Excellent!! I love it. That's the way to go trending2014-03-23 01:23:34and who knows what Gore would have done. All we can do is trust their apparent intentions. But I think the political system is FUBAR and it doesn't matter who gets in. Like Mark Twain said, if voting really changed anything, they wouldn't let us do it. I think we're all on the plantation at this point, and it's all scrip and the company store and propaganda and jingo, but they have us all bought in, sold out and on the rat wheel, and those who aren't by and large are really fucked.sdoI actually voted for Harry Browne in 2000 JohnnyTrigger2014-03-23 01:22:49but I did using the rationale we are discussing. I knew that my vote in CA had no impact. CA was in zero danger of going red.sdoI meant the whole election. As I said trending2014-03-23 01:21:01I voted for Nader in CA for exactly the same reasons/logic you did.sdohere's how Gore would have won in 2000 JohnnyTrigger2014-03-23 01:19:12The Solution to Voting for the Lesser of Evils Many people vote for the lesser of evils... they vote defensively rather than offensively... "we must keep the bad guy out, so I'm voting for the other guy... he is less worse" There is a solution to this. It is called Instant Run Off Voting (IRV). The way it works is that you stack rank your candidates in priority order. If you #1 candidate fails to win the election, then your vote rolls down to your #2 candidate... and so on until a candidate gets 50%+1. If this system existed in 2000 you could have voted for Nader #1, Gore #2 and Bush dead last. Then when Nader did not win the election, your vote goes to Gore. With Instant Run Off Gore would likely have won the election. Ultimately you can vote your conscious... vote for who you think is BEST. And you can still insert your "defense vote" to ensure that the worst guy is not elected. It is a simply elegant solution. Another benefit of IRV is that you can eliminate costly general elections. You can elect your candidates in a single election.... no runoffs! http://ift.tt/1fQQa85 Who Uses IRV? In Use in the United States: * San Francisco, CA * Burlington, VT * Takoma Park, MD * Louisiana (overseas voters) * Arkansas (overseas military voters) * South Carolina (overseas voters) * North Carolina (judicial vacancies) * Cary, North Carolina * Hendersonville, North Carolina Upcoming Implementations in the United States: * Minneapolis, MN * Oakland, CA * Berkeley, CA * Ferndale, MI * Pierce County, WA * North Carolina (city and county pilot programs) Approved As Advisory or Option Measure in the United States: * Davis, CA * Santa Clara County, CA * San Leandro, CA * Vancouver, WA sdoI knew what instant runoff was at one point. trending2014-03-23 01:14:13forgot. I was saying Nader is why Bush won. So voting 3rd party can be dangerous.★ People making $11500 or less are allowed Crazy_________Dude2014-03-23 01:14:08to use Medicaid. But using your idea, 100% of people will end up using free care or medicaid. Medicaid has qualification criteria in each state. What you don't understand is: Individual madate forces people to be responsible for themselves, exactly as Ron Paul would have wanted. Didn't you people want low taxes? Here's the deal JT: If you want higher taxes and higher insurance rates to cover the uninsured costs out of YOUR pocket, then your plan works fine. I want lower taxes and I don't want anyone to get free care at the local hospital. Hence, I want people to be self insured with as much of their own money as possible. If they're unable to pay for it on their own, then hell yeah, the government should give them assistance. Under your plan, 100% of the money will come from the government (Medicaid and free ER services). Under Obama's plan, corporations and individuals will pay as much out of their own pocket (thus saving you money, the thing you MOST complain about (taxes)) as possible. Yep, you pay higher taxes. I will pay lower taxes and let people be responsible for buying their own insurance. sdoI was in CA in 2000 and did exactly the same trending2014-03-23 01:09:18with Nader, but after I saw what Bush did I was extremely disheartened because Nader took more votes from Gore than from Bush and it let Bush win. I wanted Kucinich, not Obama. Kucnich was railroaded out as most of the best ones are. But Hillary/Warren I would vote for. I wouldn't expect miracles though in changing the status quo at all, and the big money would put up a fight against that ticket the likes of which we've never seen before. And I agree too, that would probably not even be the best Democrat ticket. If a guy like Andrew Bacevich was running on the Republican ticket I would vote for him.fuk★ I replied below and I will reply again Crazy_________Dude2014-03-23 01:07:21People with means do buy their own insurance. We are focused on the low income people. They can't buy their own insurance. Hence the government subsidies. By cost sharing the insurance purchase, government is FORCING people to buy their own insurance although the government uses its own funds to subsidize the insurance costs. It's a shared responsibility: Poor have to pay for their own care and the government subsidizes them. Once again: Insurance is meant to protect people. It's not a free gift to ins. companies. Learn about MLR. This solution is better than paying 100% of medical costs through Medicaid and free service at your local clinics. sdoI agree there are no easy answers JohnnyTrigger2014-03-23 01:05:35certainly if there is a good candidate in the GOP or Dems, then by all means vote for them. but they are rare. in CA, the state is going to go blue no matter what I do. So there is no need for me to vote for the lesser of evils. I choose to vote for good.sdo★ Do you understand why your stupid party Crazy_________Dude2014-03-23 01:04:12never wins elections? It's because of your stupid ideas. If you have a sensible plan, let's hear it. If not, then you should shut the F up. You just don't get it: By making insurance available only for haves and ignoring the have nots, you just made things a 100 time worse. Like I said: You like to pay higher taxes. Your stupid idea that poor and low income people should NOT own insurance clearly shows why no one takes you seriously. Once again: Thanks for advocating for higher taxes. With people like Ron Paul and you, no one even on drugs and alcohol highs will vote for you.sdoThat's overly simplistic. I have grappled trending2014-03-23 01:00:28with what to do about the duopoly for decades. I understand the problems with the political system. I paid close attention to Nader, Kucinich, even listened to the smarter aspects of what Ron Paul said. Sometimes I tell myself I refuse to vote or take sides. But I watch what Republicans are doing and what Bush and I am forced to do a lesser of evils thing seeing no other option. It really isn't even the lesser of evils so much anymore, but to the degree I feel more danger from the Right I will cast that vote to offset it to the best of my ability to understand it. I don't think the system will let in 3rd party candidates, etc... I voted for Nader in 2000 so I've had a lot of time to think about it. There are no easy or certain answers IMO.sdo★ Thanks for supporting higher taxes Crazy_________Dude2014-03-23 00:59:56Like I said, you want to pay higher taxes and higher insurance rates for the newly uninsred 60 million people who will happily drop their insurance and be covered under Medicaid or receive free care at ER. Thank you JT for being generous enough to pay for free medical care for those uninsured. Thank you.fuk☛ I would like to dismantle ACA Crazy_________Dude2014-03-23 00:58:22OK guys: I am with the cons on this issue. Let's dismantle ACA 100%. Repeal it. Cancel it. Throw it out. The end result: About 50 million Americans will once again become uninsured. Corporations will not take anyone w pre-existing condition. Insurance rates will sky rocket. Oh and did I mention YOU the tax payers will pay for all those newly uninsured people who will go back to Medicaid? Guess what folks: If you don't want people to be "forced" to buying their own insurance, then the hospitals and Medicaid will cover them OK? So guess what? Your insurance rates and your taxes will go up. Hey you said it: You wanted ACA to be dissolved right? You don't want people to pay for their own insurance, right? YOu want the people to show up at the ER and get free care , right? You want Medicaid to cover them for free, right? Hey you got it. Dismantle ACA. Increase taxes. Give the poor free care at the ER and let the tax payers pay for it. Thank you cons. Repeal ACA. Just as you wanted it. Repeal ACA, give the poor free care and make sure they don't pay for it by buying their own insurance as Obama wanted it.sdo★ Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Crazy_________Dude2014-03-23 00:52:36No, let me give you a hint! By allowing 60 million people to remain uninsured, it then becomes a boondoggle. Uninsured people in the past applied for Medicaid. Guess who paid for the Medicaid? YOU. I repeat: YOU, the tax payer, paid for Medicaid. I am sorry I was under the mistaken notion that you wanted lower taxes. It seems, when the government forces people to be responsible for themselves by self insuring themselves (individual mandate) you don't like it. OK Johnny, tell you what: Let's dismantle ACA and put those 58 million uninsured Americans back in Medicaid. Let the government raise our taxes by 10% and cover those uninsured under Medicaid. OK I am with you now: Let's dismantle ACA so that instead of people buying their own insurance, tax payers will pay for it 100%. Great idea! And here I thought you were a libertarian!!!sdoWhat can I do? § trending2014-03-23 00:48:07sdo★ Nope, we have gone over this before Crazy_________Dude2014-03-23 00:45:16The ACA is not a "boondoggle" ( I don't even know what that word means) for corporations. It's a "savior" for consumers. You are totally mistaken if you think ACA was designed to benefit the corporations. It's not. In fact, the MLR (Medical Loss Ratio) limits the profit insurance companies can make. Second: Once again you are obsessed with the idea of consumers being "insulated" from the "true cost" of insurance. Risk pooling is the underlying principle behind insurance. It's working precisely as we expect it to. To use your principle: For me to be not "insulated from the cost of insurance" I would have to pay full price for medical services. That's not possible. I may some day need $50,000 per year in medical costs. I don't have $50 grand cash on me. And I don't want to suffer from medical troubles as a result of having low cash amounts. You forget deductibles and copays which hold consumers responsible for insurance. Consumers don't demand insurance services at whim. They demand insurance services only when they need it. I don't crash bang my car every day just becoz I have insurance to pay for it. I am responsible for deductibles and also eventually my rates will go up if I bang my car daily.
Single payer will be OK with me. It works in other countries. It will work here in USA. sdoI'm not for ACA per se. I'm for workable trending2014-03-23 00:41:56healthcare, and insurance companies dropping people with pre-existing conditions, or putting limits on benefits to drop people mid care and then exclude them was not working. The problem with your idea is that most people simply cannot afford to pay for medical out of pocket but desperately need healthcare immediately or have to live with miserable conditions. Either way are compelled to do something. ACA is just a shitty compromise for a broken system. Single payer UHC is the way to go. Many countries have it. But America is wired to go ballistic over taxes regardless of the benefits of a well managed system of taxation and politics. So I just don't see any good answers right now that won't piss off a lot of people.sdoliberals for ACA are not real liberals JohnnyTrigger2014-03-23 00:33:45seriously, I am amazed at so-called liberals defending this "Affordable Healthcare Act". It is a boondoggle for corporations.... using coercive govt power to force people to buy from the very same insurance companies that we have been so pissed off about in the first place. The insurance model for healthcare is a FLAWED model. Since it insulates the consumer from the true cost of healthcare, it gives suppliers the ability to raise prices ... and gives incentives to patients to place excessive demand on the system, which in turn translates to higher prices. ACA just forces more of this type of economic activity, which will NOT make prices "affordable". There are really two options to solve this: a. The option I choose is to eliminate insurance as much as possible... pay for healthcare services with cash. This will put the consumer in the driver's seat and create a more competitive marketplace. Look at Lasics surgery. Such a competitive marketplace has driven prices DOWN. You can keep an insurance policy for catastrophic cases... which frankly is that insurance should be for. b. The other option is the true single payer, universal healthcare model. I do not support this. But this is the model that liberals should be pushing for. So-called Liberals that defend a forced corporate model are NOT liberals. These people are pawns to the corporate interests, and they don't really seem to care. inlThat's because I am Asian dumb ass! § JanetSmith2014-03-23 00:18:06I will say what I want about him! whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:59:28He's awesome!sdoObama Sr. Dumped His Wives. Rush Pays His 2014-03-22 23:58:34But thats racist to point out. I forgot.sdoWhat about people that get most of them trending2014-03-22 23:48:34but only laugh at some of them? I mean seriously, my vice is in Oregon.
inlI'm more real than your silly fiat currency you JanetSmith2014-03-22 23:44:59stooge.inlOh I see... whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:43:43You aren't a real person. Got it. One of the best, much better than Aliens 2014-03-22 23:41:39I am still not sure why Prometheus got good ratings, but perhaps they want to make it into a Predators sequel. 
pdxThe burden of honesty only falls on people whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:40:36and not corporations then? But wait...aren't corporations people now? A business can support their candidate with billions of dollars and never have to reveal their identity, but in order for me to cast one innocuous vote I have to have photo ID. How's that add up?sdoNot me, I have a pet rock smarter than them § pointy-boots2014-03-22 23:36:27So in order to prove my point, I need video whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:35:59evidence, but to prove your point you just need to say it twice?sdoI am amazed at their willingness to ignore the Liberalguy2014-03-22 23:35:33Science based facts. Just like trickle down economics they just would rather think they are right I luv women that suck dick! :) § snake2092014-03-22 23:34:47
Single payer will be OK with me. It works in other countries. It will work here in USA. sdoI'm not for ACA per se. I'm for workable trending2014-03-23 00:41:56healthcare, and insurance companies dropping people with pre-existing conditions, or putting limits on benefits to drop people mid care and then exclude them was not working. The problem with your idea is that most people simply cannot afford to pay for medical out of pocket but desperately need healthcare immediately or have to live with miserable conditions. Either way are compelled to do something. ACA is just a shitty compromise for a broken system. Single payer UHC is the way to go. Many countries have it. But America is wired to go ballistic over taxes regardless of the benefits of a well managed system of taxation and politics. So I just don't see any good answers right now that won't piss off a lot of people.sdoliberals for ACA are not real liberals JohnnyTrigger2014-03-23 00:33:45seriously, I am amazed at so-called liberals defending this "Affordable Healthcare Act". It is a boondoggle for corporations.... using coercive govt power to force people to buy from the very same insurance companies that we have been so pissed off about in the first place. The insurance model for healthcare is a FLAWED model. Since it insulates the consumer from the true cost of healthcare, it gives suppliers the ability to raise prices ... and gives incentives to patients to place excessive demand on the system, which in turn translates to higher prices. ACA just forces more of this type of economic activity, which will NOT make prices "affordable". There are really two options to solve this: a. The option I choose is to eliminate insurance as much as possible... pay for healthcare services with cash. This will put the consumer in the driver's seat and create a more competitive marketplace. Look at Lasics surgery. Such a competitive marketplace has driven prices DOWN. You can keep an insurance policy for catastrophic cases... which frankly is that insurance should be for. b. The other option is the true single payer, universal healthcare model. I do not support this. But this is the model that liberals should be pushing for. So-called Liberals that defend a forced corporate model are NOT liberals. These people are pawns to the corporate interests, and they don't really seem to care. inlThat's because I am Asian dumb ass! § JanetSmith2014-03-23 00:18:06I will say what I want about him! whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:59:28He's awesome!sdoObama Sr. Dumped His Wives. Rush Pays His 2014-03-22 23:58:34But thats racist to point out. I forgot.sdoWhat about people that get most of them trending2014-03-22 23:48:34but only laugh at some of them? I mean seriously, my vice is in Oregon.
inlI'm more real than your silly fiat currency you JanetSmith2014-03-22 23:44:59stooge.inlOh I see... whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:43:43You aren't a real person. Got it. One of the best, much better than Aliens 2014-03-22 23:41:39I am still not sure why Prometheus got good ratings, but perhaps they want to make it into a Predators sequel. pdxThe burden of honesty only falls on people whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:40:36and not corporations then? But wait...aren't corporations people now? A business can support their candidate with billions of dollars and never have to reveal their identity, but in order for me to cast one innocuous vote I have to have photo ID. How's that add up?sdoNot me, I have a pet rock smarter than them § pointy-boots2014-03-22 23:36:27So in order to prove my point, I need video whitmansampler2014-03-22 23:35:59evidence, but to prove your point you just need to say it twice?sdoI am amazed at their willingness to ignore the Liberalguy2014-03-22 23:35:33Science based facts. Just like trickle down economics they just would rather think they are right I luv women that suck dick! :) § snake2092014-03-22 23:34:47 This post has been generated by Page2RSS
via forums - craigslist http://ift.tt/1eAv6Xh
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years. Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate. Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute: The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands. 
