ikol

Nah, doctors all drink shit tons of coffee. I have an MD and think that coffee is delicious and nutritious. Hmm...the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup is the result of Big Government subsidies for corn farmers and tariffs on imported sugar, thus I'm just being conservative in opposing corn syrup. Ha!

Caffeine is a mild diuretic, but it doesn't cause you to pee out more than you take in. It might be true that you retain less water from 8 oz. coffee than 8 oz. of water, but you don't piss out more than 8 oz., thus you still have a net gain of water. And this is ignoring the fact that us coffee addicts have developed tolerance and thus do not even experience the diuretic effect. The high fructose corn syrup in a coke is way worse for you than the caffeine.

I too belong in the "been drinking coffee since I was 3" camp. The French Freedom Press is my preferred method when I make it (though espresso is even better), and I drink it unadulterated with sugar, flavoring, or dairy/non-dairy products. As for whether coffee is good or bad for you, the general consensus is that in moderation it actually has health benefits. Since caffeine is addictive, regular drinkers including myself probably don't get much boost other than preventing withdrawals, but as morning rituals go, it sure beats staring at the sun. A burr grinder would also be a good thing.

That's offensive...the correct term is handicraps.

Hey Lou, I'm not a racist. Hope that clears everything up.

Wico also supports Wilco the Album, so I feel it's OK to occasionally disagree with them and still be considered a fan.

Dude, I don't remember. That was like 90 years ago.

Probably the person who called him terrible, which would be me. There are these things called opinions. They're like facts but fuzzier less well-supported.

Seems to me that the disagreement here is less whether the government should help the helpless and more how many people qualify as helpless. I tend to believe that somewhat less than every single person 65 and older requires assistance. Was the rest of the quote, "the government does both"? Calm down. No one here has advocated that you croak (not even sarcastically). I'm all for cutting defense spending, but that is only part of the solution. Regardless of what we do with defense spending, Social Security and Medicare as they currently exist are not sustainable. Woodr

Who has taken that position?

And the solution to this is more federal government? That we can elect the most narcissistic and sociopathic of society to represent us, and they will somehow do away with a patriarchal/hierarchical worldview that holds certain people (them, for example) above others? I suppose I'm in the Milton Friedman school of thought, though the idea that "it will all sort itself out" isn't quite right. No, we still have the responsibility to sort things out ourselves; we just have ourselves and not the government to blame when things don't work out. How's the government-run version of Social Secu

Because they need to feel important.

Public libraries and public schools fall into local communities (and many of the latter fall quite a bit). The feds can keep national parks if you wish as they aren't a huge part of the budget.

It's very easy to find loopholes when the tax code is as complicated as it is in this country. I am definitely in favor of a simplified tax code.

You might be correct about a purely Randian viewpoint, but you fail to discern the complexity and nuance of a healthy rightwing nutjob mindset. We are indeed social animals that are dependent on each other, but families and local communities form the basis of this social structure rather than the federal government (which merely exists to provide a basic infrastructure and protect us from threats to our security and rights).

Considering the decision is made by bureaucrats instead of the doctor that actually evaluates the applicant, it makes sense that errors are made both ways on deciding who gets disability. It's probably because when fraudulent corporations are discovered, people go to prison, whereas abuse of entitlements is practically built into the system. It does have a better ring to it than "Obamacare."

When is the motive to get elected the correct approach? It's possible to have a baby for free. If you want to be screened for every infectious disease known to man, have 3-D ultrasound pictures of your fetus, test for congenital malformations, etc. and have an OB doc terrified of getting sued do an unnecessary C-section, then it's gonna cost some money. Even if the government picks up the tab, it's still gonna cost $30K. I can't say whether any given individual will need any of those services, but I'm pretty confident that not every American over 65 requires them. And the Social Sec

I'm operating on the assumption that there won't be any Social Security when I retire, and everyone my age should do the same. You can argue that these programs are necessary, but that doesn't change the fact that they are the biggest part of the budget and will drown our nation in debt if the status quo continues. Things have changed somewhat since FDR was President, so why shouldn't his programs? People are living a lot longer and are generally healthier in their old age than they were 70 years ago. I don't see how we can survive as a nation without raising the retirement age.

And Social Security and Medicare.

Musicians are supposed to be wacky. Sane musicians sound like Nickelback, which is just crazy.

She wouldn't be the first musician to espouse fringe political views and spout hackneyed slogans, but I guess doing so from the right makes her a rare bird.

You sure are obsessed with this "Hop on Pop" band. What gives?

So you're saying senators should pay the most taxes? I like.

And mine. And any other posts that either agreed with me or didn't explicitly disagree. 0-$1 gazillion: 25% $1 gazillion and one cent to $infinity: 26% (screw those rich bastards, they can shell out an extra 1%)