** it is.

I bet that's Mark Buehrle.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 14, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) Then I realized I hadn't had water to drink in 4 days because my hometown had become a desert... I have plenty of water to drink. If anything, warming will give us even MORE water.

I woke up this morning, and while walking out to my car on this particular glorious morning, I looked up at the Sun -- the king of our solar system -- and thanked it for global warming. Now you wouldn't believe me if I told you, but I'm sure it smiled down upon me and slightly nodded -- and I could swear the temperature rose two degrees at that moment. It was glorious. :headbang

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 13, 2010 -> 07:08 PM) Yeah, honestly, despite the lack of multi-tasking, i am toggling back and forth between functions and webpages extremely easily. The processor is fast enough that it's just sort of manual multi-tasking by learning how to manipulate the touchscreen quickly. I kinda feel like Tom Cruise in Minority Report. You'll have multitasking soon enough.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 14, 2010 -> 08:16 AM) Romero seriously looked like vintage Johan last night with everything in his arsenal going. You can prepare all you want for guys like that, when they are on their games, it doesnt matter. No, no, and no. You got it all wrong. When Mark Buehrle pitches a perfect game or a no hitter, it's because of how awesome he is, opposing batters didn't have a chance. When someone does it to us (or comes close), it's because our offense sucks and our manager/hitting coach need to be fired! It's called Soxtalktality -- a blend of group think from Sox talk and the mentality it creates.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/wh...-sox-13.article