Y2HH

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 08:14 AM) Actually, wait, let me alter that - in this case, they didn't even fail to publish (I just looked back at one of the articles with quotes). They published properly - they were just debating in an email about not filling an FOI request. Still bad, mind you, but nothing nearly as dramatic as you are putting it. This doesn't effect outcomes. It calls those outcomes into question because it calls the character of these scientists into question. If they'd talk about doing something like that via email, who's to say they didn't do other things that were never logged or in writing anywhere? If they never did anything like this in the first place, nobody would be talking about it is my point. The fact this happened is casting doubt into everything they accomplished, whether it should or not. It's tainted now. You can make excuses and say they were "being human", but in the arena of science, there is no excuse for this, on any level. It is dramatic for that very reason.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 07:34 AM) Show me any example of the bolded in the leaked documents. Because I haven't seen anything like that. As I said, the one disturbing thing to me is that these guys wanted to hide their base data. Heck, I don't know if they even DID hide it, but it bugs me they wanted to. But I saw nothing at all as dramatic as you are trying to make this. Wanting to hide their base data is THE glaring example of that bold text. In science, you simply do not ever do this...no, you don't even CONSIDER doing it. Doing so casts doubt on everything you've spent time to study, this is counter to the point of science.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 04:09 PM) http://www.kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=11658051 It's so very very sad that despite all the money this country spends -- we have places such as this. And they go largely ignored by the government, republican, democrat or otherwise. Massive spending bills. Massive deficits. Massive debt. Yet "homeless camps" are becoming a more and more normal thing. How TRULY sad. But hey -- f*** them -- we're too busy with cleaning the air and arguing about health care, that for better or worse, probably wont help people while they're STARVING TO DEATH AND HOMELESS IN THE UNITED STATES.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) Five AP Reporters scoured the million words' worth of leaked emails and papers. They found pettiness, conduct bordering on unprofessional, rivalry, and suggestions of keeping data away from disagreeing parties. What they did not find, was any shred of evidence of any fraud, or anything illegal, or anything that would suggest actions which fundamentally changed any scientific outcomes. So basically, they found the scientists are human, and often petty and competitive, but not outright fraudulent. Article, from AP, syndicated to NBC. It still disturbs me that data was being kept away from the public eye - but aside from that, the rest appears to be just noise. There certainly is no smoking gun here, nor is there anything to lead anyone logically to believe outcomes were manipulated. The AP. Hahah. That may have meant something a few years ago...but they're ruined their reputation as have many other "news" organizations. Syndicated to NBC no less. Sounds like tailor made spin doctoring, all because of some douchebag scientists that broke all the rules that make science what it is. The fact that any of this went on in the scientific community is disturbing, and a few articles from the AP doesn't dismiss that. That's the beauty of science, it's not petty. The fact that this even happened raises questions -- questions that should have never existed. If you want to prove something, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you don't go about it like this. And they should have known better. They set this data back years by doing this, because now people have reasons to call it to question -- despite the AP finding nothing "wrong".

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 09:03 AM) So you are telling me a special interest lobby is controlling the Democrats? Impossible. The Dems are a rightous and pure. Yea. Sure.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 06:32 PM) why would the Democrats be against cheaper prescription drugs? Because they made a deal with the drug companies to back their health care legislation, in exchange for that backing, the drug companies agreed to cut costs over a period of years to save them X amount of dollars that would help pay for this. And I believe one of the provisions of the deals is no cheap drugs from Canada, etc. Without the backing of the drug companies, it all but guarantees this fails. If you think the insurance companies lobby has power...you ain't seen nothin' yet -- if the drug lobby gets involved, you'll suddenly see a lot of new senators pop up with "issues" concerning the bill.

He'd have a point if he didn't lose the very game he plays on a "daily" basis. Pun intended. Daley is all politics, so I think it's funny politics kicked his ass in this case.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) I enjoy reading your posts more and more each day. That worries me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 09:50 AM) So, you're then in favor of an overhaul of the current system, as it forces people fairly regularly to get divorced so that Medicaid will pay for the treatment needed by an uninsured/underinsured family member? "Fairly regularly" is a load of bulls***. Not to mention it means nothing...or something. Who knows what it means, could you be more vague? 80% of the country currently has medical insurance. 5% of the 20% that don't have it, are too lazy or cheap to buy it, or just don't care because they're healthy "right now", despite having the money to do so. The other 15% are who you are referring too...so let's stop talking about them like they're the "majority", when they aren't. So no, this doesn't "fairly regularly" happen at all. But thanks for playing. And yes, I'm in favor of an overhaul of the system if it involves more than "health insurance reform", which so far, is all this is.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 09:17 AM) When I say it's "fake" I mean it's just another avenue the far right uses to make heath care reform look like the work of the devil. Heathcare Reform is a naughty phrase in the far right circles, trust me. Clearly those abortion loving atheist Democrats want to destroy marriage and all things religious. And I am married. Well, I don't care about all that other garbage -- but if it's going to cost that much more just because you're married, something is wrong there.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Here's the latest fake outcry over heathcare reform: Heathcare Reform Will Make You Want to Never Get Married!!!!! If this is true, how is that fake?! I'm not sure about you, but the last thing I need is additional expense just because I'm married. Marriage is EXPENSIVE, especially if you are single income, hell, even if you aren't, depending on what you make. Edit, I'm just guessing, but you must be single. I've never had LESS money than since I got married.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) So basically, he is saying, change nothing. Expand means disaster, cut means disaster. This is really not a surprise, considering the Congressional GOP has made a mantra out of "do nothing". As opposed to spending more money and resources we don't have...yes, in that case, then I'd rather them do nothing. However, when it comes to the republicans, if that was their actual reason for not wanting to change things, I'd agree -- but we all know why they don't want to change things, and it's because the democrats want them changed, and that's the only reason. I'm so sick of the petty fighting between the two groups when the only people who end up suffering are the citizens. You'll never see any of these guys in need of medical care, money, or food.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) Poster put out by the Senate Dems today showing press releases from the future Majority Leader's office. I fail to see an identity crisis. Only in liberal land could that be considered such where "not cutting medicare becomes the same as a vast expansion of medicare". If anything, that makes those who released that look really stupid to people that can add 2 and 2.

What's great is how they can vote to "raise the debt ceiling". If it's a true ceiling, you can't just "raise it" at will, without consequence, you f***ing imbecilic bureaucrats. It's infuriating to even read the crap these guys do/get away with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 06:50 AM) Let's just not pretend that the market actually incentivizes long-term planning and objectives over better and better and better quarterly numbers. Paying a healthy/sustainable dividend offsets the need for constant growth through troubling times when growth is hard to come by. A lot of more "modern" companies (mainly tech companies), live off of selling the "growth" dream, and paying little to no dividend. You often find huge swings in prices for such stocks, see Apple or Google, where a day that the stock goes up 10$ or down 10$ is common. Then see the Pharmaceutical Merck, or McDonalds, paying dividends with CURRENT price yields of 3%+ per quarter. When I bought Merck, the div yield was over 6%...despite the rise in share price, I'm still making that 6% per share per quarter, so if the stock doesn't rise...I don't care...I'm still getting paid. You will rarely see price swings in these stocks, despite periods of contraction or flat growth. That's called long term planning. Dividends keep your investors interested, because in harder growth periods, they're still making something for tying up their money in your company. It's time some of these "growth" companies (who are already fully grown) figured that out. It helps the company sustain value without having to seek growth at no matter what cost.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) So what he is saying is that Obama hired these party crashers to come to the White house to hide the fact that at the dinner party was a guy there who once served 5 months in prison. Who also happens to be the husband of a congress women. All because Obama is secretly usually this book as a plan to turn America into a progressive utopia. Well that makes perfect sense. Not what he said at all. You are really reaching. But that's ok. When it comes to this, there is no explanation that will do for you, let's just leave it at that.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) What I want to know what is the point of the video? Is he trying to prove that Obama is following a book that was written by a guy who was in prison? You say he's not lying in the video. I mean I can see that, but what is he getting at? I don't understand what he is getting at. His point was the constant magician act of this administration. Basically, Beck's point was, "Look at my right hand and I'll show you what you want to see, meanwhile my left hand is doing the exact opposite." What have we heard about the last 2 weeks? Two party crashers NOBODY should care about at the state dinner. What have we NOT heard about? An ex-felon, who wrote this book, which from to looks of it Obama is following as a near step-by-step guide, AT THAT SAME DINNER. I think that was his point, yet despite that being his point -- you didn't even see it...because you saw what you wanted to see...and that's the game politicians play these days, democratic or republican. Look here...no no no, not over there...you'll ruin the trick! LOOK HERE. IGNORE THERE.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) First off, I'm not a democrat or a liberal. What should progressives do ignore Beck and hope the millions of people that watch him figure out that he is lying? Again, I'll ask. What did he lie about? You didn't like how he tried to link the book as a guide to how things unfolded -- only they DID unfold that way, whether it be coincidence or not. But the things outlined are not lies.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) lol and the Democrats obsession with Glenn Beck continues. What I find funny is how rabidly the democrats attack Beck, but he's just as harsh toward the republicans. Anyone I know that's ever attacked Beck, and I've asked them this -- why do you hate him so much? Their answer, repeatedly, is "Because he's such a Republican 'Faux' news shill". That's when I get to say, "But Beck isn't a republican...and if you ever watched him, you'd know that. Instead, you watched some clips of him on a pro-liberal show, no doubt. He blames republicans just as much." And I retract calling him an idiot, Beck is not dumb, but he's a total sensationalist...and I really dislike sensationalism in media, since they always ALWAYS always focus on sensationalizing ONLY the negative.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) Just for calling me out, I'm increasing the amount

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) When's the last time I suspended someone for that? I let stuff like that ride all the time. As long as it isn't slanderous, libelous, or just plain obnoxious to everyone else I don't really care what people say about public figures. You suspended me like 30 times already because I was late with my payoffs.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) I was gonna delete that but whatever. When did Kap direct anything towards you? He didnt. You and others say essentially the same s*** about Palin, GWB others all the time. Who the hell cares that Kap used a naughty word (OMG!). That was the only difference. Get over it. Winner.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) I get what you're saying, it's just that it's stopped bothering me so much lately. To be honest, me too. I learned this lesson from Joshua -- the computer in the movie War Games. As Prof. Falken said, "There's a time when you should just give up." Now. How about a nice game of chess? (Or maybe I'm too old for this place.)

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) There's like a dozen different reasons that happens, frankly that's just the way politics works. Doesn't mean I have to like it. I guess I could as easily say there are hundreds of reasons why the world gets polluted...so meh, that's just the way it is...let's ignore it. That's just the way human nature works.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) So it's the same. So what. I could probably grab about 40 books by progressives that lay out the same plan. And so that means Beck is wrong? I fail to see your point. I'm not even a Beck supporter, I find him to be a sensationalist idiot, but even I can see when people have a point that I tend to disagree with.