Gee, they seemed to be good enough issues when Bush was in office. Wonder what happened?
Nothing happened, Rick. Nothing.
Watching the government clean up the casualties of capitalism is as fascinating as it is horrible.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 28.05.2009 @ 12:35
Sotomayor, while qualified to sit on the high court based solely on her experience as a 10 year jurist on the Second Circuit, would nevertheless be a disaster for America.
HA HA HA HA HA HA... ha ha... ha. Right. A disaster for America. Sure. Disaster? Really? Isn't that what the Democrats told me about Alito? Puh-leeeeze. There are much more pressing disasters for America than this one.
Republicans like to spew crap about liberal activist judges and other such nonsense even though a look at their own house reveals exactly the same garbage.
If Sotomayor doesn't get in, some other liberal eventually will. The half-hearted and mandatory freakout by both parties every time a SCOTUS nomination comes up is as predictable and laughable this time as it ever has been in the past. It's like you guys just pass the "Oppose Nominee" script between you.
It's so great reading about the "outrage" and "concern" of Republicans when I remember so clearly the exact same thing from Democrats not to long ago.
Newsflash: DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE THE EXACT SAME PARTY. Congratulations on that.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 27.05.2009 @ 09:59
Meh. Just like all those people who agreed to take out mortgages they couldn't afford, maybe Mr. Joseph should have read the fine print in his franchise dealership agreement.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 21.05.2009 @ 12:14
Sounds like you'd better act fast Rick, or risk losing out on becoming an instant millionaire for free.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 20.05.2009 @ 13:13
Heh, no, I wasn't being sarcastic. Wall Street is a great deal more voluntary than this seems to be, which was my concern.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 21.05.2009 @ 14:50
Either way you win but we all benefit if the costs of such insurance can be held down by spreading the risk.
I would think conservatives would decry this as socialism and would not support it.
Spreading risk is done on Wall Street all the time. Why do you think they call them "Hedge Funds?" Seriously, the whole idea of mutual funds is to spread the risk of loss by purchasing many stocks. Some will go up, some down but you hope more go up so that the MF earns money.
Or were you being sarcastic?
ed.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 21.05.2009 @ 08:59
The only reason to go is for the cheap prices DESPITE the customer service, not in addition to it.
LOL. Amen. Not to mention that once all the local businesses shut down because they couldn't compete, it was literally the ONLY place to buy stuff. Either you buy stuff you need at Wal-Mart and like it, or, well, you buy stuff you need at Wal-Mart and don't like it.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 20.05.2009 @ 15:55
One of the main problems with Employer based insurance is the fact that it stifles freedom and entrepreneurship. Health care is so incredibly expensive and undeniably necessary that the current system locks people into positions that effectively deny them further pursuit of happiness.
It makes the pitfalls of risk taking and entrepreneurship so incredibly unappealing that people are willing to forgo their dreams and ambition, in order to continue that family health insurance they need to bad.
This is a huge problem with health care insurance, as it is now, and it ultimately hurts the country in the long run. It stifles innovation and new business creation and is totally unamerican.
Insurance companies know this, and are happy to maintain their strangle hold on their customers as long as they possibly can. Workplace based insurance is a terrible way to do this, and is detrimental to the American Dream. Any move away from this employer based system is a good move, in my opinion.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 20.05.2009 @ 11:44
Michael Reynolds said:
The Democrats have already conceded on gun ownership and a strong defense. So you guys won those. Now that they’re won, you lost them as issues.
Well said. And not only is this better for the dems from their constituencies point of view, but it effectively ends debate about the issue. You're right. They conceded. The other side won, in a sense.
But, as you said, they lost them as issues. There is no more rallying point there. Guns aren't going away. Military spending will never drop more than a tiny bit here or there. Now we've got abortion and gay marriage.
Who the hell cares what the definition of marriage is, as long as gay couples receive the same rights and amenities as everyone else.
And abortion? Please. It's like prohibition. Legal or not, people will still demand abortions. The only difference is that if it's illegal, more of the mothers will die horrible painful deaths in botched homebrew abortions. I dunno, maybe that's Gods twisted way of punishing them.
Anyhoo, I digress. My point was, good point.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 19.05.2009 @ 14:14
I don't think you understand compromise as well as you think you do.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 18.05.2009 @ 14:51