Wellington was a Duke who by 1824 had defeated Napoleon. No one could scare him.
Like nearly all GOP "Representatives," Hastert was only ever a chickenhawk, an empty suit with nothing but partisan and sectarian loyalty to keep him aloft. If past practice is any guide, his fellow closet cases will flee the scandal lest their own secrets be suspected. From the apex of a House Speaker's patronage network pyramid scheme, it's a long way down.
Guilty conscience, or desire to atone?
Hydro, your sarcasm has got to stop.
Years ago, Dan said that half the GOP consists of closet cases, and I think if you include the scared wives (Mrs. Larry Craig, Mrs. Sandusky, Michele Bachmann, etc.) that's fairly accurate. It's why they can't handle issues like marriage equality, and hide so desperately and ostentatiously behind whatever religious beliefs they claim to possess. $3.5 million sounds like a lot to hush one person, so I can't help suspecting that one wrestler might have been the point person collecting for more than one. BTW, Hastert was the Speaker of the House during the Mark Foley scandal, when it was reported that Rep. Foley had been getting drunk and harassing underage pages for years without apology until one of them went public with e-mails. In 1996, Craig, Foley, and Hastert all voted for the unconstitutional anti-marriage "Defense of Marriage Act."
The best (only?) way to reduce housing prices is build more.
I agree with that, but contrary to the rest of your comment the unprecedented federal intervention in 2010 had the express purpose and direct effect of causing housing prices to rebound. Read PatNet from that era, I'm not going to link everything again and play trolling games, but it's obvious that government at every level intervened to prop up house prices.
try using + in front of each term.
can you give an example of the behavior you don't want?
Thanks, I had tried using +, but it didn't help. Here is an example where none of the results included the search term: some pages probably never had it, others may have had it when DuckDuckGo crawled them but not now (and I don't know how to access the cached page that DuckDuckGo searched), and other pages say they have moved. I have found the same issue with many different searches, regardless of domain, and Google users have complained for years of the same thing: "Webmasters have figured out how to fool google search into pointing to pages that have nothing to do with search terms."
How can I limit DuckDuckGo search results to pages that actually contain the search terms? Google has a similar issue, returning pages where the terms appear only in links pointing to the page (or pages that may have changed, but at least with Google the cached version remains).
say all sorts of things, but since when do you watch Egyption TV? They say "Allah is great" or "Sisi is great" or whatever but I don't see you quoting them about that. I don't see the point of quoting sources that lack credibility, and in this instance even you don't find them credible on anything except where they happen to say something you wanted to hear.
they will have to pay their help more,
and adjust their nutritional content claims down even further; the net toxicity of what remains will be so discouraging that the customer would be better off blowing a Realtor(tm).
"Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated"
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The article compares Tea Party supporters to the general public, not NPR listeners, FOX listeners, liberals, or leftist. So basically, they are more educated then the masses of poor people who don't follow politics and dropped out of high school. You have high standards.
Also, note the date of the poll, April 2010, right after Obamneycare got enacted. At that time, the Tea Party had strong libertarian support. Later, the Tea Party got hijacked by religious fanatics, who imposed their pseudo-biblical agenda. Libertarians left and Bible bashers took over; the Tea Party fell from the party of Ron Paul (educated and often wealthy) to the party of Michele Bachmann (ignorant white trash seeking somebody they can look down on).
When the time comes to suppress your political speech, they will have their censorship practiced and perfected.
That's a valid concern, but the Constitution grants Congress the specifically enumerated power to secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8"
If you think the government should not have that power, you can propose amending the Constitution, but a better focus would probably be the phrase "limited times." We have seen several retroactive extensions of copyrights and patents. People have called it the Disney rule or the Mickey Mouse rule, based on the fact that every time the copyright was due to expire on the original Mickey Mouse movies, Disney lobbied successfully for an extension. If somebody creates a work, and then later the Congress can extend retroactively the copyright in that work, and if there is no limit on the ability of Congress to do that, then one could argue that is not "for limited times." You could point to the prohibition against ex post facto laws, for example.
Dan is correct that the founders debated this issue, but after debate they agreed on a very clear conclusion: Congress can prohibit copying "for limited times." (BTW, although I disagreed with parts of Dan's comment, I don't know who Disliked it.) To borrow the bicycle example, if you see the IP is due to expire soon in a particular invention, and you invest in building the capacity to copy it, and then Congress pulls the rug out from under you by extending the IP rights retroactively, you could argue they've exceeded their authority and taken away from you the value of your investment. Instead of trying to attack IP itself, I would suggest a narrower focus on these apparently unlimited extensions that creep in via treaties etc.
it's free to cook your own dinner....
Please tell me how, because I would love that. All these years, I've been paying retail for groceries and electricity. Now I feel like a schmuck. Where is it free?
if I wave a magic wand and duplicate your bicycle, we both now enjoy a bicycle.
Does that apply to identity theft also? Can we both "enjoy" the use of your identity, e.g. applying for loans? When ID thieves sell copies of people's personal information to enable others to apply fraudulently for credit, they are technically only posting information, i.e. "here's how to enjoy the use of Thunderlios11's identity." It's still criminal, even though they are only selling "speech".
the only true thing in this world....
for all the world to see?
Religion elevates fiction over fact. The guy was only doing his job, telling familiar lies regardless of the facts. Look at evolution: farmers and ranchers have been using it for milllenia to breed hybrid plants and optimize breeds of dogs, and the results are plain to see, but the fundamentalists deny the whole thing. It continues because it enables believers' vanity, enabling them to feel immortal and powerful, getting high on each other's holy flatulence. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." For a stinking racist troll such as Forthood, fiction must at all costs be elevated and maintained over fact.
It's not just guys, it's everyone, gals included.
I like the monster picture on this account
Too jumpy - better to go with something stable and eternal:
dance to the right, then dance to the left.
Hillary must do the reverse, now that Bernie has jumped into dancing with the sharks:
I wonder if Jeb could shoot himself in the foot when he's eventually asked about "knowing what we now know about gay service personnel in Iraq."
LOL - considering who signed DADT and DoMA, I'd like to see both Jeb and Hillary asked these questions. At least Hillary seems possibly to have improved, while Jeb has regressed. (It didn't seem possible for Jeb to get worse, but there he is. Honestly I can't understand what possessed him to give the fundies what they wanted on social issues; Huckabee will take most of the fundie vote anyway, so Jeb's best hope was to let them split among Huckabee and Cruz, and pursue what few semi-rational voters might remain in the GOP.)
If ISIL's Aloha Snackbar decapitations are any indication, the only hope for that region may be The Sacred Band of Thebes.
Frontline documentary "How the CIA Helped Make “Zero Dark Thirty”")
I watched the full Frontline report on CIA "Enhanced Interrogation" including the CIA's role in distorting that fictional movie, as also mentioned by Sy Hersh. I recommend the story, but it didn't make we want to vote for Mittens. To the contrary, that pathetic bully who at 18 assaulted and battered a weaker kid then grew up to "like being able to fire people" and would probably have got very excited about torturing more people, basically everyone who isn't a Moron, reminds me that bullies are cowards, and you don't ever want one in the Presidency. Whenever people criticize the current president, it illustrates yet again that the Republicans have failed twice in a row to assemble a credible platform and run a successful candidate. You can disagree all you want with the policies of the current administration, but keep in mind, the incumbent got and held that job because he's either twice as good or not half as bad as his major party opponents. He has corralled the religious fanatics into the GOP, where they comprise a majority and write unelectable platforms and nominate unelectable candidates. This has allowed the Democrats to get away with all the things people complain about. Things could perhaps be better, but Mitt is not the answer.
Once you looked at what you had you realized....
that you were baiting me again and wasting everyone's time, a subtle but still possibly pathological type of trolling. Cullen murdered many people. He was not an isolated example; there have been many more, and there are probably still more who haven't been caught yet. I don't care how you want to compare the % deliberate as a % of 195k, which is a low and possibly outdated estimate anyway as the total was more recently reported as 440k; your off-topic comments are a distraction from the point of the thread: American hospitals kill many people, especially in July.
Aren't you glad you changed your mind?
Sometimes, but I don't Ignore anyone for long, so don't flatter yourself. I'm not sure what is gained by comments like, "most of these angels of death did their dirty deeds long ago and or far away, some over 100 years ago." Do your own research next time instead of asking me and then complaining that I didn't give you enough for nothing. Saenz is in jail right now, in this country after being accused of hundreds of murders and convicted of enough to put her away for life without parole. Read the book about Cullen and you'll find more examples, including the Ohio woman whose name I forget, and it will clear up your credulous misconception about computers: Cullen was allowed to continue because hospital executives concealed his murders, even lying to police, enabling him to move on to more hospitals; his poisonings were very lucrative and executives didn't want to refund any of the billings; he got stopped by a few honest people including a fellow nurse. I never claimed those links were exhaustive; if you're not satisfied with them, then go find more. Your rhetorical questions are slightly less annoying than toxo bob's drug addled shadowboxing with hallucinations, but still not a good use of time.
Do you have any evidence of further malfeasance here or was this an isolated event?
Offhand I can think of at least two other nurses from Ohio, one was Donald Harvey and the other was a woman whose name I forget. In Texas, Kimberly Clark Saenz was convicted of five murders out of allegedly hundreds, and is sentenced to life without parole. Cullen worked in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Those add up to four states, out of fifty, and they're only examples that I happen to remember. I searched for "medical murderers" and found many hits, none claiming to be exhaustive:
I don't know the total, but it might exceed 323/year, even if it isn't a big % of 195,000/year.
IWOG has been successful in quoting such posts and using them as proof of trollishness later.
I respect iwog but each PatNet User who creates a thread is "moderator" of that thread, and I think PatNet suffers from too many threads digressing into off-topic flame wars and trolling and baiting. This particular thread is about American hospital errors, which kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. It isn't about any particular user, or what names people can call each other, or any of that garbage. I will keep in mind your advice for threads where I can't delete, but in this thread I just wanted to get back to the topic ASAP.
After not hearing back from @bob2356, who never admits mistakes anyway, I deleted his comments because they're patently false and serve no purpose other than to incite combat over the obvious failures of his narcotic addled memory being unable to keep track of who said what, or to remember "San Diego" and "Davis" are separate UC institutions located 1,000km apart. The UCSD study cited in the article can be found via the UCSD website, among other places. The UC Davis study confirmed, "Mortality increases and efficiency decreases in hospitals because of year-end changeovers," acknowledging "the July effect," but couldn't find a specific percentage. Bob's drug-addled misattribution of all the numbers to the opinion of one nurse, who was not the author of the article and actually hadn't been cited as the source of any of the numbers, is a distraction and launched one of Bob's typical tantrums of sarcasm and misplaced apostrophes, so I will delete it to clean up the thread. Seriously Bob, get checked for toxoplasmosis, T.Gondii can kill and you definitely need help. That isn't about trolling, it's just obvious to everyone who reads your pointless combative and drug-addled posts including your history of injuries and reckless driving.
add in accidental deaths
I read 323 to mean total number of deaths caused by the semi-automatic rifles, i.e. the type that Democrats promise to protect us all from importing. And, btw, many medical malpractice deaths have been proven to result from deliberate murder, not the 'mercy' or voluntary' type but malicious premeditated murder, i.e. with malice aforethought.
implication and intent....
do not add up to "stating," and besides I didn't read the image as implying that. I think everyone except Republicans is aware that medical medical malpractice has been a lethal problem for a long time. I don't see anyone intending to deny it, or implying that it all started in 2010, except a subset of Republican candidates who insist on pretending the American system had no problems other than trial lawyers until Obamneycare wrecked it. The statement that CIC quoted is literally correct, and I read it to imply that Obamneycare was a Pyrrhic victory, like "winning" a free lifetime supply of all the cigarettes you can smoke, because using it is 600 times more likely to result in the death of the "beneficiary" than a semi-automatic rifle.
As for the rest, I would have said prior to 2010 that an involuntary contract was an oxymoron, but then Obamneycare happened and in 2012 SCOTUS upheld that part (as "a tax").
CIC is stating that yet somehow, all
CIC didn't actually state that, and the image doesn't either. It says, "You are SIX HUNDRED TIMES MORE LIKELY to DIE by using your OBAMACARE, than by a semi-automatic rifle." If the underlying numbers are accurate, then the precise ratio is 603 (rounded to three significant figures) or, in round numbers, 600. The image may dispel myths from both major parties:
1) Obamneycare isn't worth as much as Democrats pretend;
2) malpractice isn't as rare as Republicans pretend.
It does not say who caused the existence of malpractice or semi-automatic rifles.
BTW, as part of my mandatory Obamneycare, I was required to click Submit agreeing that I can't sue for malpractice, even if my mandatory Obamneycare providers kill me.
You can say Obamacare didn't create the malpractice problem, but the legislation did make the existing system mandatory, and required me to submit what little recourse I might have had, in exchange for a "benefit" I did not want. Considering the 10:1 price ratio of mandatory Obamneycare policies to semi-automatic rifles, It's as if the Republicans had mandated everybody must buy 10 semi-automatic rifles every year, and must waive their right to sue for injuries or homicides caused by those weapons.