The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Great. So when are we moving everyone out of California, the Gulf coast, and the Atlantic coast? After all we KNOW that there are going to be natural disasters there that are going to cost trillions more than if we just deserted those areas. We KNOW that many, many people there are going to be harmed. Why don't we force everyone out? Why did we pay to rebuild, and maintain places like Louisana when we KNOW that more Katrinas will happen in the future. It would just be preventative care, right? It would be saving people from harm, right?

 

Nope, sorry, I don't agree with the logic. People are free to do what they want, and I shouldn't be forced to subsidize it, even though I pretty much am.

The NOLA thing is a disaster. They had the chance to do what Chicago did after the fire, and rebuild smartly - in their case, rebuilding in areas NOT as prone to flooding, leaving the rest as open space, which would have had all sorts of benefits in lower infrastructure costs, better home values, and lesser risk of future disasters. But alas, no one at the federal, state or local levels had the balls (or not enough people did) to do it that way.

 

Sorry, that was really a side issue, but its one that drives me nuts.

 

[Balta1701]

Great. So when are we moving everyone out of California, the Gulf coast, and the Atlantic coast? After all we KNOW that there are going to be natural disasters there that are going to cost trillions more than if we just deserted those areas. We KNOW that many, many people there are going to be harmed. Why don't we force everyone out? Why did we pay to rebuild, and maintain places like Louisana when we KNOW that more Katrinas will happen in the future. It would just be preventative care, right? It would be saving people from harm, right?.

In California...basically we look at it as you get the building and road demolition done for free.

[Balta1701]

The NOLA thing is a disaster. They had the chance to do what Chicago did after the fire, and rebuild smartly - in their case, rebuilding in areas NOT as prone to flooding, leaving the rest as open space, which would have had all sorts of benefits in lower infrastructure costs, better home values, and lesser risk of future disasters. But alas, no one at the federal, state or local levels had the balls (or not enough people did) to do it that way.

 

Sorry, that was really a side issue, but its one that drives me nuts.

California is the same way. I can walk through the hills and say "These houses are going to burn down within 20 years" and those areas still get built up. There's a wonderful place right next to the San Andreas on the 14 where there is a whole hillslope that has been covered with new houses over the past 6 years, and a few places just down the slope where there are about 5 McMansions sitting right next to a man-made lake...which is there originally because of the fault.

 

Every time you see people complaining about their houses burning down out here, you should remember how easy it would have been to keep houses from being built in the really, really guaranteed to burn areas in the foothills...or at least how many steps there now are to fireproof houses in those areas.

[NorthSideSox72]

California is the same way. I can walk through the hills and say "These houses are going to burn down within 20 years" and those areas still get built up. There's a wonderful place right next to the San Andreas on the 14 where there is a whole hillslope that has been covered with new houses over the past 6 years, and a few places just down the slope where there are about 5 McMansions sitting right next to a man-made lake...which is there originally because of the fault.

 

Every time you see people complaining about their houses burning down out here, you should remember how easy it would have been to keep houses from being built in the really, really guaranteed to burn areas in the foothills...or at least how many steps there now are to fireproof houses in those areas.

This is where the government should indeed step in, in two ways.

 

1. Declare certain areas too high risk for building, because of highly likely disasters. Disasters COULD happen anywhere, but certain areas, like right next to the San Andreas or in below sea level areas on the Gulf Coast, you KNOW it will happen, and relatively soon. You prevent them from building residences, or businesses with hazardous materials, in those areas.

 

2. For people already in those areas, you make it law that they will not get financial assistance from the government in the event of the highly likely event you are marking for. By doing it this way, you avoid 5A Takings Clause issues because you are not dealing in things that belong to them (government assistance is not guaranteed in disasters) with your prevention.

 

ETA: You need to draw this line pretty far up. These have to be areas of extreme risk, as I noted.

 

[lostfan]

California is the same way. I can walk through the hills and say "These houses are going to burn down within 20 years" and those areas still get built up. There's a wonderful place right next to the San Andreas on the 14 where there is a whole hillslope that has been covered with new houses over the past 6 years, and a few places just down the slope where there are about 5 McMansions sitting right next to a man-made lake...which is there originally because of the fault.

 

Every time you see people complaining about their houses burning down out here, you should remember how easy it would have been to keep houses from being built in the really, really guaranteed to burn areas in the foothills...or at least how many steps there now are to fireproof houses in those areas.

Why do people on the West Coast say "the" before highways? e.g. the 5, the 101. I tried asking people this and they didn't even notice what I was talking about.

[Balta1701]

Why do people on the West Coast say "the" before highways? e.g. the 5, the 101. I tried asking people this and they didn't even notice what I was talking about.

Because that's their name. In the Chicago area, the highways all have other names other than the number that they're given; the Borman, the Ike, The Dan Ryan, the Stevenson, etc. Out here, the highways all have names, but like each 2 mile stretch is named for a police officer who was killed or something like that; there's no single name for a whole stretch of road other than the number.

[lostfan]

Because that's their name. In the Chicago area, the highways all have other names other than the number that they're given; the Borman, the Ike, The Dan Ryan, the Stevenson, etc. Out here, the highways all have names, but like each 2 mile stretch is named for a police officer who was killed or something like that; there's no single name for a whole stretch of road other than the number.

But, for example, I-57 has no name, but it's just called "57." Same thing with 95 and all of the spurs off it (295, 395, 495, 695 etc.). Those all have something resembling a name, but people call them by their number. Only on the West Coast do they do that.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

But, for example, I-57 has no name, but it's just called "57." Same thing with 95 and all of the spurs off it (295, 395, 495, 695 etc.). Those all have something resembling a name, but people call them by their number. Only on the West Coast do they do that.

 

The L.I.E. (I-495 Long Island Expressway)

The Garden State (Garden State Parkway in NJ)

The Quickway (I-86 in NY)

The B.Q.E. (I-278 Brooklyn-Queens Expressway)

The Thruway (NYS Thruway)

The Cross Bronx (I-95 The Cross Bronx Expressway)

 

I never refer to those highways by number and I rarely hear others do either

 

 

 

[lostfan]

The L.I.E. (I-495 Long Island Expressway)

The Garden State (Garden State Parkway in NJ)

The Quickway (I-86 in NY)

The B.Q.E. (I-278 Brooklyn-Queens Expressway)

The Thruway (NYS Thruway)

The Cross Bronx (I-95 The Cross Bronx Expressway)

 

I never refer to those highways by number and I rarely hear others do either

Well yeah, like Balta was saying we do that in Chicago too. Down here in Maryland most of the highways are called by their number, although part of the reason for that is because a lot of people that live here aren't actually from here (like me). Actually they call an expressway/highway/freeway a "beltway" regardless of whether they're talking about 495 or 695.

 

I dunno, just something I've always found odd.

[kapkomet]

You have got to be kidding me - yet another lie from Obama.

 

So that 60 Minutes bulls*** about not giving them miranda rights was yet another lie? I'm glad to know that NON-CITIZENS get afforded the same rights as a US Citizen even on a foreign battlefield. You have to be careful what you say. And yes, I see Bush did it too, and it doesn't make me like it any better.

 

Gee, I guess that makes Sarah Palin right when she talked about this in the campaign. That's kind of scary.

[EvilMonkey]

So you're saying you oppose things like Cigarette and alcohol taxes?

 

(And the whole point of a universal system is...you can't deny coverage!)

I have no idea what depth of your imagination you pulled that from. You think cig and booze taxes are there to help curb those behaviours? They are there because politicians see an easy source of revenue. What i am saying is that if they mandate preventative care, and dictate just what that care is, it is but a short step to say that if you didnt do the preventative care, you dont get the benefits. Drink too much? no liver transplant for you. And you may not, in theory, be able to deny coverage, but you can sure move people to the back of the list, thereby denying them timely healtcare.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have no idea what depth of your imagination you pulled that from. You think cig and booze taxes are there to help curb those behaviours? They are there because politicians see an easy source of revenue. What i am saying is that if they mandate preventative care, and dictate just what that care is, it is but a short step to say that if you didnt do the preventative care, you dont get the benefits. Drink too much? no liver transplant for you. And you may not, in theory, be able to deny coverage, but you can sure move people to the back of the list, thereby denying them timely healtcare.

This already happens in the current environment - as it should.

 

[mr_genius]

This already happens in the current environment - as it should.

 

what about fat people? they are like half the population and being obese is as bad if not worse than being a drunk is for your health.

[NorthSideSox72]

what about fat people? they are like half the population and being obese is as bad if not worse than being a drunk is for your health.

That is also a factor in how you fall on organ donation lists.

 

[Balta1701]

You have got to be kidding me - yet another lie from Obama.

 

So that 60 Minutes bulls*** about not giving them miranda rights was yet another lie? I'm glad to know that NON-CITIZENS get afforded the same rights as a US Citizen even on a foreign battlefield. You have to be careful what you say. And yes, I see Bush did it too, and it doesn't make me like it any better.

 

Gee, I guess that makes Sarah Palin right when she talked about this in the campaign. That's kind of scary.

Damn dirty hippies.

The admissions made by the men -- who were given food whenever they were hungry as well as Starbucks coffee at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- played a key role in the government's decision to proceed with the prosecutions, military and law enforcement officials said.

 

FBI and military interrogators who began work with the suspects in late 2006 called themselves the "Clean Team" and set as their goal the collection of virtually the same information the CIA had obtained from five of the six through duress at secret prisons.

 

To ensure that the data would not be tainted by allegations of torture or illegal coercion, the FBI and military team won the suspects' trust over the past 16 months by using time-tested rapport-building techniques, the officials said.

...

 

Officials said most of the detainees talked to FBI and military interrogators, some for days, others for months, while one or two rebuffed them. The men were read rights similar to a standard U.S. Miranda warning,

[StrangeSox]

Well, you know systems like that have worked brilliantly in europe...

 

My question is, how is the United States not gonna go into bankruptcy?

 

They've worked a bit better than our expensive system.

[StrangeSox]

This is where the government should indeed step in, in two ways.

 

1. Declare certain areas too high risk for building, because of highly likely disasters. Disasters COULD happen anywhere, but certain areas, like right next to the San Andreas or in below sea level areas on the Gulf Coast, you KNOW it will happen, and relatively soon. You prevent them from building residences, or businesses with hazardous materials, in those areas.

 

2. For people already in those areas, you make it law that they will not get financial assistance from the government in the event of the highly likely event you are marking for. By doing it this way, you avoid 5A Takings Clause issues because you are not dealing in things that belong to them (government assistance is not guaranteed in disasters) with your prevention.

 

ETA: You need to draw this line pretty far up. These have to be areas of extreme risk, as I noted.

 

This happened recently in Galveston. Basically, what was once their property is now public beach front.

http://wbztv.com/national/Ike.Texas.Homes.2.820742.html

[BearSox]

They've worked a bit better than our expensive system.

 

really, how so? Oh, because they never have to ration health care, do they? And you get medical treatment fast as well, right?

[kapkomet]

really, how so? Oh, because they never have to ration health care, do they? And you get medical treatment fast as well, right?

Get ready, BS. You've opened yourself up to the utopian health care is perfect arguments. Efficient, clean, treatments whenever they want, etc. The problem is, for sniffles and s*** like that, yea. That is the case, and it's the case here too, if people want to seek that. There's several clinics here that do cash visits and prescribe generic WalMart $4.00 scripts. But don't let that get in the way of a good we need utopian health care story.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Your avatar is all too appropriate, kap.

[StrangeSox]

really, how so? Oh, because they never have to ration health care, do they? And you get medical treatment fast as well, right?

 

Generally speaking, no and yes. They're not perfect systems. Ours has some advantages that theirs don't. But, I'd say that on the whole, they appear to be more efficient and provide more care to more people than ours does, and at a cheaper price.

 

For all the fear of "bureaucrats deciding your healthcare!", which doesn't really happen, our current system has actuaries and bean counters at Insurance Co, LLC deciding what treatments you get and from whom.

 

edit: I'd never support a plan where you can't opt out of government care, like Britain. There needs to be private options available.

Edited June 12, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

Generally speaking, no and yes. They're not perfect systems. Ours has some advantages that theirs don't. But, I'd say that on the whole, they appear to be more efficient and provide more care to more people than ours does, and at a cheaper price.

 

For all the fear of "bureaucrats deciding your healthcare!", which doesn't really happen, our current system has actuaries and bean counters at Insurance Co, LLC deciding what treatments you get and from whom.

 

edit: I'd never support a plan where you can't opt out of government care, like Britain. There needs to be private options available.

And what's the incentive for "private care" to stay in business? Especially when private insurance will most likely be taxed (maybe not this year, but it will), the government will be setting limits on everything anyway, etc.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

And what's the incentive for "private care" to stay in business?

To get people like you, who hate all things government run, to keep coming back so they can overcharge for unnecessary care.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Miss California ousted for speaking out against gay marriage:

Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean says she lost her crown because of a comment she made about gay marriage and not because she had been skipping appearances.

 

Prejean told Matt Lauer on NBC'S "Today" show Friday that she "absolutely" had been dethroned because of the comment, when she said marriage should be between a man and a woman.

 

Prejean lost her title Wednesday after the California pageant's executive director said Prejean was skipping Miss California USA events while speaking out against gay marriage at unsanctioned appearances.

 

Prejean denied that and calls her firing a set up. She says "tolerance needs to be a two-way street."

 

Prejean was replaced by the Miss California pageant's first runner-up, Miss Malibu Tami Farrell.

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[kapkomet]

To get people like you, who hate all things government run, to keep coming back so they can overcharge for unnecessary care.

Yep... because that happens all the time currently - you talk about straw man - that's all you people want to see is how "BAD" everything is.

 

And the government, which has never been efficient at ANYTHING, is going to make sure that we don't have anything "unnecessary". Right.