ikol

We have a PNF.org site, WebMD, Diagnose Me & Snopes (which was actually last updated in 2005). Next time I go to my Doctor I will ask him. We should all do the same. I'm sure that we will hear a wide variety of stuff.

Nah, doctors all drink shit tons of coffee.

I stand by my sites and others like that that provide similar information. Is Snopes more reputable than either WebMD or Diagnose Me? It's tough to say.

I have an MD and think that coffee is delicious and nutritious.

You hippie!

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!

Caffeinated drinks have been long known to cause symptoms of dehydration due to increased urination. I'm guessing that you're a coffee and water drinker during the day, thus not feeling dehydrated. I know this for a fact because it used to happen to me when I would drink caffeinated coke during the day.

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.

I'm sold... Bodum = Now on my Christmas list.

A burr grinder would also be a good thing.

You just hate the gays, womens and disableds?

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

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

I always thought the intellectual level of Wilco fans was higher than this..I guess not.

 

Are you guys serious or are you just fucking with us?? (In case you guys have forgotten...Wilco supports Obama....)

 

LouieB

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

Oh. So why do you think he was terrible?

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

Terrible according to whom?

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.

"I support the idea of people caring for themselves rather than a allowing the government to care for them. I also support a government that does not enable a problem, or escalate a problem."

 

I think D-Dogg said this....

 

I support people supporting themselves too. In a perfect world all folks would have jobs with insurance supplied by the private sector that meets all their needs. But not everyone can work their entire lives, some folks are disabled, some are sick, some are unemployed, some are children, some are old. I don't know what it means to enable a problem or escalate a problem. Are their folks who take advantage of public assistance programs. Of course. Are their people who rip off other people because they are crooks. Of course. Do we support those who take advantage of the services that should go to the infirmed or disabled, no, of course not.

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.

So do we disown goverment programs because a sector of the population does this? Some apparently do. Then again individuals and corporations cheat on their taxes, ignore health and safety legislation, etc. As Woody Guthrie said so elaquently "Some will rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen." It is just very easy to say, I'll never need assistance so this program is stupid, or people take advantage of these systems so dump them.

Was the rest of the quote, "the government does both"?

I know it is time for me to croak so that I won't collect my pension, my health insurance, my medicare, my Social Security, or any other program I may be part of so that the the younger generation doesn't have to support me (although at the moment I am supporting the heck out of the younger generation...but I don't want to get too personal here.... )

Calm down. No one here has advocated that you croak (not even sarcastically).

I would just really like to see some of you guys say....end the wars, roll back all we spend on the bullshit military that isn't protecting us, reduce corporate welfare, etc. Somehow the argument coming from the more conservative side of these arguments want to cut social programs, but not the programs that do us less good, including pork and corporate subsidies. Meanwhile it usually comes down to let's get rid of publicly funded programs that benefit the elderly, the sick, children, the unemployed, and the poor. Having social programs that are supported by all of us to benefit those in need is the sign of a healthy civilization.

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.

So, that journalism degree from (what was it?) Idaho, is on par with a degree from Columbia, a JD from Harvard Law and a professorship at the University of Chicago. You betcha!

Woodrow Wilson had a PhD and he was a terrible President.

Politics are NOT black and white, but suggesting that the government should not help those who can't help themselves?? Well that's a position that seems indefencable at some point.

Who has taken that position?

And this conservative viewpoint fails to consider a historical, systemic structure of injustice and inequality predicated upon racism, sexism and a patriarchal/hierarchical worldview that holds certain people above others.

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 am guessing you're of the Milton Friedman type? Just privatize everything and it will all sort itself out? Sharron Angle refers to Chile as an example of the privatization of Social Security. That worked really well, didn't it? I remember scoffing whilst reading Capitalism and Freedom when Friedman proposed that free-market capitalism would essentially eliminate issues of racial inequality. Really?! He never once took into account the issue of systemic racism and injustice.

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 Security doing? At least when someone in the private sector tries to pull something like that, they end up in prison (see Bernie Madoff) instead of on our currency (which, thanks to the gub'ment, is worse less and less every day).

I think, overall, as a society, we are so used to 30 second advertising and easy credit card fixes. So, when it comes to the dissemination of ideas, they are watered down to these basic, shallow talking points that don't serve the complexity of the matters at hand. And, here, I will take everyone to task, not just right-wing. The current political environment sickens me - it's become entertainment and election day feels more and more like the Super Bowl every year. I am tired of it.

Well, at least we agree on that. Not bad for a pinko feminist and a rightwing nutjob!

Ikol, I certainly give you credit for being a complex thinker, even though we don't see eye to eye (at all). However, I do think that we speak different languages and likely focus our attention in different areas. I have an MA in History and an MA in Counseling.....so, I tend to approach things with an interpersonal, sociological and historical eye. I certainly lack knowledge in macro-economics and other fields that also play into these debates. I think this can be another way that we, as people, can fail to connect. Would you like me to write you my views on the oppressive intersectionality of patriarchal nationalism, militarism and fundamentalist religion? This pinko feminist could go on...... but, I'll spare you.

Maybe you're right about speaking different languages. I think all of these problems that we're expecting the government to solve are really our problems and that we shouldn't just vote for bigger government (thus absolving ourselves) so we can complain to them when things don't get better. And feel free to bring on the oppressive, patriarchal -ism salad!

Why should the feds have any part of a collective?

Because they need to feel important.

Where do national parks, public libraries and public schools fall in?

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.

http://www.bloomberg...-loopholes.html

 

I would argue that this form of corporate fraud is very much built into the system as well, but nobody is going to jail for it because it's all perfectly legal.

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.

Yup! As human beings, we are as much individuals as we are interdependent. No one can do it on their own. This is true from our basic psycho-social emotional/developmental needs to the material sustenance in which our lives are dependent on. This is where this Tea Party, uber-conservative Randian approach totally fails. As with most conservative viewpoints, they to divide the world into dualistic measures of thinking, when reality is a lot more complex, and the many ills of society are intertwined and intersected. Where I see conservative thinking ultimately fail is along this line. It's too simplistic and disregards nuance, complexity and paradox.

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).

Even ikols comment about SSDI being fraught with fraud is interesting considering Social Security denies everyone for these benefits (I have an old friend who is a lawyer who works for SS and he works appeals)and people take years getting them if they can.

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 is ironic that fraud from government entitlement programs gets so much play (and trust me I see it every day so it is disturbing) but fraud and corruption by corporations, which actually is a much larger problem and involved much richer people doesn't seem to bother these folks at all.

It's probably because when fraudulent corporations are discovered, people go to prison, whereas abuse of entitlements is practically built into the system.

I prefer the less offensive "fuckheads"

It does have a better ring to it than "Obamacare."

Don't let Christine O'Donnell find out.

The problem lies in that there are aspects of society which are not well served by the free market system; where the profit motive is the incorrect approach. If your argument is that charitable organizations fill the gap, why haven't they already done so? Imagine for a minute that the last two Democratic presidents were not as much interested in infiltrating capitalism with socialism, but answering a real need in our society.

When is the motive to get elected the correct approach?

The medical/insurance system is broken. When the Libertarians can come up with a system that makes more sense than 30k to have a baby, why don't you give me a call.

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.

How do you KNOW you won't need social security or government insurance. How do you know your kids won't need it?? (How old are they? Just wait until they get older or develop chronic health issues, you MAY feel differently...) No one can see the future, not even you.

 

I agree with you about pork, I strongly disagree with you about social programs. You just never know. They are there to help folks who need help. Are you against doing this?? It could be you, your family or your friends who ultimately benefit; or maybe you plan to pony up for those folks support, health care, or other essential services when the time comes. Good luck with that.

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 Security disability program is massively abused.

yea, except we ALL (you included) are going to need and use thost programs. These wars....not so much. (then again I guess there are those folks out there who want these programs discontinued.)

 

Even Mo can now use Social Security and Medicare.

 

LouieB

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.

She is right about one thing....the government is spending money so that there won't be anything left. Unfortunately the spending on the war in Afganistan is the real culprit here (and Iraq as well) rather than the other issues that the Tea Partiers keep bringing up. What we have spent on these two insane wars could have funded everything socially we ever wanted to do for decades. If this is what she means, she is simply at the wrong demo.

 

LouieB

And Social Security and Medicare.

I can only think of a handful of leftie musicians whose viewpoints qualify as "fringe," but I certainly think they're wacky too.

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.

For starters, all of mine.

And mine. And any other posts that either agreed with me or didn't explicitly disagree.

so what income brackets should pay what marginal % taxes?

0-$1 gazillion: 25%

$1 gazillion and one cent to $infinity: 26% (screw those rich bastards, they can shell out an extra 1%)