DanG

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    6,580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by DanG

  1. DanG
    My comment was to your misunderstanding of what the 1st Amendment to the Constitution says. That was all. - Dan G
  2. DanG
    http://xkcd.com/1357/ - Dan G
  3. DanG
    Why do you pick 16 years ago? How did they compare to temperatures 17 years ago, or 15? - Dan G
  4. DanG
    My favorite was the 50 jump wonder berating Kirk Verner for giving RW advice. - Dan G
  5. DanG
    Likewise. I don't blindly support shit. I know it has problems, learn to read. Give me a fucking break. "Someone like me?" You don't know me, chief, and for that I'm glad. - Dan G
  6. DanG
    We'll stay on the down low while we're there. - Dan G
  7. DanG
    I think you're right. Healthcare is too expensive, which drives the price of health insurance up. We need to reduce healthcare costs, and the ACA does not do enough in that regard. It does do some things which might be effective, but not enough in my opinion. Getting rid of the fee for service model is the big ticket item. - Dan G
  8. DanG
    My wife and I are going to be spending a few days in Austin, TX starting tomorrow. We're going for the Moontower Comedy Festival. Any ideas for cool stuff to do during the day, or good restaurants? BTW, we're vegetarian, so only twig and bark restaurants, please. - Dan G
  9. DanG
    Or they all realized that you want them to say they hate it. Did you really take a poll after people looked at the prices, but before they looked at the coverage, and then another poll after they looked at the coverage? Color me doubtful. - Dan G
  10. DanG

    4/20 -- WWJD?

    DanG replied to ryoder's topic in Speakers Corner

    Adults are legally allowed to make the terrible choice of smoking cigarettes for themselves. That's all the pot smokers want. - Dan G
  11. DanG
    It's only $100, go for it. - Dan G
  12. DanG
    Not if you also limit the total amount that can be spent, regardless of source. - Dan G
  13. DanG
    I'm not advocating eliminating campaign donations. Just limiting the size, and restricting how the money can be spent. - Dan G
  14. DanG
    Tough question. I'm not sure. I don't like anyone giving money to candidates. If the argument is that money is speech, then it should go toward speech: ads, mailings, etc. Paying consultants, throwing fancy dinners, etc. is not speech. - Dan G
  15. DanG
    For me, donating to an "issues" organization, whether it be Bloomberg, Soros, or the Kochs, is not the same as donating directly to a candidate. I don't believe people should be allowed to give money (or other valuable things) to a candidate or office holder. That's not speech, that bribery. - Dan G
  16. DanG
    No, no link. It was from Idiocracy. - Dan G
  17. DanG
    Unbunch your panties and you'll see that I wasn't misreading you, just offering a different point if view. And are you seriously going to stick with the idea that "takers" wasn't supposed to have a negative connotation? - Dan G
  18. DanG
    Have you priced an aircraft carrier recently? Those buggers are crazy expensive. Note: my point is that government spending is not just giving money to "takers", there are a lot of services that everyone uses that have nothing to do with welfare queens getting free Obamaphones. - Dan G
  19. DanG
    "Yeah, I was definitely just in jail so I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be getting out." - Future President Not Sure - Dan G
  20. DanG
    Are you saying that the government was spending $0 on healthcare prior to the ACA? Please note the following paragraph of the CBO report: - Dan G
  21. DanG
    Except that the "maker" can give the "scumbag" money to vote his way in the "House of Scumbags" regardless of what the "scumbag" promised to do for the "takers". - Dan G
  22. DanG
    My point was that those two groups overlap. I don't have numbers handy, but many people who are 'takers' are also 'makers'. For instance, in order to qualify for some government programs, you have to be working. But according to the Census numbers, those people would be considered 'takers'. Even if 10% of their income came from government programs, they would be lumped into the 'taker' category. The labels are useless. Here's an analogy: a reporter wishes to argue that there are more freefliers out there than belly fliers. He creates two categories "pierced freaks" and "respectable adults". In order to group people, he says that anyone who's made a freefly jump in the last year is a "pierced freak". Everyone else is a "respectable adult". Do you really think his results will say anything useful about a DZs demographics? - Dan G
  23. DanG
    You might want to check your browser. The words "crapload" and "handful" appear to have been swapped in your post. - Dan G
  24. DanG
    Since a 'taker' is anyone in a family where one member gets some benefit, I guess my wife and I are both 'takers' since I get disability. Of course, we are also 'makers' since we both work full time in the private sector, and pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year. I'm also anticipating some right wingers complaining that I shouldn't get disability, since I'm able to work. As I matter of fact, that very thing was said by a poster here before. My point is, the categories are overlapping, and some people who are 'takers' aren't such a drag on society that they are portrayed as. - Dan G
  25. DanG
    How does that compare to projections of spending without the ACA? - Dan G