"WHAT is the chance that you could get someone to lie for you? What about vandalizing public property at your suggestion?
Most of us assume that others would go along with such schemes only if, on some level, they felt comfortable doing so. If not, they’d simply say “no,” right?
Yet research suggests that saying “no” can be more difficult than we believe — and that we have more power over others’ decisions than we think."
Most of us assume that others would go along with such schemes only if, on some level, they felt comfortable doing so. If not, they’d simply say “no,” right?
Yet research suggests that saying “no” can be more difficult than we believe — and that we have more power over others’ decisions than we think."
Read more here...
109 comments:
The Screwtape sort of stuff usually leaves me cold because it's so much like witches and goblins and superstition of the most primitive variety. I'm usually okay with foxes and storks or a lion with a thorn in its paw, though.
Anyway, the closest I come to believing in the reification of evil -- that evil even exists -- derives from the topic of that article.
There's a line in the song "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead: "Ambition makes you look pretty ugly."
That's about right.
There's a line in the song "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead: "Ambition makes you look pretty ugly."
That's about right.
That's an even better topic than the one Lem posted which I see as just an extension of the Mia Farrow/ Dylan Farrow thing.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with ambition (as opposed to greed). Ambition - personal ambition - makes things happen in world. The notion that "I'm too sensitive to pay the rent; I think money should be heaven-sent" has its own problems and obvious hypocrisy -- for example in the context of a struggling band that becomes successful.
I was asked that once.
No.
Yes but what could I possibly want someone else to do for me?
Says the committed redistributionist.
Last night's episode of Star Trek was the one where the Klingons are supplying the villagers with firearms and the moral quandary is whether Kirk will do likewise for the hill people.
There was a hot chick, of course. She was the very personification of ambition, sort of a composite of Eve, Lady Macbeth and whatever the Gypsy Queen in Tommy was based on, to name a few. She even had an apple-like hand prop called a mahko root.
I was disappointed that the episode ultimately pulled its punch but that's nothing unusual.
Anyway, I disagree that there's nothing wrong with ambition. I would agree that it's a necessary evil, better than the alternative we are actually given in the real world in which we must take action if we are to survive.
I could be wrong but I think that that take on Genesis puts me in some pretty good company, not that I'm boasting or anything.
What's the alternative to ambition that will both keep you alive and improving the lot of others. Sex and reproduction are pretty ambitious even, and if that's evil, then evil is a misunderstood concept. Weren't Louis Pasteur, Linus Salk, Jonas Pauling, Washington and Jefferson, ambitious?
Should we prefer a world left to the Jeff Spicoli types, like me, cause we ain't got time to solve your problems.
"Yes but what could I possibly want someone else to do for me? "
"Says the committed redistributionist."
"What you should do for someone else is another thing."
I think you mean "will do", or else.
Then stop voting for people who force us to assuage their guilt at our expense, which is just a con for fooling you into thinking their ambition is noble, when it's simple old fashioned self-promotion.
"
I'll continue to vote for who I think will do the best job overall for our country."
Now look back at who you voted for and ask yourself what past performance they had that would convince you that they would do a good job. Now that you have seen the wonderful jobs done by the Democrats who have bankrupted cities and states across the nation, even when blessed with incredible economies, and how they have spent an unprecedented sum of borrowed money to produce the worst recovery in history, have managed to actually reduce employment with all that money, have set up the nation for a prolonged malaise of lost jobs, and robbed people of their health care all through an endless series of bald faced lies, I'll expect you to be a reliable conservative voter now. Hopefully your education hasn't come too late for us all.
"WHAT is the chance that you could get someone to lie for you? What about vandalizing public property at your suggestion?"
I think that's called voting Democrat.
Seriously phx. After seeing what Obama did you still think he was a better alternative than Romney.
Forget about the debacle of Obamacare. What about the massive invasion of privacy that has the government reading our emails and having a record of all of our phone calls? What about the targeting of political enemies by the IRS? Most of all what about the fact that he thinks that by a stoke of a pen he can change a law without having to go back to Congress? That he can unilaterally decide what parts of a law he would enforce?
A substantive reply would be appreciated. Thanks.
I can understand and accept anyone who would say that Obama was preferable to McCain. Obama was basically a clean slate and McCain was a know property. So voting for Obama the first time is understandable. Wrongheaded but understandable.
Voting for him a second time is just plain stupid. Giving the reasons that you didn't vote for Romney because he cut some kids hair in high school or he put his dog on a carrier on the roof of his Country Squire Station wagon or because he had "binders full of women" to interview is just plain stupid.
I don't see how you could defend that.
Unless you are a straight out bigot who hates Mormons there is no reason not to prefer Romney over Obama.
Romney was a successful businessman in many different venues.
The only successful business that Obama ever ran was when he sold cocaine in college.
If the White House had nothing to do with it why did the Head of the IRS make so many visits to the White House? Why did Lerner take the Fifth Amendment?
Do you know who Catherine Engelbrecht is?
Or are you just going to cover your eyes and go "lalalalalala?"
We were voting for someone who knows how to run things. Like a business. Or the Olympics. Or even a state like Massachusetts.
Don't you think that government should be run more like a business where the executive is accountable to the shareholders (citizens)?
Of course it can not be exactly like a business. The hard heartedness of a business man has to be ameliorated by compassion and charity for the less fortunate among us. Who has shown that compassion and charity in their personal life? Romney or Obama?
Putting the government on a budget using commonly accepted business principles would not be so terrible. Would it phx?
I think that many foolish people voted for Obama because they were afraid that they would lose their handouts and their abortions.
The courts will never protect the unborn so you will be able to keep on killing babies. The handout culture would only be slowed somewhat. And by handouts I refer both to Obamaphones and the handouts to corporations that the permanent elites of both parties sign on to as the price of admission.
Standing with the unborn is not waging war on women. Some day you will be called to account before the bar of Heaven for what you do on this earth. I know that does not matter to those who favor unrestricted abortion as does President Obama.
If you thought that Romney would be able to stop abortion than you are much stupider than I thought.
"...behavioral interview questions bagoh20 insists we all ask of our President..."
How about the simple question: Has the guy ever run anything before, and if so, has he ever left it better than he found it? That seems like a sensible question before giving him the most powerful and important job in the world. Obama's history of managing anything other than his self-promotion was near nonexistent, with 100% failure where he tried. You go ahead and dress that Ken doll up anyway you want, but that won't change the fact that underneath it the man had only a little nub where his qualifications should be.
It is not meant to scare or impress you. It is meant to point out some facts. Facts that the news media lies about by omission.
When you voted for Obama you voted for a man who voted for a bill in the Illinois legislature that would allow a baby born during a botched abortion to be left on a cold steel table to die. This is type of person you are championing. The type of man you said you would vote for again.
We are known but the company we keep. By the politicians that we pick to lie for us. That is all I wanted you to think about. I don't care if it scares or impresses you. I just want you to pause a minute and think about what kind of man would do that.
Since aggression is much worse than killing babies.
People like Cuomo and Obama champion the murder of the innocent until the very moment of their birth and we are told to stand silent or we are too "aggressive." That we are waging a war on women.
In the end this is just one man's opinion. You can choose to do as you wish. What you support reflects back on you and your soul. When we speak about the holocaust of the unborn some will laugh and turn away and say no big deal. There are always good little Germans wherever you go.
Sorry I think about things like this on Sunday after I go to church.
Phx are you a man or a mouse?
If talking straight to you is bullying or aggression than I will leave you to sit on your couch in your footie pajamas and sip your cocoa. Just adjust your panties so they don't bunch up. Ice skating should be on soon.
I don't care if talking straight is effective or not. Too many people can't handle the truth. Or maybe it is just my truth in a Woody Allen kind of way. The left will always find excuses for abhorrent behavior. It is what you do.
I guess I come from a different era when it was a mans duty to protect the innocent and vulnerable. But don't worry. I am an old white guy. I will die soon along with most of the people who think like I do. Soon you will be at the mercy of the Ezra Kleins and Ezekiel Emanuel and the Barack Obamas.
If a candidate's history of success or failure is not a litmus test for any important job, then what is? What job on earth, other than human sacrifice victim, is past performance not a litmus test? If only one thing could be known, this has to be it. Everything else becomes irrelevant without success. I would vote against the nicest, most ethical, handsome, multiracial candidate every time if he is likely to be a failure, because I really do care about the future of the nation, not skin deep appearances. You hire the man who has proven success at doing what's needed. The country needs some fiscal fixing according to nearly everyone, and one candidate last time had an unparallelled record of that against one with none. It was a no-brainer.
Many conservatives, like myself, had big problems with Romney too, but the choice was clear. Proven success and ability versus nothing but rhetoric and what turned out to be a lot of lying, which was already a well documented quality of Obama.
I don't think I am righteous at all. I think I fail terribly and sin all the time. I look at all the things that are going wrong and wonder about what I can do to stop them. Or at least try to help the people who need help. I try to do the best I can in works of charity and penance.
But that does not mean you can just turn your eyes away from people who are actively promoting evil. To call that out is not being self-righteous. It is being honest.
People who hate Harry Reid should own up to their anti-Mormon bigotry.
Seriously, even Newt Gingrich knew that Romney's "vulture capitalism" has limited utility in the business world, let alone at the level of the national economy that should NOT be run like a business. The national economy is not a business. Why do people not understand the difference?
Anyway, the DJIA returned to normal and then some under Obama, and all the remaining unemployment results from Tea People deciding that public sector employment is bad in a recovery - the first time the Republicans did this. They didn't lay off public sector employees under Reagan, under Bush, under any of their previous guys. But of course, Obama must somehow deserve special treatment. Kitchen sinks are like that.
The ACA is not perfect but now the Republicans are forced to admit that the previous status quo was worse. They cannot complain about imperfect solutions when they refuse to acknowledge the problem. Saying high rates of uninsurance simply don't bother you is not a serious alternative stance, and they're finally forced to deal with that.
phx is right about the 4th amendment. Let the courts sort it out. They're all run by the conservative jurists you stuffed them with by now anyway, so take it up with them if you don't like their rulings.
The conservative argument against Obama has gone beyond ridiculous. It basically amounts to "We hate him because he hasn't done enough to restore the image of conservatism that W. tarnished".
Get real! Fix your ideology on your own, please. It's not Obama's job to out-conservative his failed conservative predecessors!
Being "self-righteous" is what other people are when they hold their opinions and values as strongly as you hold your own.
We don't want Obama to out conservative anyone. Obamacare is doing what is supposed to do. It is destroying the healthcare industry so it can be remade in the Soviet style.
"If you want to keep your policy you can keep your policy. If you want to keep your doctor you can keep your doctor."
Lies. All of them.
The future of what healthcare under Obamacare is perfectly illustrated by the artistry of the Sochi Olympics. That is our future.
No, that just means "opinionated", Bag. phx's definition of "self-righteous" contains the crucial element of hypocrisy that most people understand to be morally provocative to say the least.
The only way Obamacare is going to work is if the government forces doctors to be in these "plans" or lose their license to practice medicine. It will come to that.
What kind of medical care do you think you will get when doctors are forced to see patients for a pittance or lose their livelihood?
We don't want Obama to out conservative anyone. Obamacare is doing what is supposed to do. It is destroying the healthcare industry so it can be remade in the Soviet style.
Anyone who believes:
A. That the healthcare industry is being "destroyed",
B. That comparisons to the USSR,
are either helpful or anywhere close to accurate is not saying anything seriously enough to be taken seriously in the policy debate. It's desperate propaganda to say anything that outlandishly hyperbolic.
"If you want to keep your policy you can keep your policy. If you want to keep your doctor you can keep your doctor."
Lies. All of them.
All? I count "two" assertions, at most. Whether he was stretching the truth is debatable. What's not debatable is that Republicans never complained about CANCELLED and CHANGED and SHREDDED policy agreements and understandings that were routine under their previous, apparently beloved regime. The idea that Obama was promising a stability standard for the industry greater than what the Republicans wanted to keep in place is laughable. What he delivered was one that is, in the aggregate, less disruptive. But yes, insurance companies can still change policies and plans. It's the biggest dodge in the world to pretend that Obama would make policy alteration obsolete. Which Republican ever promised to deliver complete stagnation to policy changes, anyway? Oh, that's right. None.
The future of what healthcare under Obamacare is perfectly illustrated by the artistry of the Sochi Olympics. That is our future.
Thanks for the additional propaganda and hyperbole. Remind me, again, who was touting the supposedly great leadership of Vladimir Putin just a few short months ago, in this very space?
Hypocrite is also what other people are when they hold their opinions and values as strongly as you hold your own.
Maybe I am not being clear. Or not telling you the whole story so I am being a hypocrite.
This week a woman came into my store who was handicapped. She was a lovely girl who need clothes because she had just got a new job. As often happens we got to talking. She was young. About twenty one. She told us that she was the product of a botched abortion. She had some handicaps. A deformed arm and health issues. She was a lovely warm human being. I am not ashamed to say that I teared up quite a bit.
I guess I should have just said to her she should have been left on the table to croak because to do otherwise is to wage a war on woman. Otherwise I guess I would just be a hypocritical self-righteous asshole.
You know what? I can take the rap for that. No problem.
One man's propaganda is another mans truth.
If you don't think that Obama's goal was to drive us to a single payer socialist system of health care that you are just lying.
He will end up with more uninsured people and with higher premiums for working people than the prior system. He is a destroyer not a builder.
The only way Obamacare is going to work is if the government forces doctors to be in these "plans" or lose their license to practice medicine. It will come to that.
This is what a lot of people don't understand: Medicare already practically does that. It's been doing that for a while. And yet, seniors prefer Medicare to the private sector by a bigger margin than any Republican would ever admit. What Medicare does is set the standard for included and reimbursed practices that the private health insurance industry, in all its supposed omnipotence and wisdom, has been doing its best to emulate. Medicare sets a humane and practical and effective standard for private health care to follow, not the other way around. And now that's expanding.
What kind of medical care do you think you will get when doctors are forced to see patients for a pittance or lose their livelihood?
You simply have to get more specific when you ask questions like this. What is a "pittance" for a profession making 4 times, on average, the income of the average American? There is no evidence that this very desirable remuneration is decreasing whatsoever, either.
Allowing more people into the industry is a good thing. Most younger doctors involved in any humane way in leading their profession understand and welcome that. Keeping people out of the coverage fold is not a proposition that you can find any reputable physician to stand up, applaud and rally for.
"What he delivered was one that is, in the aggregate, less disruptive."
He had no idea what he was delivering, and neither did anyone else who voted for it. That what is meant by the admission that "We have to pass it to see what's in it." They still don't know what they passed, and even what they do know is worthless since Obama seems to be able change any law at will. Why would he be making so many changes to his own law? He needs to exempt nearly everyone as soon as they become subject to it's provisions. Is that some new legislative kung fu beyond the understanding of us rubes. Is that your idea of less disruptive?
Thank God we have a man with such experience and expertize in heath care, insurance, legislation, and basket weaving to lead this bold experiment.
Personally I like the way Putin handles his foreign policy. He doesn't have his ambassadors murdered and dragged through the streets. Maybe the knuckleheads are afraid of him?
Nobody is as universally laughed at as Obama and his Keystone Kops diplomacy. It has gone beyond being funny. It is becoming very dangerous.
The developments in Iran and between China and Japan as just two cases in point.
One man's propaganda is another mans truth.
If you don't think that Obama's goal was to drive us to a single payer socialist system of health care that you are just lying.
More conflation. I am not lying. Plenty of people want single payer. Obama said the ACA is the time for them to show whether their goal is increased coverage or who pays for it (single payer vs. the ACA's privately insured version). So, we know his priorities. That won't stop you from assuming other things, but the evidence shows him happy to convince single-payer advocates to show their cards and either admit that the goal of increased coverage was worthy, or secondary to their wish of dictating the payment source.
He will end up with more uninsured people and with higher premiums for working people than the prior system.
Unexplained predictions are not evidence of anything.
He is a destroyer not a builder.
With a "truth" this simplistic I can see why you might think the distinction between truth and propaganda would be so flexible and personal.
Well Ritmo once again I have to rely on anecdotal evidence. I was talking with my heart surgeon. He told me he performed a six hour operation on a guy at Long Island College Hospital which is why he couldn't make my appointment in his office. He got paid sixteen dollars by Medicaid. I think that qualifies as a pittance.
He asked me why should he perform six hours of surgery and get paid less than he pays for his haircut. He did it anyway because he is a mensch and a caring professional. But how long do you think such a situation is tenable?
What will happen is what always happens. Rich people will pay for it out of their pockets and poor and middle class will fight for the remaining crumbs. Unless the government outlaws private treatments for cash. Do you think they will do that? Or will the function of abandoning market based solutions will just exacerbate the income inequality of health care. It is sick and getting sicker the longer Obamacare is in operation.
I would ask for the testimony of someone like Pogo who is an actual doctor and can tell us facts and not the ranting's of self-righteous hypocrites like me and you.
That what is meant by the admission that "We have to pass it to see what's in it."
I'm not so sure of that. I think that by that, Obama meant that Republicans have a hard time debating something until they see how it all fits together in real life. They are not good with hypotheticals. They conflate, they exaggerate, they ignore. Passing the ACA gives us data on its effects and a way of understanding how its various parts fit together that Republicans seem to have had trouble seeing, beforehand.
Hey, man. The whole thing could end up being a disaster. A failure. Or worse: WORSE THAN THE STATUS QUO ANTE. But I am open to evidence. What are the trends and where do things line up once every provision is passed. If it's worse, go back. But Republicans don't seem to want to admit or do that (now that the public see what they do and/or don't like about it) so we know which side is open enough to self-correction and which one is just politically propagandizing.
I agree that predictions are not prove of anything. You think Obamacare is working and is a great thing. I think it is a unmitigated disaster and will be destructive to so many people who will actually die because of the governments incompetence.
How has the operation of such things as the website and the healthcare exchanges worked out so far? I mean in fact. Not in a prediction that soon everything would be fixed.
Because as you rightly say predictions are not the proof of anything.
Republicans were not the ones that refused to make any changes like delaying the mandate until facts forced their hands. Or did not go to Congress to amend the law but unilateral and illegally decided to not enforce the law. Obama saw what was in it and decided to change it without having to go back to Congress. Why did he do that?
Because he is both a fool and a knave.
Well Ritmo once again I have to rely on anecdotal evidence. I was talking with my heart surgeon. He told me he performed a six hour operation on a guy at Long Island College Hospital which is why he couldn't make my appointment in his office. He got paid sixteen dollars by Medicaid. I think that qualifies as a pittance.
Very good physicians always have and always will have busy schedules.
He asked me why should he perform six hours of surgery and get paid less than he pays for his haircut. He did it anyway because he is a mensch and a caring professional. But how long do you think such a situation is tenable?
It depends. THat doesn't sound like a good situation. It sounds like the surgery was necessary. Bad reimbursement. On the face of it, and I don't know if those are pre- or post- full implementation rates or if ACA had something to do with them (sounds like not), then it might be worth addressing. But Medicaid is not Medicare. States have more say in that and I'd have thought NY would have good Medicaid coverage… maybe not. I'm not saying things shouldn't be re-evaluated at any step under whichever regime.
What will happen is what always happens. Rich people will pay for it out of their pockets and poor and middle class will fight for the remaining crumbs.
This has happened for a long time. Currently governors are deciding whether to or not to expand Medicaid under provisions of the ACA. But the ACA is a different issue - that of expanding coverage for people who don't even qualify for Medicaid. As I say, Medicaid's sins/shortcomings can and should be examined addressed and corrected separately. But it helps to have the credibility of not opposing increased coverage first.
Unless the government outlaws private treatments for cash. Do you think they will do that? Or will the function of abandoning market based solutions will just exacerbate the income inequality of health care.
I hope not.
It is sick and getting sicker the longer Obamacare is in operation.
There are many pieces to all of this. Under ACA there will be expansion of ACOs. Companies' reimbursement will depend more and more on improved outcomes. I think that sounds like a good thing and an appropriate, market-oriented approach rather than just reimbursing for procedures and treatments.
I would ask for the testimony of someone like Pogo who is an actual doctor and can tell us facts and not the ranting's of self-righteous hypocrites like me and you.
Any single doctor can give good and interesting anecdotal stories. A bunch of them polled in the aggregate however are usually better at giving the kind of information that helps identify, address and resolve the most egregious underlying shortcomings at hand.
Also on a side note Ritmo I would love your opinion on my latest Doc Holliday story.
Someone who writes as well as you would have many very useful critiques.
I think the anecdotal evidence of the doctors in California who refuse to sign on the health care plans as providers tells us pretty clearly what the dealio is. Both NY and California are very generous in ladling on money to Medicare and if the reimbursement is not adequate in those very liberal states how will it be where people are very cheap?
You think Obamacare is working and is a great thing.
Not true, actually. I am very open to less regulation, or minimized regulation, and any evidence of what is going wrong or right. What should go to a Democratic approach or what should go to a Republican approach. But I absolutely accept that the expanded coverage pool finally addressed by Obama was a good and necessary thing, in the abstract. We can argue about whether in its particulars, it is accomplishing this and if it doesn't, excoriate it. By all means.
I think it is a unmitigated disaster and will be destructive to so many people who will actually die because of the governments incompetence.
That would be a bad thing. I'd back you up if that's what the numbers end up showing.
How has the operation of such things as the website and the healthcare exchanges worked out so far?
Horribly. He deserves unmitigated excoriation for that. It was incompetent. The one thing he knows how to do is to sell a sentiment, and a website is the most common portal these days for the face of any user-interfaced operation. He's a dumbass fuck for how he did that.
I mean in fact. Not in a prediction that soon everything would be fixed.
Well, I think you have my answer on that.
See? I'm open minded. Even to what Obama deserves for proven (rather than predicted or feared) incompetence. ;-)
I only know what the Doctor told me so I don't know if it is true. But I have a suspension that it is true.
It might come to the fact that Obamacare would have to mandate that the reimbursement that doctors get for performing procedures be at least as much as the minimum wage.
Even Republicans could sign on to that.
Also on a side note Ritmo I would love your opinion on my latest Doc Holliday story.
I'll definitely try to check out what you've done as soon as I get a chance. It's just that I've been ridiculously busy lately. THings should change in about a month but I've always got a good healthy kick out of your projects and regret not making my way over there as often recently.
Soon, soon!
Thanks buddy.
I hope we can set an example of how too people who are on diametrically opposed sides can argue forcefully and dare I say aggressively without rancor and in good humor.
You commie fuck you!
That is two people. Sorry.
Now I have to don my mantle of Self-righteousness and go downstairs and start to prepare my Italian Wedding Cake Soup before my wife comes home and hits me in the head with the frying pan.
War on Woman my pale Irish ass!
Lol. You're a good man, Troop. As far as politics go, I think I've actually opened my mind to a lot more of what you and the guys here and at your place agreeing with you are for, or at least more sympathetic to. But having a good time of it all (and all these other, more practical things) is key. Now back to your wars!
See ya 'round soon, Bud.
I'm involved with health insurance quite a bit. I use my own on a weekly basis, involving many doctors. I have issues. I also purchase and manage the health insurance for about 100 people. Just like I have for decades, I've spent the last year researching, negotiating, buying and managing it for others as well as myself. Consequently, I talk to a lot of people in the in health care and insurance industries - doctors, nurses, brokers, patients, and other employers.
It's nearly unanimous among all these people that the ACA is very poorly imagined, designed, and implemented and that it will degrade health care. Some people, specifically uninsured workers, believe that they will get free health care or some other misinformed pipe dream. Some of my doctors expect single payer to be inevitable now, since the ACA will fail so spectacularly and the fixes will be government based solutions because they will be voted for by politicians who get more juice that way.
These people are intimately aware of the shortcomings of the old system, but they still believe the ACA will be worse. It would be foolish of me to ignore all those involved people when virtually none of them believes the opposite.
In my own company, not a single employee will be eligible for subsidies, and yet will be required to get coverage. They will not like finding this out. Although I do see the advantage of forcing more to pay into the system, I expect that to be more than wasted on the bureaucracy that is not merit or profit based, but rather motivated by politics and personal employment benefits, like the the K-12 education system that is widespread failure.
Like the national education bureaucracy, the ACA will be at best a slow wrecking train that will be transitory to the next experiment, and the next, and the next. Very disruptive, very expensive, very frustrating, and not very effective.
People are averse to saying "no" because they want to be liked. The greatest liberation anyone can experience is not giving a rat's ass what other people think. Just do and say what you believe is righteous and let someone go shit in their hat if they don't like it. I've lived my adult life that way and I'm a pretty happy mofo.
Destroying property is a lot of what kids do for fun, boys anyway, and as kids, my friends were no exception. I remember refusing to destroy property many times. I would try to talk my friends out of it, but if I failed, I'd just stand there watching them and saying "c'mon, lets go. The cops are coming." I have no idea why I was different in this respect. My parents were far from strict, and I don't remember them ever lecturing me on values and such. I just felt it was wrong somehow, and I was always considering consequences. I always expected to get caught if I did something wrong.
I do remember Dad offering some advice before I went on a date once, and I asked him for some money. He said: "OK, but don't come home smelling your finger." I never did listen well.
Although I do see the advantage of forcing more to pay into the system, I expect that to be more than wasted on the bureaucracy that is not merit or profit based, but rather motivated by politics and personal employment benefits, like the the K-12 education system that is widespread failure.
"Up through 2010, there was a lot of variation in health plan MLRs. Some states regulated the issue; others let insurers decide. In the individual market, some health plans would spend as little as 60 percent on medical costs.
Enter the Affordable Care Act. The federal law, starting in 2011, began requiring all plans to spend at least 80 percent of subscriber premium dollars on medical care and related "quality improvement activities" (more on that bit in a moment). That leaves 20 percent of premiums for the health plan to cover administrative costs and return to investors in profits."
And as far as the supposed failure of universal education goes, the whole point was achieving widespread literacy in the population. By that standard, it's an astounding success. It's only once we decided that universal education was supposed to achieve this whole other grab bag of preparatory goodies that anything falls apart. If there's something that K - 12 education is supposed to be currently achieving, that it's not, the issue is simple: Define the goal. And make it more tangible than some vaguely defined set of state-sanctioned "standards". Literacy can be defined. Apprenticeship accreditation can be defined. All these other nonsensical, politically expedient measures cannot.
Would you lie for me? I believe that was the question.
My answer to this question is always the same:
"I will not lie for you, to you, or about you. Period." I have said this to employers, employees, clients, friends, my wife when we began dating, and my children when they were young.
I think that honesty is the most important virtue a person can have. Without honesty, little else matters.
Would I lie for you?
Yes, because sometimes truth must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.
Well I don't agree Michael. I would lie for you if people asked me how much hair you had.
Just sayn'
Hate is too strong a word Phx. Pity is more like it. Despise might also fit. Abhor might be an appropriate sobriquet as well.
But I speak for myself as a self-righteous ideologue. Not for bags who can speak for himself.
Thanks phx. I agree. But I think you should give Bags a break. He gets emotional sometimes.
It's the hep. Just like Pamela Anderson. He gets just as emotional and he also has very large breasts. So why not cut the man a break. Just sayn'
I would love to meet up with you for a drink. Of course you will have to carry the weight because of my heart I can only drink that liberal drink. Weak tea.
Well I know he likes dogs and rescues them all the time. That has to be a nod toward Hillary. Just sayn'
My girlfriend, who I adore, is a dedicated and opinionated liberal, and an Obama voter, just like about 80% of my friends, and I'm a lifelong Democrat, who was once very liberal, so compare that to your open-minded circle of tolerance, and tell me who is stuck on their ideology. I argue with my friends on this stuff all the time, but they don't get all cry baby about it. We share food, drink, laughs, love and all the rest, but you need to be coddled apparently. Homey don't play that with adults.
Is this the crabby men thread?
Go back and look at the comments here. I never attacked you personally, just criticized ideas and approaches in general, while you had to go directly at me as being defectively ideological. Project much?
You always go there. My opinions are rarely argued against by you. You simply say I shouldn't have them, or should deliver them with a back rub and a reach around. If I did that with every liberal I disagree with, I'd be dead from STDs by now.
That's cool, but do I still have to do the reach around? The last guy turned into a stalker. I'm that good.
She once got so pissed off at a mutual friend who was supporting Bush that she actually bit the person during the argument, and you think I'm opinionated? Her and I have some good arguments, but we never get mad at each other. She started her own business a few years ago and has employees now, which will soften a liberal viewpoint on some things real quick. We're both pretty liberal on social issues. I'd even bet I'm more liberal on social issues than the liberals in here. It's the role of government, its trustworthiness and competence, and that of any people in power that's where I differ with most liberals.
Hey I had pepper steak for dinner.
"Is this the crabby men thread?"
More like the "Get a room" thread. The smell of reconciliation is as thick and sweet in here as a porn set.
See we can all agree.
Everybody loves pussy.
Even Hillary.
LOL.
Hey, I agree that Hillary is nutz.
Anyways, we know Bill's the ultimate horn dog so it's hard not to cut him a break - especially when he was dealing with this.
OTOH, WTF do you think was going through his mind when he'd turn around and see this?
It's like ten times worse than that Seinfeld episode where his girlfriend's face goes from homely in bad lighting to attractive when it's brighter.
That second one is like a cross between John Lennon and Yoko Ono. I bet it was Hillary that broke up the Beatles.
This one's for Troop:
http://youtu.be/bf9d7rSf_Ks
; )
Also this:
http://youtu.be/Uhpu2N4rQZM
; )
Post a Comment