patrick.net

Automan Empire says

YET called Sandra Fluke a slut who just wants people to pay for her birth control.

Sandra doesnt need birth control
Sandra doesnt need sex during college
Sandra needs a swift kick in the ass
and get told to study and sacrifice for 4 years
to get an education and start a career.

robertoaribas says

she was in law school... thomaswrong, have you ever not been an idiot?

she should be thankful for getting in and focusing on getting her degree not wasting time fucking around..

Your a professor. .. do you want your students to come to class drunk and fucking around getting preggo or getting an education ? Where is your discipline ?

is that why parents send their kids to college ? How is that idiotic.

Im paying for this,,, I AM the tax payer.. and now per Obama, I AM a Investor in American Education... therefore we have rules here to make sure that investment pays off. If you want to fuck around ... GET OUT.. let someone who is serious get an education.

thomaswong.1986 says

let someone who is serious get an education.

Wait a sec...since when was fucking around NOT educational?

JodyChunder says

Wait a sec...since when was fucking around NOT educational?

when you paid for it yourself.. it was your own nickel earned
and not someone else dollar borrowed.

Oothomaswong.1986 says

JodyChunder says

Wait a sec...since when was fucking around NOT educational?

when you paid for it yourself.. it was your own nickel earned

and not someone else dollar borrowed.

Oh don't worry, she'll pay back those "dollar borrowed" student loans... probably slowly and painfully given the way most legal careers are going.

thomaswong.1986 says

.. do you want your students to come to class drunk and fucking around getting preggo or getting an education ?

Sounds to me like she is satisfying the requirements for an MRs.

Richard Wicks says

There's a cost for living recklessly, and the boomers all lived very recklessly. You think Generation X and Y are going to pick up the check EVEN IF THEY COULD?

Welcome to Patrick.net Rick.
The most telling part is the "Even if they could?" and the answer to that would be no. American media has managed to raise the most petty, whiny, greedy, self centered, self concerned generation, the world has ever seen.

I hope I'm around when they realize they lost their Baby Cute long time ago, and ain't nobody going to wipe their ass for them, and give them theater money for a movie and pop corn, while they sleep late everyday, anymore.

thomaswong.1986 says

Sandra doesnt need birth control
Sandra doesnt need sex during
college
Sandra needs a swift kick in the ass
and get told to study and
sacrifice for 4 years
to get an education and start a career.

Thomaswong never listened to Sandra Fluke
Thomaswong has no idea what this is about
Thomaswong sounds suspiciously like Rush Limbaugh

I can understand my never-worked-a-day Mother's path to pathological ignorance of the real world, and her doesn't-get-out-much acceptance of whatever Fox and Rush say, but what is Thomaswong's mitigating factor here?

Richard Wicks says

The United States has a national debt of 16.8 trillion dollars. It has increased on average at 9.4% a year since 1971 - since we left the gold standard. It will be 33 trillion or so by 2020. It will be 80 trillion by 2030 - provided the 42 year trend continues.

A lot of this has to do with the faltering of the US manufacturing and export industries. For example in 1967 the US made something like 65% of all consumer electronics devices ( TVs, radios, computers, phones, etc etc etc) but by the mid-70's most of those same electronics manufactures were bankrupt at the result of cheap competition from Japan. Now its China.

When you do not have a economy that exports then you will grow deficits. Plain and simple. It also doesn't help that from the 50's-80's the US spent a HUGE amount of money on cold war related stuff.

If McCain hadn't allowed himself to have his campaign worked over by Karl Rove along with some of the lesser intelligent decisions he made during that campaign ( like choosing Palin) he could have possibly gotten my vote. Even now he occasionally goes against the grain and actually uses some common sense. I knew several others who were just like me who at one time had some respect for him until he actually ran for office.

The Professor says

In the future, I vow to throw my vote to some 3rd party candidate that has no chance of winning but says something I want to hear

Welcome to my world!

The Professor says

In the future, I vow to throw my vote to some 3rd party candidate

You know if enough people wake up to the fact that they is 2 sides of the same coin maybe the Libertarians could make some in roads? It sure as fuck is about time don't you think?

The Professor says

McCain would never get my vote! NEVER!

In the context of the conversation I mentioned McCain only because of all the GOP politicians, he had maybe at least some degree of common sense. I didn't vote for him either.CaptainShuddup says

Welcome to my world!

Yeah right.

Vicente says

Republicans want to eliminate SS entirely

-------------------------
Really? Please explain?

But, but....Wait, what? I thought Obamacare wasn't going to cost a dime? I thought everyone was going to keep the same doctor and the same insurance? I thought Obamacare wouldn't raise taxes? Because this is what he and Pelosi told us, so it MUST be true. So can we look at the 1200+ pages before we let our senators vote on it? What?!! They can't? Why not? Because they have to vote for it first before they get to look at it? WTF?

Can anyone here on pat.net explain why one of the 'architects' of Obamacare (Max Baucus) is calling Obamacare (in his words) a 'TRAIN WRECK'??

I could have told anyone that this 'community organizer' was WAAAAY over his head on this (and many other things)...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/max-baucus-obamacare_n_3101801.html

AverageBear says

Really? Please explain?

“50% of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those moneys as their sole source of income. So we’ve got to protect today’s seniors. But for the rest of us? Listen, we’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.” -Eric Cantor, 2011

He didn't say "reform", he said "cannot exist".

Pete Sessions floated a bill to do just that. Paul Ryan is on the record about it. Rick Santorum had it in his platform. Republicans have repeatedly used language that their reform efforts are only a first step down the slippery slope toward eliminating it entirely and putting all our eggs into Wall Street basket.

indigenous says

CaptainShuddup says

Welcome to my world!

Yeah right.

I voted for Nader every time he ran.
The Democrats did such a good job of strong arming any effective Independent candidate, threatening Nader with arrest for showing up at the Democrat debates, spreading misinformation, character assassination through the media, that they are now scared to run on an independent ticket.

That is why both Kusinich ran on the Democrat platform, and Ron Paul ran on the Republican ticket.
I was forbidden to vote for Ron Paul in the 2012 primaries, because I didn't have the GOP stamp on my forehead.

Since it was an Asshole contest, I voted for McCain in 2008, as the lesser of the two assholes, and wanted to vote for Romney as the lesser of the two Assholes, but ended up having something more important to do on November 6th than waiting in a 4 hour line to vote for a guy I didn't believe in. SO I didn't vote at all 2012. I was at the Hospital with my wife getting a surgery done, that was three month saga trying to get a hospital to even check her pulse, let alone perform a life saving LEEP procedure. Welcome to Obamacare!

I'm sorry to hear about your wife and I hope she is doing well now. But you can't blame Obamacare on that situation when back then and even now nothing from it has even been implemented yet.

As far as Nader, well I don't really have a great deal of respect for him mainly because one of his most famous actions was in writing "Unsafe at any speed", which basically lambasted the Chevy Corvair, which was made at a time when GM and Ford were considering making smaller, more efficient cars. The faults he pinned on the Corvair later were found by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to be no different from any of the other more typical cars of the period. But as a result of the PR damage the book caused GM discontinued the car and went right back to making the same big cars they'd always made.

So ironically Nadar might have done more in regards to impeding fuel economy by dissing the Corvair. Had it been a great success, perhaps GM would have invested more heavily in more cars like that.

But the bottom line is that he damaged a company's perfectly good product's reputation based on what later turned out to be inaccurate information. Thus I can't really put my trust and faith in someone who acts in such a manner.

Vicente says

Pete Sessions floated a bill to do just that. Paul Ryan is on the record about it. Rick Santorum had it in his platform. Republicans have repeatedly used language that their reform efforts are only a first step down the slippery slope toward eliminating it entirely and putting all our eggs into Wall Street basket.

Sounds like Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum wanted to actually separate the $$ that seniors paid into, from the gov't; remove that $$ from the 'magic box slush fund' as it's currently constituted and called "Social Security", and have it allocated into a savings/401K/IRA acct of some sort. Taking the $$ that these people paid into, and **GASP** take it away from the gov't, so that seniors can manage it on there own, and **GASP** not trust the gov't's promises that the $$ will be there when they need it?

After Pelosi's 'you have to vote for it before you get to see it' moment, I wouldn't trust anything this administration says......

Sooo, what's the problem you have with these ideas? I know it makes so much sense, it's labeled 'radical'....

edvard2 says

But you can't blame Obamacare on that situation when back then and even now nothing from it has even been implemented yet.

Really you do know that October every thing but the mandated part will have been in place. What do you guys, think there's rooms and rooms of technical and administrative people who on January 1st is going to flip some magical switch and then Abracadabra Obamacare will light up, sputter, the 20 Diesel engines the size of Niagara falls will fire up, and massive smoke stacks will start churning out thick smoke, signalling the new era of Obamacare, and everything will somehow be different than they are right now at this moment?

AH Crap!!!! You're still waiting to see what's in it, aren't you?

If Obamacare was the traveling Circus, at this point they would be tearing down the tent, and loading it onto a train, taking the show to the next city.

THIS IS THE A GAME!

edvard2 says

As far as Nader, well I don't really have a great deal of respect for him mainly because

Because he was the blue print for pretty much how the Liberals do everything today, by hijacking ignorance and fear, and injecting their own logic into the works.

Sounds about right to me, the Sons always resent the Fathers, to some degree.

edvard2 says

So ironically Nadar might have done more in regards to impeding fuel economy by dissing the Corvair.

--------------------------------------
Ed, The Corvair was more about sportiness, not so much 'economy'... Nader was calling out a GM product that put its engine in the back, which relied on its inferior, antiquated rear suspension. Porsches of the day didn't have this problem. GM did eventually correct the suspension problem, but to allude Nader was the cause of Detroit's unwillingness to build a small, light, gas sipping cars is a crock of sheep dip.

Detroit built (and builds) what Americans want. Period. We didn't want to buy small, stuffy cars back then. And guess what? Detroit obliged.... Meanwhile, over in Europe, GM and Ford were building all sorts of small 4 cylinder cars during the 60's and 70's.. why? Because Europeans wanted them. End of story. one and done.

AverageBear says

Taking the $$ that these people paid into, and **GASP** take it away from the gov't, so that seniors can manage it on there own, and **GASP** not trust the gov't's promises that the $$ will be there when they need it?

The problem with such an idea and also why it would be such a monumentally bad idea is that by taking SS out of a government controlled fund and instead putting into a 401k, or such fund is that then you would have a situation where the value of those funds would be strictly tied to the performance of the stock market.

The other problem with that is if you were to suddenly flood the stock market with 100's of millions of new buyers this would in turn dilute the total shares, an thus performance would be drastically reduced.

So what these "genius" politicians are suggesting is that it would be a wayyyy better idea to take everyone's money and bet it all on black, because even though I suggest everyone should have a 401k and stocks, that's precisely what it is. Its betting. This isn't a radical idea. Its a stupid idea no matter what side of the isle you're on. SS is meant to be a readily available, constant, and consistent form of income. Sticking them into stocks totally defeats that purpose.

AverageBear says

Ed, The Corvair was more about sportiness, not so much 'economy'... Nader was calling out a GM product that put its engine in the back, which relied on its inferior, antiquated rear suspension. Porsches of the day didn't have this problem. GM did eventually correct the suspension problem, but to allude Nader was the cause of Detroit's unwillingness to build a small, light, gas sipping cars is a crock of sheep dip.

Baloney. The Corvair was in fact mean to and eventually did become an entire lineup of mainly economy cars. They made not only a 2 door and convertible version, but they also made 4 door sedans, vans, and pickup trucks using the same platform. Not sure what a Porsche has to do with a Corvair as again- they were not sold or marketed as sports cars unlike the Porsches of the day.

The reason the Corvair was created was as a direct competitor to Volkswagon, which at that time was enjoying some success in the US market.

The Captain said: everything will somehow be different than they are right now at this moment?
In California, we'll have the exchanges. Interestingly enough, most of the insurers beat Kaiser on price. I'd say that's radically different than what we have now. A year into it is where it will get even more interesting. Will Kaiser have capacity and become more aggressive in pricing? Or will rates rise to meet Kaiser where they're at now?

EBGuy says

n California, we'll have the exchanges. Interestingly enough, most of the insurers beat Kaiser on price. I'd say that's radically different than what we have now.

I've actually been extremely happy with Kaiser, which is what I've had for 5-6 years. I have yet to have any sort of bad experience with them thus far. So I'll probably just stick with them.

How can I get it through to you guys, that at this point all insurance companies could afford to give insurance for free, free of any premiums!
It's the copays, coins and deductibles is where they make their money in an industry where they set the going rate for a procedure, then dictates how much of that money the Doctors and Hospitals get.

FUCK I'm the high school dropout remember, why do I always feel, that I'm the smartest guy in the room with you people?

Dude. you don't need to "Get through" to us guys. All you've done so far in regards to the "proof" you claim to have as to why Obamacare will surely fail is based off of your own ancedotal, personal healthcare related experiences, which BTW happened BEFORE any of Obamacare was ever implemented. So in other words... you have no case.

End of story.

edvard2 says

Not sure what a Porsche has to do with a Corvair as again- they were not sold or marketed as sports cars unlike the Porsches of the day.

The comparison of Corvairs to Porsche is made because both cars had rear mounted air cooled six cylinder boxer engines. The cars are similar enough that its not unusual today to see Corvairs with more modern Porsche engines.

http://www.autozine.org/Archive/GM/classic/Corvair.html

Overall, GM produced 1.8 million units of Corvair in various body style, including 235,000 units of 2-door Monza and Corsa from 1965. Sales dropped significantly since 1966 because of the book "Unsafe at Any Speed" written by a young lawyer called Ralph Nader. In that book, Nader attacked the Big 3 for producing unsafe cars. It took the early Chevrolet Corvair as an example, describing how its rear-engined layout and swing axle suspension led to unpredictable oversteer hence accidents. Although Corvair had already switched to new suspension by the time the book published, the negative publicity damaged its reputation.

However, what killed the Corvair was not Ralph Nader but pony cars. The huge success of Ford Mustang forced GM to develop its own pony car, Chevrolet Camaro. It overlapped with Corvair but provided more performance and features. GM stopped promoting Corvair in the last years and let it died quietly in 1969. A sad end to probably the most unusual American production car in history.

Keep in mind the book dealt with automotive safety - The Corvair was just one example of an "unsafe" product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

Its not that cars could not be made safer - Ford tried in the 50's to introduce a padded dash but consumers rejected it. Volvo had made safety a top priority in its designs thanks to the wife of one of the execs. She was a rehab nurse who described in detail the injuries her patients had sustained in car crashes.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-210183.html

Volvo did have a US presence but in those days automotive safety was not high on the list for most consumers. Hell most people STILL need to be nagged to wear seat belts.

edvard2 says

Not sure what a Porsche has to do with a Corvair

Both are rear engined cars. The Porsche had a great rear suspension. The Corvair had a swing arm that GM cobbled together and stuck with for far too many model years. Under certain conditions, this type of suspension results in "tuck-under" of a rear wheel, causing unpredictable bad handling under certain conditions. I read of a highway patrol officer who watched a Corvair crest a bridge ahead of him and roll without provocation. The officer came upon the woman's arm in the road before reaching the wreck.
After much foot-dragging, GM released a new model year with a purpose-built suspension that was rather good, but the make had such a horrible reputation that it sold poorly and was dropped.
In the 80s, GM did THE EXACT SAME THING with the Fiero. The rear suspension wasn't dangerous per se, it was an off-the-shelf front wheel drivetrain and suspension built into the rear of what was supposed to be a "sporty" model. The 1988 model year was actually pretty good, suspension wise, but the model's fate had been sealed by pushing out the inferior version for so long.

The way Republicans are handling Obamacare is similar. Reluctantly offering a half-assed cobbled together shell of a great concept, watching it fumble in the real world, then saying, "See, America doesn't want this!"

I own a classic 1955 Ford Fairlane. To be honest, the car handles very poorly, as did most cars of that era. Cars back then sat on sluggish, sloppy suspension systems. At least the American cars did. Mine wallows like a pig in the mud. A modern car driver who has never driven a classic would be shocked. It takes some muscle and some skill to drive cars like these. You have to really anticipate things like curves, hills, and stop signs well in advance. The cars simply do not respond quickly. My car has an ALL-METAL dash, lap belts, no crumple zones, and a simple rail frame with little reinforcement in front of the engine. Often in frontal accidents, engines in cars like these got shoved into the passenger compartment. So in other words, your typical car of the 50's and 60's was a big metal box with passengers more like eggs sitting in the seats.

I say this because a former housemate owned a 63' Corvair Monza. I drove the car several times myself. To me the car handled a bit better than my Ford, which is close enough to the same era. So in other words, the handling of Corvairs was not entirely different from cars from that era to start. Likewise its not like the cars of that era were shining examples of safety either. What sold cars then was size, economy ( how BIG a car you can get for the money), and styling.

Yes- I will agree that GM was infamous with bean-counting, taking cars that had been well-engineered as initial models and then making them as cheaply as possible. But they did with with ALL of their cars ( GM's truck division is a totally separate entity). Thus the Corvair was built under this same penny-pinching system as the rest of their lineup.

To say Nader's book didn't do great damage to the Corvair brand is a understatement. The fact that to this day, a full 50 years later any mention of the word Corvair is quickly followed by a mention of "Unsafe at any speed" is proof that once published, the reputation and image of the brand was forever tarnished and ultimately what partially led to its cease of manufacture.

edvard2 says

EBGuy says

I've actually been extremely happy with Kaiser, which is what I've had for 5-6 years. I have yet to have any sort of bad experience with them thus far. So I'll probably just stick with them.

That makes one of us!
I had Kaiser through a former employer. The call center was under pressure to make calls shorter, while trying to make an appointment two times, the operator suddenly pretended she couldn't hear me and terminated the call.
A cabinet door fell on my big toenail, which became infected. The doctor spent 10 minutes lecturing me on how not to cut ingrown nails; I just wanted to see if antibiotics would help it heal.
There was this crazy "Nurse Jackie" type running one of the adult urgent care units; the appointment takers chuckled knowingly when I swiftly requested the other unit.
I went in for a rash once and they condescendingly prescribed neosporin. I went back because the rash was worsening, and Nurse Jackie asked if I was using Neosporin. When I said yes, she practically screamed WHY ARE YOU USING THAT IT IS WHAT IS CAUSING THE RASH!?!?
My erstwhile boss got a heart valve; the nurse greeted him in the morning with, "We didn't think you would make it through the night!" I think they decided he was expensive to maintain on his coumadin and regular visits. He had a stroke with one-sided paralysis and THEY SENT HIM HOME, it took angry relatives in their faces to get him admitted.
A once-great medical system seems to have been reduced to a jiffy-lube of healthcare.

CaptainShuddup says

FUCK I'm the high school dropout remember, why do I always feel, that I'm the smartest guy in the room with you people?

Because you are delusional and live inside a bubble.

It's because he's stuck in his limited egocentric ways. Not everyone gets more humble and wise they age.

CaptainShuddup says

FUCK I'm the high school dropout remember, why do I always feel, that I'm the smartest guy in the room with you people?

The reason might be the same reason you couldn't get through high school.

When you "feel" you understand something when you actually don't, that leads to failing your classes and not being able to finish high school.

Apparently the pattern hasn't changed.

rooemoore says

Because you are delusional and live inside a bubble.

Which is, I guess, somehow worse than being delusional and living on an amen corner...

New Renter says

Ford tried in the 50's to introduce a padded dash but consumers rejected it

McNamara joined Ford in '56 and implemented many safety features that are still in used today.

I still wish the neckbelt had caught on, especially in California.

Passengers in a '97 Chrysler LeBaron wear neckbelts, which were recalled Monday for causing explosive decapitations, launching victims' severed heads through windshields at upwards of 200 mph.

edvard2 says

Dude. you don't need to "Get through" to us guys. All you've done so far in regards to the "proof" you claim to have as to why Obamacare will surely fail is based off of your own ancedotal, personal healthcare related experiences, which BTW happened BEFORE any of Obamacare was ever implemented. So in other words... you have no case.

End of story.

Obamacare is already a train wreck. You don't have to argue with the Cap'n....Just listen to Max Baucus... You know him right? He's one of the 'architects' of Obamacare, and even he's publicly admitted as such. Care to refute an expert like Baucus? Funny how after he announced his retirement, he's more apt to tell the truth about this fuckin abortion of an idea that got jammed down our throats.... Such a great idea, that we had Pelosi lying through her teeth, back room arm twisting, promises of exemptions to unions and friends of Obama. How can you honestly still support this piece of shit legislation? Staggers the imagination.....

Her state does not take subsidies, so she is mad at the POTUS?

Wonderful logic.

We are a third world country.
No Vacations
No Healthcare
No Support for the poor.

Her state did not take the subsidies, so she is mad a the POTUS? damn, I wish i understood that logic.