idrankwhat

The majority of the anti-war movement was concerned about Iraq, not Afghanistan. Some of us didn't like war at all but understood that the bad guys were actually in the country we were invading. Some of us still bitched though, but it was more about MOAB's and using cluster bombs. I was particularly annoyed about dropping cluster bomblets and food aid packages which looked nearly identical. But that didn't make me against the Afghanistan operation as a whole. Iraq on the other hand was wrong on just about every level. It was a damn expensive, preconceived, arrogant, strategic, deadly, economic and foreign relations mistake. And no, I don't know anyone who supports more killing and dying. But what do you think the right would say if Obama bailed from Afghanistan/Pakistan and the latter, nuclear armed, fell to extremists? I'd be complaining right along with you.

No, it's been documented that FOX viewers have more misperceptions about reality than other networks. They've also been busted numerous times fabricating lies, posting erroneous/misleading images and labels, and failing abysmally at fact checking. But hey, they sell a lot of ads and that's what it's all about right? And no, not Billvon, not Kallend. I am.........me. Be afraid. We are many. Mmmmmmwaahahahahhhaaaaa!!!

The one difference that I've noted (I have no stats to back this up) is that the hacks on the left generally allow their interviewees to finish their sentences. Those on the right tend to talk over the entire discussion, not allowing their guests to make their argument.

You forgot to mention that we also want the American economy to collapse into complete ruin, just to spite the Eeeeevil corporations.

I'm pretty sure we could take them at football. I'd be pretty disappointed if they pulled off even one win.

QuoteAre you a moron or joking? Citing a study by these ultra liberal numbskulls would be like me referring to a study by EIB. Wake up...question and challenge what you read. Also, use common sense....you really think most doctors want to have their salaries controlled by the Feds. I assume you are just jerking my chain and not dumb enough to believe this. The nonsense you cite are not facts. Quote Compare my post to yours. Who cited facts and who said.....well.....nothing at all really?

If it's a single payer system then the reduction of administrative costs, negotiated fees, and bulk purchasing of drugs (now illegal) would pay for most of it. One estimate I've seen puts the administrative savings at about $350 Billion per year. The fact that our current government programs, Medicare/Medicade, administrative expenses are less than 6%, that seems to support the argument that the transition would pay for itself. Of course you'd have a bunch of unemployed health care administrators but that's a different topic.

My concern is not so much with the cellulosic energy products and by products. The problems with the yard waste would arise when additional materials such as plastics, bag of garbage, or the occasional old couch that was tossed in the wood pile. If you cook that stuff at an insufficient temperature, as they have posted on their website, you create dioxins and furans. Those have a tendency to bind to porous materials such as charcoal. So you're actually creating the dioxins in concert with a dioxin sink, where they will be sequestered until you burn the product. (one could argue that you might actually be producing hazardous waste) If you burn that product at sufficient temperatures, over 1000 deg C, then there's no problem. If you send bags of the stuff to third world countries so they can cook with it under an open flame then you would likely be doing them a disservice to put it mildly. That's why it would be extremely important to carefully monitor the source material. You could go from a great product to exporting hazardous waste very quickly. I'm also not so worried about the idea of using sludge for energy production if, once again, it is burned at sufficient temperatures to destroy the compounds. The burned waste, now much lesser in volume, could be disposed of in a modern landfill. I like that idea much better than our current process of land applying (the dilution solution) half of our annual production of the stuff. The sludge of today is not the sludge of 50, or even 20 years ago. The philosophies used in disposing of it however are much older.

It's not the poop itself that's the problem. It's the all of the other goodies that run down the drain: brominated and chlorinated flame retardants, pcb's, musk compounds, anti-bacterials, surfactants......all sorts of good endocrine disruptors. Pretty much every compound we've looked for, we've found in sewage sludge.

Here's another. I love comedy news. It's so "truthy" http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-14-2009/mad-men

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/fox-news--the-new-liberals

It looks like a nifty idea but you need to increase the temp to over 1000 degrees C to destroy the dioxins that are created in the 400-800 degree range they cite on their site. I certainly wouldn't want to cook my kids' dinner over that fire. And I damn sure wouldn't be doing it if the waste source was municipal waste water sludge.

You should ask a regular FOX viewer that question. They're quite good at hating things they know nothing about. Come to think of it, they also love things they know nothing about. A study on Iraq war misperceptions and media outlets comes to mind. FOX is ignorance peddling entertainment. And they're damn profitable at it, but it shouldn't be confused with news.

Lots of people do. And a wealthy nation like ours could probably figure out a way to take the best of both systems and come up with a better one. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a_zs1Y1FspIM

It would be a short argument. http://slides.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=1182

No, I wouldn't expect them to actually ask him those questions directly. But that's the sort of garbage that they spew on a daily basis. So in my opinion, Obama gave FOX the respect that they deserve.

Quotemost doctors do NOT want a public option. I could go on...but anyone who thinks the government is more efficient at anything probably doesn't want facts. Quote I love facts, so I'll correct my earlier post. It's not 2 out of three doctors who support a public option, it's only 62.9%. Physician Views on the Public Health Insurance Option and Medicare Expansions

You mean like "why do you hate white people"? "Which is scarier, your health plan or cancer"? "Would you like some poisoned wine?" "Did you have anything to do with that Acorn worker getting away with the murder that she confessed to"? But you guys do have a point, FOX certainly fits in the entertainment category. Irony is dead!

He is. How else is he supposed to get his message across to a populace whose primary interest is entertainment?

A recent poll indicates that three out of four people support having the choice of a public option. Two out of three doctors have the same view. (take out the word "choice" and results will vary) I'd link it but it's everywhere. Just search.

I see. No rational discussion allowed in this thread. Bye.

You might find this commentary interesting Marc. Health care cost increases are on an unsustainable trend. Something has to be done. The market won't do it on it's own (because its reason for existence is quarterly profit reports) and so long as campaign donations are considered legal, and not bribery, then we're going to be stuck with compromised legislation and oversight. But, back to the subject; something needs to happen to fix this broken health care system. Putting all information on the table for discussion (single vs. multi payer, government option, tort reform, drug marketing regulation...etc.) is the best way to come up with solution that is best for the country and not simply best for the donor class. From the above link: DAVID FRUM: Last week, the Census bureau delivered its report on American incomes in 2008. We can put this report together with the seven previous to reach a final verdict on the economic record of President George W. Bush. It's not good. In terms of income growth and poverty reduction, Bush performed worse than any two-term president of the modern era. Even in the best year of his presidency, 2007, the typical American household still earned less after inflation than in the year 2000. The next year, 2008, American households suffered the worst income drop since record-keeping began six decades ago. In my Republican party, there is worryingly little discussion of this damning trend. We do criticize ourselves for over-spending in office. But economic management gets much less, almost zero, internal discussion. So, what went wrong? Liberals criticize the Bush tax cuts, but it's impossible to see any causation between lower taxes and the failure of incomes to gain ground. All three of the previous major tax cuts in U.S. history -- in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s -- were followed by very strong income growth. The more plausible culprit is the surge in health care costs. Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price employers paid for labor rose handsomely: on average, 25 percent. Yet for the typical worker, none of that extra cost translated into higher wages. Between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average health insurance policy for a family of four doubled, from about $6,000 to over $12,000. That took a big bite out of the gains available for wage increases. More than a bite: the health-care system gulped down every morsel, and forced employers to raise co-pays and deductibles for good measure. Conservatives and Republicans need to keep this history in mind and remember that when we are debating health-care costs, we are also debating wages, incomes, and by the way, explaining the true reasons for the disappointing economic record of the Bush years.

There's a good argument for a single payer system and it's too bad that it's been eliminated from the debate. The multi payer system we use results in 25-30% of health care expenses going to administrative costs. Single payer systems typically have that overhead down to below 5%. As a result of the current system, our doctors often spend 40% of their time dealing with servicing the insurance company overhead instead of servicing their patients. That's likely why most doctors would like to see a public option. I think that including the pros and cons of a single payer system in the health care debate would probably bolster the position for a robust public option. I'm also pretty sure that's why it was excluded from debate, well.....that and $3 million/wk in lobbyist efforts.

I like this one from a couple of weeks ago, but it could use a flash to get the face.

Give them a payday loan^n