Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Oklahoma doctor making a run around ObamaCare, marcus said:

    The Captain's blind hate for Obamacare is relentless.

    Most of us here at Patrick.net like to think of him as "special."

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Patrick wants to open a competitive wine bar, marcus said:

    The competitions you're talking about could be just one feature.

    I think a wine bar that featured tasting sized pours of several excellent wines, but at not too much of a markup above a wholesale price, could be a successful place.

    If it's combined with a wine store, you could do the bar as almost a loss leader in terms of pricing (still enough of a markup to cover overhead though). Sell the bottles of wines people have to have at closer to retail, but still a very fair price.

    Probably tricky, because the key is getting really great wines at great prices, which probably requires amazing connections. You have to be good at buying them yourself, because all the big names that get great reviews aren't going to be available for good prices. Probably not available at all.

    So you have to be able to identify and buy the good ones that haven't been so highly reviewed (yet).

    I personally can't afford an expensive wine habit, but I could see splurging in a place like that every now and then.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Woman Uses Her Gun To Ward Off Abduction, marcus said:

    marcus says

    Why does my intuition tell me there is at least a 50% chance this story is made up ?

    4 dislikes for this ? (instead of the usual two) I think I must be on to something.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in How come you guys have more FACTS than healthcare.gov?, marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    In October of 2013 it has 3 million sub 26ers, but there's no Paid Exchange policies for those 1 to 26 children's polices to even be on

    It very clearly says that it's counting them because they are now on their parents policies. Obviously these are people that without the ACA might be (or probably would be) uninsured, and with the ACA they are insured. IT also puts a range on it as 1.63 to 3 million, but yes the graphs light blue ribbon counts them as 3 million.

    They colored this differently to make it easy for you to not include them if you so choose.

    Also if you read the fine print, it clearly says these numbers do not include people that do not continue paying the premiums for exchange purchased policies.

    CaptainShuddup says

    That chart like your self is full of shit.

    If anything this graphic is difficult for you because of the level of honesty( ie lack of bullshit).

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in How come you guys have more FACTS than healthcare.gov?, marcus said:

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Patrick wants to open a competitive wine bar, marcus said:

    I like it.

    If it works, open one in LA too. I'd be happy to get involved.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Obama wore the wrong suit today., marcus said:

    FortWayne says

    Reagan made any suit look good, he was a man above the suit. Obama on the other hand...

    I find this comment fascinating.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in How come you guys have more FACTS than healthcare.gov?, marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    You would be fine with a Reboot of what we were already handed.

    NO, I think medicare for all (single payer) with one entity paying for all big procedures and therapies, gives great leverage to the consumer of health care, and is a recipe for getting costs down.

    No universal plan is going to be perfect, but I think a model like Canada's is best, especially in that it is one we could most easily transition to. Medicare isn't going to be abandoned.

    No matter what type of universal plan you have, these two features will always be there.

    1) It's paid for by taxes

    2) It is administered by people (basically bureaucrats)that decide how much they are willing to pay for X procedures and care.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in How come you guys have more FACTS than healthcare.gov?, marcus said:

    The Professor says

    marcus says

    Medicare for all would have made way more sense, but the plutocrats weren't going to allow that, at least not yet.

    Healthcare for all, not insurance reform.

    Medicare isn't insurance in the usual (corporate - for profit) sense. And medicare for all would have been the easiest transition, since it already pays for the majority of healthcare. That is the healthcare people receive in the years when they need most of the expensive care - including when they are dying.

    But there would still be supplemental plans people would buy to make sure everything is covered, just as seniors do now. I don't have a problem with that. Even if they wanted to have super cadilac policies for the rich, that totally bypassed medicare.

    You can read about the 3 prevailing models for covering everyone. See the national health insurance model, the one we could most easily transition to (one day).

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in How come you guys have more FACTS than healthcare.gov?, marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    Who's paying you to pretend that Obamacare has been a huge success?

    It's not a huge success, but it is giving subsidized insurance to a huge number of low income people and it is covering preexisting conditions.

    That's a pretty decent start.

    Do you ever realize that you are like one of the right wingers that was whining about social security or medicare ? You're a totally forgettable whiner that's just going to get bitter when everyone accepts the ACA.

    Medicare for all would have made way more sense, but the plutocrats weren't going to allow that, at least not yet.

    CaptainShuddup says

    How come you guys have more FACTS than healthcare.gov?

    I only claim to have more facts than you. I look at the whole picture, not just the parts that make the hate emoting part of my brain all tingly.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Ice bucket challenge hypocrisy, marcus said:

    AS for the icebucket challenge, it's something for young folks (mostly) to do on facebook. And yeah, it doesn't raise money when they just do the bucket, but the chainmail effect of it does, since giving money instead is an option. I don't know how it caught on so well, but you can be sure that when it's done, a Lot of money will have been raised. It's nearly $100 million so far.

    CaptainShuddup says

    I don't understand the Ice bucket challenge, the challenge is dump water on your head, or donate money to the cause. If everyone is dumping water on their heads. Then how in the hell is it benefiting ALS research or the people with it?

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Ice bucket challenge hypocrisy, marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    But there's been a corporate charity culture in this country for well over 60 years or more. And all we've gotten out of it, is higher medical bills

    THere is some small amount of truth to what you say, but it is twisted as usual.

    The fact is that the only argument the right has for why we should leave health care alone, and for god sakes not have some sort of government funded universal system goes something like this:

    THe US has some of the best medical research in the world developing breakthrough therapies for a myriad of conditions. If we had much cheaper health care that was more or less the same for everyone, then we wouldn't be able to afford as much of this. And the most expensive procedures would sometimes not be allowed, or there wouldn't be the ability to provide these most expensive procedures to everyone that needed them.

    In other words, our system is good for the rich. They can get some of the best care in the world with our system. It's overpriced, and causes the care of all fully insured people to be overpriced as well. Hey that's the price you pay for having the best.

    Health care may be sort of like some luxury items such as cigars or fine wine. You can pay 4 times as much for something that is only 8% better.

    Of course in the case of health care, ours isn't even better when looked at in aggregate. But it's probably true that the super rich here get better care than the super rich elsewhere (in fact the rich from other countries sometimes come here for care). That's what matters right ?

    IT also matters that like the finance sector, healthcare (including insurance companies) are steadily increasing in profits.

    Hey, we have to grow the economy somehow.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Whacko cop retires with full pension, marcus said:

    IF he was too whacko to be a competent cop, than why was he for 35 years?

    Yeah some cops are stupid assholes, this guy included. Big shock there.

    But since he did work as a cop for 35 years, why is it a surprise that retiring he gets his pension ? Truth is that it's probably because he was about to retire, that he didn't worry about shooting his (retarded right wing) mouth off.

  • On 30 Aug 2014 in Woman Uses Her Gun To Ward Off Abduction, marcus said:

    Shouldn't the headline read, "Woman says she used her gun to ward off abduction."

    Why does my intuition tell me there is at least a 50% chance this story is made up ?

    There is some politics behind these laws.

    http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/07/gun_rights_group_plans_public.html

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    iwog says

    The boy caught in this scenario is stupid, possibly not in control of his raging hormones, but an evil predator worthy of a decade in prison? No way. That is an irrational societal judgement that attempts to group an 18-year old college kid into the same box as a rapist who broke into a stranger's home and raped her with a knife to her throat.

    They are not the same and it's a sick society that would think these coeds are such fragile creatures that they warrant a punishment worse than some killers get.

    I pretty much agree. But I have to believe that in cases such as this, especially as you describe it (tongue in ear was a nice touch), that the penalty would probably not even include jail time.

    In any case, point taken.

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    iwog says

    THEREFORE the effects of this legislation can only be evil without actually protecting women.

    Maybe you're right. I do find the 41% number in the study you quoted above rather shocking. But I also think a lot of young guys (possibly in part because of porn) don't know how to control themselves and actually do commit some degree of rape in most of the accusations.

    Why do I say that ?

    Because, how can an accuser of rape not know the severity of the charge they are putting on the guy ?

    To falsely accuse someone of rape is in and of itself a very aggressive act that does terrible harm to a person. In fact I would say that falsely accusing someone of rape is almost as heinous an act as raping someone. To put that label on a person ? Let alone wanting them to suffer the consequences of being proven guilty of such an act?

    I find it hard to believe that it happens nearly as often as you think it does. More likely, under the influence of alcohol some college guys really do force themselves on girls when the girl was not willing to go that far.

    Now if you wanted to argue that that type of rape is a lessor crime than a violent rape of a woman being grabbed into the forest and violently raped, I would totally agree. That is if the girl had been willing to partake in foreplay but not intercourse, and the guy forces her, I would agree that that is a lessor form of rape, and I'm pretty sure that the consequences are way lower in those cases when the guy is found guilty.

    I have more faith in people. I think the result will be that that type of rape will simply happen less.

    I'd put it this way. In spite of the false point of view that young men apparently get from porn these days, women really do have the right to tease a guy without going all the way. That's not a crime against the guy. IF the guy forces the girl in such instances to go all the way, then it's rape.

    If guys learn this lesson, they won't do it.

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    sbh says

    Nope, not even when middle-aged. No way. God, guys can be so dumb. Kissing is just part of a large matrix of behavior from which a guy has to glean the gal's intent.

    I disagree, but maybe you're kidding.

    Older women are hornier for one thing, and far less fickle for another. If a middle aged woman is kissing you back passionately, she is definitely dtf (down to fuck). Really, I'd say anytime well in to adulthood this is pretty much the case. But at 16, 18 or 20 ? That is a different time and a different game, when some women feel there is something to lose there, and they are far more circumspect about it. And if they are really hot, then they learn that there are some complicated reasons for not getting involved with guys at the drop of a hat. For example the fact that the guy might not be able to handle it, without wanting too much more.

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    rooemoore says

    You feel bad for me because I've kissed girls and had sex with them?

    No. Because if true, then in your youth you never kissed a girl who would not have sex with you that same day. No matter how much of a stud you were or think you were, when you're young there are the kind of girls that are going to make out with you and enjoy it, without going all the way that first time. It can be because they wanted and needed to go through lots of teasing first, or because she was the kind of girl that was "hard to get" and concerned about not being perceived as a slut. OR simply that she didn't feel ready or that you were "the one" (to be her first, or her next). That doesn't mean she can't enjoy toying with you and or being toyed with.

    I'm not saying I was a cassanova. The truth is I was sort of a late bloomer. But it was the seventies and I was a good looking nice guy who got his share (like in the Bob Sieger song).

    Yes, I believe that you had to have missed out if you fucked every girl that kissed you (the same day) - or if you think that every girl that kissed you would have let you fuck her that same day.

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    rooemoore says

    If a woman kisses you - that means yes.

    Maybe when you're middle aged. But no, not to kids. Are you kidding me ?

    I feel bad for you if that's your experience.

    rooemoore says

    his is what this law is addressing and trying to prevent. Will it work? Probably not so much. But it is certainly not "American jihad against men".

    Yeah, I pretty much agree with you here.

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    iwog says

    Most women enjoy being overpowered. I'm certainly guilty of rape myself however the "best sex in my life" comments afterwards told me I was safe.

    Yeah, but you're talking about someone that you have a trusting relationship with.

    I've been thinking back, and I remember a situation in college with a girl where she liked me, and we made out and even got partially naked (had full access to her titties), and she was very into it, but she was very adamant that we weren't going to fuck. IT was after a party, we were alone back at her room. She trusted me to only go so far. I was somewhat persistent, but to no avail. She wasn't in to anything more than making out and heavy petting.

    I believe that in that case it would have clearly been rape if I forced it. It was only because of trust on her part that we got as far as we did.

    Are you going to tell me that by honoring her trust in me, I was just setting her up to be raped by some future guy with less self control ? Or are you going to tell me that this good Catholic relatively inexperienced girl actually wanted me to force her ?

    By the way, I didn't date her after that, and was still friendly with her. Considering that I didn't pursue a relationship with her, which I think is what she wanted, she was probably right not to let me. We were just a little drunk and fooling around. Other situations in my youth that were similar to this led to more dates and taking things further (sometimes way too far - becoming totally obsessed and tied to one person when I would have been better off continuing to play the field).

    I wonder whether porn (which I think is a net good thing) has a downside of young men not learning how the process works anymore. That is dating, and fooling around with girls.

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    The affect of the law is going to be making guys more cautious. But I can also see how it will or could be seen as taking some of the fun and challenge out of the game for a young guy that is of seducing a woman, by slowly moving from making out to other things. Then again, even though it's been a long time since I was young and in that situation, I always knew when I had the green light. I can see it being kind of funny, right at that moment when the girl is like "bring it!" to stop for a few seconds and ask her, "are you sure ? I need you to say it out loud....."

    If on the other hand the particular girls game is saying no because she likes it that way, she's going to have to sign an elaborate role playing contract, with safety words and so on, and that might kind of kill the whole turn on of that for her, especially if what turns her on is going that route with guys she doesn't know and isn't already involved with. Women that are in to that are going to be out of luck.

  • On 29 Aug 2014 in CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her, marcus said:

    iwog says

    It's an attempt to pacify a bunch of screaming bitches who think rape is a serious problem on college campuses.

    I'm pretty sure that it actually is, even if you only count the real rapes where some woman walking in the wrong place at the wrong time is grabbed by some stranger and truly raped by everyone's definition of rape.

    That's not to disagree that there are too many questionable allegations too. But let's not confuse the two or conflate one with the other. Of course the actual seriousness of the real thing is the reason why most sane men are going to be very careful anyway, not to ever cross that line. And it's also the reason that falsely accusing a man of rape is a terrible violation of the guy who is falsely accused.

  • On 28 Aug 2014 in Obama wore the wrong suit today., marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    Putin taunts him with images of him petting tigers and riding horses bare chested

    Uhmmmm,.....so wait....

    this is your argument as to why Tan is not a formal enough color or something like that, for Obama's suit (in August) ? Really ?

    Started your labor day festivities early have you ?

    Funny thing here is that you accuse Obama of being all PR.Or what is it you say ? He's a media creation ? Or something like that ?>

    And then here you are, criticizing his PR. OH, he wore a Tan suit that day, and you think the fact that his people didn't get him to change in to a Navy Blue suit, and that he just went with the suit he was wearing that day, shows inattention to the importance of optics.

  • On 28 Aug 2014 in Obama wore the wrong suit today., marcus said:

    The real story here is:

    Who gives a fuck ?

  • On 28 Aug 2014 in Obama wore the wrong suit today., marcus said:

    Yeah well, the way you see it isn't the way they see it in - NYC, or in the UK, or in France, Belium, Luxumberg or Spain.

    So honestly, who gives a fuck what some hillbilly thinks ?

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 327 milliseconds to create.