Strictly enforcing immigration laws in California, besides being infeasible, would bankrupt the ag industry

I don't share your pessimism. If we built a real wall instead of a flimsy fence, enforced our laws, and tossed out all the illegals then the market would simply adjust itself to the new reality. Worker visas and market innovation would take care of everything by itself.

Oh, and that's okay? But having a similar system which covers everybody is not?

No - just informing you that you ALREADY have options if you are that pathetically down and out. There is no need for a 'new' plan to cover you.

Ah, paycheck, I pay self employment tax, don't have the same options for write offs as you.

HSA medical care is always tax deductible - self employed or not. There are numerous companies who do this either through company payrolls, or by signing on to their plans as an individual citizen where you make personal deposits. If you make income, you can set up a tax-free HSA.

Frugal? Really? please don't mess with me on frugal, I own my house, I have $0 in debt, I spent about $500 a month for living expenses for myself and my GF. Next.

Cool. I also own my house and have zero debt. Good feeling, isn't it? I fail to see how you can own a home, have zero debt, only $500 a month in total living expenses, and yet still claim to be unable to afford a measely $60 a month for medical insurance.

2) auto state min coverage is highly regulated in most states. If you bought up to cover your own car expect to be taken to the cleaners, my whole point is that only highly regulated insurance is worth buying.

Boy - you REALLY don't know much about medical insurance do you? If you are running around operating under the delusion that health insurance is not the most tightly regulated industry in the United States, then this conversation is pretty pointless because you're entire mental frame of reference is in some alternate dimension that only you occupy.

They don't cover nothing, they do systematically not cover things which they claim to provide

This is completely untrue. Are there exceptions? Sure, but they are the exception and not the norm. You have a completely opposite perspective of what really happens. I've had medical insurance for the past 22 years, and in that entire 264 months I have had ONE time when insurance denied a claim. I spent a grand total of about ten minutes on the phone, and bingo it was covered.

And I'm not some singular case. The vast majority of health insurance users are perfectly happy with thier plans. Study after study shows that everyone is getting along just jim-dandy. Your apocalyptic visions of 'routinely denied' care are nothing more than your warped perception of reality. You are focusing on outliers, and calling it the majority. You are cherry-picking the exceptions, and trying to portray them as the rule. What you THINK is happening just isn't true.

You can say I'm wrong if you want, but the statistics prove that I'm correct. All you have is your opinions, and anecdotal stories that you have heard 3rd hand from people that no one has met. What is more, you have personally admitted that you are NOT a member of an insurance policy and you never have been. Your credibility is nil because you quite simply don't know what you're talking about because you AREN'T involved in the system.

You're like a guy who has never built an airplane in his life who thinks airplanes always crash because all you ever see is news stories of crashing planes. How about you stop basing your opinions on rumors, exaggerations and anecdotes and actually try flying the plane for a while?

It's tons of fun.

I cam across it by chance - I was in a class at a local University and was browsing an internet-less wireless network. Naturally, I wanted to see if people hadn't secured their computers (passwords and usernmaes and all), and Bingo! I find a computer with pics of a halloween party, including a severely obese batman. The other thing I came across was a simple .exe file called World of Goo. So, I copied it over, started 'er up, and discovered this awesome game.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States. That balance is already long gone. If "you" wish to circumvent those limits, even and especially for "the common good", then you may as well admit you support a benevolent dictatorship where the thugs at the top can do anything they want as long as you FEEL they're doing the right thing, or they appear to be.

The Constiution is not a "living document" nor written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is, however, simply ignored by the scum in the federal mafia. If an Amendment was needed to outlaw alcohol, why is there no proposed amendment mandating 'free' health care? Because the current shits are anarchists, or monarchists.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane.

And you're basing this massive dissatifaction on what, exactly? Or is the mythical "46 million" uninsured going to come out of the woodwork again?

Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.

"But you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it."

You would be hard pressed to find average Americans dying in the streets due to a lack of health care. Like I wrote, 20 million illegal aliens seem to know where the emergency rooms are, even when the sign is written in English.

From wikipedia:

The health care industry is likely to be the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[159] The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.

It appears that once again, the soaring costs of medical care can be largely attributed to government interference. (And trial lawyers, but that's another story).


It's perplexing that numbers of people claim religion is evil yet believe that a true source of goodness is a government program which people are forced to enroll in at gunpoint. There's some confusion that this recent Obamunist government intrusion isn't the same as mandatory "universal halth care" but that's where it will end up. The camel's nose is poking into the tent.

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.

Yes, you wished harm on me, but that's due to your "left wing brainwaves"as the socialist believes that when one person wins, another must automatically lose; that's why the scramble for an "equality of outcomes" is so important. This isn't Dicken's "A Christman Carol" and I'm not Scrooge. And because not everyone agrees with your one-size-fits-all mentality on this or that issue does not mean they they're A) automatically wrong and B) in need of an ego resizing. Don't worry, I've had hard times aplenty.


Seems to me the only thing missing from your plan is personal responsibility. Are smokers or fat folks given less priority care or charged more in Australia? And forgive me in advance for going here, but at what point under the government system does some bureaucrat say, "Your child ain't gonna make it anyway because such-and-such condition has a 20% survival rate" and cut off treatment, or the more expensive treatments. From my point of view, you should at least entertain the idea that giving the government power over life and death when they can't even deliver the mail is a serious risk. They're serving you at their convenience and if they decide to cut you off, you're in a lot more trouble than some insurance company which can be sued.

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything.

There's a whole political system based on the idea that government should provide everyone with free everything, via the abolition of private property. And really, since no one is driving the train, it makes perfect sense for the communist to demand that everyone be fed for "free" all the time. Food is a more immediate and vital basic need than health care, isn't it? Even the healthy must eat to stay they way...so is "free" bread a 'right'?

What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.

Things cost money. Either you pay or someone else does. Your argument in a nutshell is that socialized medicine is less expensive, and in some ways---brace yourself---you might be right. As stated, I don't claim to have all the answers, but for America a completely government-run health care system (which is what the taxocrats are after) will be a disaster.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

The military is a tiny slice of the US budget compared to all the "free" social programs. We don't have the money to pay for all of the "free" goodies we have now, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain.

"Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". I said no such thing, but I will say this: government is the problem more often than not, and per your friend, your government system could just as easily and cheerfully kept him on the dole to suit its own purposes. Apparenlty he made a choice which brought him desired results. Which brings me to another point: some people are beyond helping, they will fk up everything all the time by constantly making the wrong choices no matter how much help you give them. There's no reason to hurt such people more than they hurt themselves, but there's also no reason to let them game the system forever.

Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

It must be cultural. Americans--the real ones--don't trust authority. Our government was founded by revolution and rebellion against the idea of kings, or ten thousand pint-sized would-be kings holding clipboards.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples)

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

Anger over NHS restrictions for osteoporosis treatment

Vulnerable And Frail To Get Substandard Medical Care, Australia

Australia's health care system basically 'broke'

Left-wing socialist ideals have given you a certain perspective not shared by all. Your "culture", like many in the world, believes that the group is more important than the individual.

I'm sayin' that sooner or later, that belief will bite you on the buttocks, because the operators of such systems remain human. Less government = better.

The basis of the idea that every human being is entitled to "free" health care is a made-up "right" based on nothing. Even among the world's major religions' mandates to selflessly help others there is no call to establish gigantic government entities to take care of the public.

It's repugnant to suggest that because one does not fall to his knees in praise of The System, one then must automatically be for suffering or letting others starve.

Government is a necessary evil that creates nothing and can only take by force and shuffle around what already exists. The answers to the health care 'crisis' will be found among the people, not bureaushits.

-----------------------
-----------------------

While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I'm not berating unskilled labor, but doesn't the medical student with half a million dollars in loans and 10 years of college study deserve more financial reward for their efforts? The socialist says, 'No, doctors' labor is a publicly-owned commodity whereas other occupations are not.'

-----------------------

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

Thank you for this information.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

so..selective anecdotal health care?
by using that logic health care can be denied due to peoples age.
its their own damn fault for getting old...
oh wait..health insurance already DOES that!
and QM,
stop using frivolous facts to smokescreen the point.
there is no perfect health insurance,and im sure there will be problems of :fraud,inefficiency and waste.
but what we have now is NOT a free market based system.
it IS wasteful and inefficient.
americans get far less for their buck than any other industrialized nation.
but hey man..if you wanna keep that shite you call a health insurance plan,thats your business.just hope nothing REALLY detrimental happens to you my friend,because once you become a liability,you are toast.

the only argument i have seen coming from the republicans is anecdotal.
this woman waited 6 mos.that woman died before she could get treated.canada and britain have horrible health care.
they do all this hoping you wont look at the numbers.
and the NUMBERS clearly state that:
a.americans pay an avg 5000 per family.
b.thats almost twice the amount compared to other industrialized nations.
c.american health care ranks 37.with higher infant mortality,lowered longevity and a far higher percentages of complications due to mix ups and poor quality treatment.
so...
lets review.
300 million citizens in the U.S.
appx 50 million uninsured.
paying twice the amount than the rest of the world to receive care that ranks 37.
the uninsured costs of health care is absorbed into the tax base(meaning your paying for them anyways).
we could insure everyone in the U.S for 200 million less than we are today(i also 150 million).so not only could we all save some scratch,but everyone would be able to get the basics in health care.
second argument i hear:
america has the best health care(we know this to be false),a much more accurate description would be:america has the best health care money can buy.
BINGO!
everything is for sale in america,and if you can afford that 1.2 million for an emergency kidney transplant then america is the place you wanna be.
but if you cant afford that QM,or anybody else who has bought into the health care industries multi-million dollar propaganda campaign,you are fighting for the wrong side.

Hey, I got Bingo just watching this clip for 2 minutes.

Seriously, Mr. O'Reilly is a product of his own ego. Fox News is about as corrupt a new company as it gets. Being the 'mouth piece of the Bush White House' according to members of said White House that disagreed with Mr. Bush and his cultish followers, its hard to take Fox News seriously. Over time, Fox News has had many instances of falifying information, or hacking up the facts to fit in with their own view point of the world.

Take this as a good example of what Fox News does on a regular basis:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Fox-News-Video-Cropping-Shenanigans

For Mr. O'Reilly to complain that only liberals and Democrats distort the facts, but not the company he works for, is being a hippocrit. Yes, sometimes liberals and Democrats distort things. But for every one time they do, conservatives and Republicans distort things 19 times as often.

I'm still waiting on Mr. O'Reiling, Hannity, and Beck, to be waterboarded for two hours, and then say, its not torture, even with the threat that if they didnt admit it, they would endure two more hours.

I wanna make a super virus
Strong enough to cause black outs in every single metropolis
Cuz they dont want to unify us
So fuck it
total anarchy and can't nobody stop us

You see late in the evening
Fucked up on my computer and my mind starts roaming
I create like a heathen
The first cycles of this virus i can send through a modem

Infiltrate and hit your station
No microsoft or enhanced dos with mp
Society thinks theyre safe when
Bingo hard drive crashes from the rending

A lot of hackers tried viruses before
vaporize your text like so much White-out
I want it where file replication is a chore
Lights out shut down the entire White House
I don't want just a bug that can be corrected
I'm erecting immaculate design
Break the nation down section by section
Even to the greatest minds
its impossible to find

I wanna develop a super virus
Better by far then the old Y2K
This is 3030 the time of
global unification break right through their
terminals burn em all
slaves of silicon
corrupt politicians with leaders and their keywords

FBI and spies stealin bombs
dissipitate their plans
and (?) catch the fever

Everybody loot the stores get your canned goods
Even space stations are having a hard time
Peacekeepers seek to take our manhood
which results in a form of global apartheid

ghettos a trash dump for gas pumps
exploded and bunt out just before the great union
the last punks walk around like mass monks
ready to manipulate the database or break through em

human rights come in 100 hundredth place
mass production has always been number one
new earth has become a repundant (?) place
So its time to spread the fear (?)

>> ^jimnms:
Ties are the most useless piece of clothing ever. I don't understand what it's for. I still upvoted because it's neat, and I never noticed the tie in the movie either. I'm going to bookmark this, and try it in case I ever have to wear a tie in the future.


Useless? Since when does clothing have to have a purpose? Do you wear plain uncoloured clothes? Or just a sack? If you need a purpose, then consider this: the purpose of a tie is to look good. Bingo.

Man, I hate it when I see men walking around in a suit and shirt but without a tie. It makes it look like you didn't bother finish dressing. It looks just awful: men, your suit and shirt are designed and cut to show off a tie. That V-shaped space in between your lapels is not intended to frame and show off your bare shirt button band and your big old flapping collar, it's a place to display a tie! It's a good opportunity to demonstrate your good taste (if you have any). And if the occasion is formal enough for you to consider wearing a suit... wear a tie and look even better.

ive seen a similar sudden full body reaction in another video, i think where a soccer player gets knocked out... its like he wants to bend over the wrong way and keeps tumbling, even though at first it seems like he's doing it on purpose. some sort of seizure, seems to fit the right sense of the words anyway.

ah here, ~:04-05 in. bingo! frontal impact seems a factor.



go go internet power

Science admits when it doesn't know something

In two letters... BS! If 'science' admitted what it DIDN'T know about climate change then they would not be saying that humans are responsible for it.

The fact of the matter is that the scientific community is for sale. They are bought and paid for by biased political interests, and they have surrendered their credibility in pursuit of funding. Most of the data the scientific community uses to support its claims regarding AGW is one hair away from being complete and utter bullcrap. Shoddy methodology and biased objectives can ONLY provide results that are is speculative the very best and routinely flawed. But that flawed research is exactly what gets peddled to the ignorant as 'fact'.

Here's how you turn the excrement that is 'global warming science' into fact. Collect political payola from special interest groups. Pay labs to perform research with pre-decided objectives. Reject/ignore all data that runs counter to your biased study design and poor controls. Write reports that cherry-pick results which favor your conclusion. Release your BS results to the press and political organizations, citing only the data you want. Allow stupid, gullible morons to act like there is 'consensus'.

Bingo. Now you have millions of lemmings that think human C02 emissions are causing global climate change. This desipte the fact that all legitimate 'scientific' and statistical facts can only say that human CO2 is (at the very most) a very minor component of a much bigger set of variables.

I repeat... If 'science' was willing to admit what it doesn't know about climate change then they would not be saying that AGW is a 'fact'. The fact that they ARE saying AGW is a fact means that they (A) aren't willing to admit they don't know the facts and (B) they are hired thugs in the information game.

>> ^Zonbie:
He new video will talk about how having sex standing up prevents pregnancy due to gravity.


Pretty bloody obvious isn't it? WTF do you think will happen if he turned the vagina upside down?


Bingo! The missionaries in Africa just need to tell em to do it vertical. +1 for science

I like how she's sitting in her minivan.

I'm guessing for 1 of 3 reasons;

1. She doesn't have a stereo at home because she sold it for bingo money.
2. Her husband thinks CD players are the devil.
3. She missed her morning prayer, and bought this audiobook to make up for it. She is recording it to prove to God she really did listen to it (and she only bought it because she read "God" in the title).

BINGO!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This needs some links:
Bingo from the Banana Splits

We used to have the video of Carell accepting Gervaise's emmy - but can't find it. Here's the german version of The Office:

bingo, *ban