User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5732 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Yeah, all those years I lived without a cell phone in the '70s and '80s, I never knew just how much my life was at risk. I should have never left the house!
***
I never said cell phones couldn't make more financial sense than landlines. I was simply mocking the idea that cell phones are a "Lifeline" for people. If you ask people to list their cell phone's top features, I doubt "act as my lifeline" would crack the top 10.
Either you need a very good COLA or you need "more" -- as in govt housing, etc -- in high cost areas.... That's not an argument that everyone should get to live wherever they want - it's just a recognition that people tend to congregate where jobs are, jobs are most prevalent in larger urban areas -- but so are the entertainment and culture options (and need for significant public services) that make them high cost areas to live in.
Or - alternately - you have to find some mechanism to nationalize the prices of the agreed upon necessities...
A smartphone might be debatable right now - but this is an obtuse argument to the extreme... We had no chemotherapy in the 19th century -- how did all those people survive? We had no antibiotics in the 18th century, how did those people survive?
If nothing else, though -- I think I can tell you why all those buggy whip manufacturer securities you inherited are worthless.
Why? If people can't afford to live in Manhattan, they should move out of Manhattan. This GUI thing hasn't even started and already you're carving anti-market loopholes.
Are you arguing that right now, in American society, a cell phone is necessary to live?
Cell phone = chemo seems just a bit of a stretch. This is why the left's arguments are farcical. If you actually limited your arguments to things that are actually necessities, I'd listen seriously. As I have with emergency care.
Well, what you sadi was this:
It certainly implies that cell phones are merely a frivolous want, particularly since you brought the cell phone example up in the context of people frivolously spending government assistance money.
Let's be serious here: A cell phone is a nice thing to have; it's not life-or-death or anything close to that. Putting cell phones on the same continuum as antibiotics is just silly.
It's even more silly for governments that allow more and more moonbat parents to opt out of child vaccinations to consider cell phones some sort of societal urgency.
EDIT: I'd give Ray a Coke, but Michelle Obama and Nanny Bloomberg wouldn't approve, so he'll have to shuffle off to the water cooler. Sorry.
I would not say it is necessary. I do think a phone line is necessary to live (in any functional sense) in this country. Because a cell phone can be the better financial move, I don't think that getting a cell phone is automatically a frivolous expenditure.
Stop the presses! Congress passes program with slightly hyperbolic name! I'm sure that's never happened before.
I am not. Of course necessary is not the bar I put out there for every penny of my money to be spent. Can I live without a cell phone, internet or big screen TV? Yes I can. In theory I can live without running water, electricity and heat. So what?
Where does it state than only necessary things get government funding? And why or why is there zero room between necessary and frivolous? To my mind there is a huge area between the two, to read some here if something is not necessary (as recognized when said writer turned 18 or otherwise mandated) then it must be frivolous.
My workplace gives free flu shots (even to contractors). Is it necessary? Nope. However they have decided (probably because it is cost effective) to do that. No hassle, no paperwork, no money. Similarly governments decide to occasionally do things that are determined to be effective for the society, that are necessary but are not necessary.
There's a wide gulf between laughed-at luxury and life-or-death necessity. I'd describe cell phones as a useful want, not a life-or-death necessity.
What on earth do these two things have connecting them? Look I am against parents not get vaccinations. I think it is really stupid and harmful to society. But we as a nation have decided that people can say no to such things, for religious reasons or other reasons.
That has nothing to do with a program to hand out mobile phones.
It's a matter of common sense and priorities. It's absurd to pretend there's some moral urgency to provide "free" cell phones to able-bodied 20-year-olds while the same governments sit back and allow parents to allow their kids to spread potentially fatal diseases. What's the bigger problem for "society," some 22-year-old without a cell phone or some 18-month-old dying from a preventable disease?
Cell phone = life-or-death necessity.
Vaccination = optional.
Give me a break. You guys need a refresher on what the word "necessity" means.
That may or may not be Joe's position. But it's certainly mine. To argue otherwise is absurd. Cell phones - particularly smartphones - are luxury items, and as such are frivolous.
Funded program <> life or death necessity. It means it was decided to be a worthwhile program.
Vaccination = optional because we live in a free society and has nothing to do with cost/benefit and everything to do with the freedoms citizens are allowed.
You conflating the two as some sort of referendum on societies priorities is very ... unusual.
Because it is necessary!
And yes, I have noticed that as well. Being poor is kind of its own punishment, a society making it less miserable is a feature and not a bug.
Where do you stand on the fluoridation of drinking water?
Yes, it was "decided" that politicians would use more of other people's money to bribe potential voters.
What happened to all of us having responsibilities as part of "society"? You're saying people have both the right to a "free" cell phone and the right to spread potentially fatal diseases to their fellow citizens? When does the "responsibility" part kick in?
Yes, common sense is quite unusual when lefties start discussing public policy. I agree.
It has nothing to do with humiliating anyone. This is just an example of how this GUI idea would never work because there's no expense liberals are ever willing to spare as long as they can keep taking more of other people's money.
As for helping the poor, I've said what seems like a hundred times that I believe the welfare state traps more people than it helps. That's why I show such disdain for proposals that do nothing but solidify the status quo.
Pretty much never.
I have not said I favored or was against forced vaccinations. I said society has decided, which it has. We could in fact pass a law mandating forced vaccinations. I think there is a public policy case to be made. I should think many many people would scream about civil liberties. Imagine the primal scream if Obama were to ask to have such a law passed.
We can discuss such a thing, I think that would be an interesting discussion, because I suspect it would cut across normal party lines. But it still has nothing to do with a program regarding cell phones.
And again I mention that this bribery only seems to work on the poor and not on seniors, the most bribed cohort in America and likely to vote against Obama (The GOP firmly hopes or they are truly hosed). At least I assume you think all of Medicare, Medicaid, and so on are "bribery". And if not clue me in on how to distinguish legitimate government program from bribery. Actually I would like that clarified anyway.
So stop doing that.
Because people on welfare are often getting something for nothing, while seniors see themselves not as receiving welfare but as getting their just returns on the decades of payroll taxes they paid. (Obviously, most seniors get out more than they paid in, but they did pay in.)
So the difference between a legitimate government program and bribery is the perception of the recipient? That is interesting. All we have to do is convince the welfare recipients they deserve their welfare because of their membership in society and it is no longer a bribe?
That is truly interesting and what the Conservatives accuse Liberals of wanting. I don't want people on welfare to think the deserve it (just returns) but rather as a fallback of last resort.
And yet, little attempt is made to ensure that it is a last resort, and few leftists care whether it is a last resort.
No. There's a big difference between (1) people getting more at age 80 than they paid in at age 20, 30, 40, and 50, and (2) people getting something for nothing at age 20, 30, and 40.
Seniors might get more back than they paid in, but they at least worked and paid in on the front end, usually for three or four decades. (Plus, there's little public support for allowing 85-year-olds to die in the streets.*)
* Except maybe The Good Face. Ha ha.
So the person who works and then gets laid off or forced into medical bankruptcy and so goes onto Welfare (or other assistance) for a short while and then gets back on their feet and goes back to work, knows they are being bribed and vote accordingly.
The senior who gets back way more than they put in knows they deserve the extra money and knows they are not being bribed and votes accordingly.
That is awesome.
I love how liberals, despite irrefutable evidence of generations of governmental dependency among many welfare recipients, pretend that the average welfare recipient is a guy who got cancer at age 25 and was forced into medical bankruptcy.
Now that Obamacare supposedly will prevent such scenarios, who will be the prototypical welfare recipient in 2014? The lefties probably need to get started on trumping up a new example.
Have seniors been voting 100 percent for Republicans in recent elections and I missed it? A quick look at the exit polls shows that seniors actually went for Obama in 2008 (49 percent) and then for Republicans (59 percent) in 2010. It appears a sizable portion of seniors are being bribed.
We don't need no stinkin' debates.
It's a funny map; among others, Romney loses Texas, Utah, and Arizona but wins New Hampshire.
Interestingly, 14 out of 15 non-participating states are almost certain to go for Romney.
* Except maybe The Good Face. Ha ha.
Does this mean that TGF supports people dying in the streets or we should allow TGF to die in the streets. I might be open to consider either, but would need some persuading.
Are 100% of poor and minorities voting for Democrats and I missed it?
The plain fact is governmental programs are not bribery. he whole idea is silly. Governments (Democracies) are supposed to do things their citizens want. It is one of the main selling points of Democracy even. If a government did nothing for its citizens, if it pissed its citizens off then it will (generally) fall. And yet every time the government does something to help its citizens you scream bribery.
And yet you persist. And when asked to define the difference between a bribing and non-bribing program the only thing you point to is the perspective of the beneficiary. That is just crazy, if I feel like I deserve something the program is OK, but if I don't then I know the government is bribing me?
The reality, which you well know, is governments are supposed to help their citizens and the only reason you are bringing it up is because it is a Democratic administration.
Good Face has publicly and repeatedly mentioned that in GoodFaceistan people will be allowed (I don't think encouraged, but I wouldn't rule it out) to die in the streets rather than receive any sort of safety net (including emergency room aid).
We don't need no stinkin' debates.
Just a buncha illegal aliens stuffing the ballot boxes. But don't worry, Vultureman will see that they self-deport.
Better not go with your better instincts on that one, Swoboda. Been there and done that. (smile)
Ha ha. Yes, I might have put the footnote in the wrong place.
***
Actually, yes, fairly close. Obama is getting over 98 percent of the black vote and 70 percent of the Latino vote. There's quite a bit of overlap, but Obama also got big majorities among people making $50,000 or less (73 percent of those under $15,000; 62 percent of those from $15,000 to $30,000). Shift even a few percentage points of either group to McCain and Obama wouldn't be president.
You seem unfamiliar with the governments in just about every country on Earth, especially those here in the Americas.
You talk like government is Santa Claus. "The government" doesn't do things for citizens; politicians do things for citizens using money taken from other citizens.
(I'll leave the "their citizens" thing for someone else; I'll redistribute some of the fun to Ray or David or somebody else.)
Totally false. We just went through this less than an hour ago.
You realize we are talking about democracies, specifically the US, like I mentioned earlier in the same sub-thread?
The government is not some exogenous thing. It is there for a reason. It is, in the words of President Lincoln of the people, by the people, for the people.
Where you explained the difference between the two was all about the opinion of the recipients of the government program - which is still nuts.
EDIT:
Maybe it'll pop up on screen whenever Romney gets off a good line.
With a "BOI-OI-OINNNNG!" noise.
The 2012 Presidential Debate: brought to you by the producers of Wipeout.
(And now Obama is all but begging Lehrer to switch topics. Turns out the economy is a sore subject. Who knew?)
Conservatives will say Romney is winning. Liberals will say Obama's had the edge.
They can both agree though that Jim Lehrer is definitely losing.
And you couldn't pay me to vote for Romney.
Romney's got him boxed into the corner (with the "I'm not Obama" approach) but Obama can come out with a big hit because Romney isn't giving specifics. But it's hard to do that when you're on your heels. Lehrer hasn't done him any favors by letting both guys steam roll him over the rules.
People twittering are pretty likely to be just spinning whatever position they previously had, but Romney is doing fine, IMHO. Not going to win in one night, absent an Obama gaffe, but Romney wins when it looks like an even match. That's always the case for the challenger.
----
I'm always amused by the fact that neither candidate can ever name any programs that he wants to cut. Romney identified cutting... money to PBS. Obama identified, what, some airplanes for the air force and 18 education programs that he cut.
The 18 education programs is a start. Did he actually cut 18?
Obama keeps looking to Lehrer like a boxer who's had enough.
Well, Rick Perry showed the danger of doing that.
The 18 education programs is a start. Did he actually cut 18?
Why do you care?
I think Romney's done a better job of explaining why people should not vote for Obama than he has why they should vote for Romney.
That certainly helps though.
Agreed.
The rest of the quote is: "He's boring, abstract and less human-seeming than Romney!"
That's a fair point. I suppose when I think of winning a debate, I think about winning on the merits of the argument. How naive is that? Your view is certainly the more reflective of the actual reality.
The terrorists, same as always.
Michelle must be pissed he is not doing well. Looks like no anniversary sex for Obama tonight.
Rough night for Barry O.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main