Page: 1 2 Next »

Paradigm

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Wed May 14, 2014, 10:51 AM
Number of posts: 6,849

Journal Archives

Why the hell is this so difficult to grasp. If a private company

offers a health plan and you accept it to get a job there, why bitch and complain when you want more than what their plan offers? If you want more coverage, go buy it or go work somewhere else that offers what you want.

I just don't understand this entitlement concept.

I want my company's health plan to offer zero dollars co-pay, but that's not an option. If that's what I want, I have to pay more. I understand that, why don't other people get that?

If this is the leader of the global warming cult, it's no wonder there are deniers and skeptics.

It's not enough for the global warming lead spokesman to tell all the peons how they need to live third world lives. Until they all practiced what they preach to us, forget it.

Is Al Gore A Fossil-Fuel Industry Mole?

www.forbes.com

Did you hear the joke about the father of four telling everybody that overpopulation is killing the planet? Well, it’s not a joke, it’s Al Gore. Just when we thought we could go more than a month or two without new evidence of Al saying one thing and doing another, the father of four is taking hypocrisy to a new low, hectoring people about their need to make smarter birth choices to save the planet.

At some point in time we have to wonder whether Al is really this buffoonish, or whether he is a paid mole of the fossil fuel industry, cleverly taking on the role of Most Visible Global Warming Opponent only to purposefully sabotage the green agenda by offending absolutely everybody with his appalling hypocrisy.

Scene One: Here is Al Gore delivering the unwelcome news that we all need to tighten our belts and live more frugal lives, all while he is living in his enormous Tennessee mansion, sucking up more electricity in a single month than most of his Nashville neighbors use in an entire year.

Scene Two: Here is Al Gore flying a private jet from Nashville to Washington, D.C., as he prepares to badger Congress with a fire-and-brimstone sermon about fossil fuels ushering in a planetary catastrophe. Here is Al Gore flying a private jet again to a public speaking appearance in San Francisco. If greenhouse gas emissions are such a problem, why didn’t Al save emissions by flying commercial first class? We know it’s not for security concerns – the entire massage industry can testify that Al is the security issue to be feared rather than protected.

Scene Three: Here is Al Gore landing at Reagan National Airport. The Metro light rail system can take Al in a nearly emissions-free trip straight from the airport to the U.S. Capitol Building. But Al makes nary a move in the direction of the Metro stop. Shame on you, Al, you must be heading for a taxi cab. But wait, he’s walking away from the taxi stand, also. Will Al lead by perfect example and walk or bike to the Capitol Building? Ugh, there he goes, getting into a limousine, making the wasteful emissions of a private taxi cab seem absolutely eco-friendly in comparison to his limo.

Scene Four: Al is pestering us again about how we have to tighten our belts or else the global sea level will rise dramatically and turn our coastal cities into Waterworld. Manhattan will soon be underwater and unrecognizable, Al promises. At the same time, the energy-guzzling Tennessee mansion is apparently not good enough for Al. There is Al buying yet another energy-guzzling multi-million dollar mansion, this time overlooking the Pacific Ocean along the Santa Barbara coast. What happened to all that sea level rise, Al?


Scene Five: Now we have the richly childed Al Gore telling us that the way to reduce global warming pollution is to reduce family size. “One of the things we could do … to put out less of this pollution to stabilize the population,” said Al last week in a New York speech. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of children.”

White male Christians are the last remaining minority group which it is still

ok to discriminate against. The last sentence in Article 2 below says it all. All protected classes will be equally considered. Wow.

School District’s Contract Spells out Discrimination of Christians, Caucasians and Men
Posted on March 22, 2014 by Dave Jolly

Over the last decade, I’ve seen and heard of a growing number of instances where public schools and colleges have intentionally discriminated against conservative Christian students and teachers. When I worked for Answers in Genesis, I heard from a high school science teacher that was denied a raise and reassigned to teaching math all because he had a Bible setting on his desk. He never opened it in class nor did he ever teach anything about creation or what the Bible says.
Another teacher I heard from told me that he was reprimanded and warned that his job was in jeopardy because he answered a question from a student in his class. The student asked him if evolution could be proven and he said not exactly and that it all depended on how a person interprets the facts. He told his students that it’s important in science to question everything as that is how people learn. The next day he was called into the office, given the reprimand and warning.

Some public school districts have gone so far as to include anti-Christian, anti-Caucasian and anti-male discrimination in their contracts. In the Agreement between The Board of Education of Ferndale Public Schools and The Ferndale Education Association,

Article 10—Promotions & Vacancies, Section 10.3 it states:
“Any teacher may apply for a vacancy in a position considered to be a ‘Promotion” as defined in Section 2 above. In filling a bargaining unit position vacancy, the Board shall consider the professional backgrounds and attainments of all applications along with other relevant facts. Should there be two (2) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications for the position and one (1) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications is a current employee, the current employee with the greatest seniority shall be assigned. Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith. However, in all appointments to vacant positions, the Board's decision shall be final.”

Yet in Article 2—Recognition of the same contract, Section 2.6 states:
“There shall be no discrimination by the F.E.A. or the Board toward any employee(s) because of race, creed, religion, color, sex, sexual preference, age, disability or other legally protected classification, marital status or number of dependents; except where age, sex, or physical requirements constitute a bona fide occupational qualification necessary for proper and efficient administration. All protected classes will be equally considered under the provision of this Agreement and in accordance therewith.”

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/14858/school-districts-contract-spells-discrimination-christians-caucasians-men/#gBTD6upIZEL1EM3L.99

Conservatives more generous to the poor than liberals. Even though the

conservative family earns 6% less than the liberal family, they donate 30% more to charity, and they even donate more of their free time and give more blood. To be fair though, liberals, more than conservatives, do want the government to provide for those in need. In other words, liberals appear to be more generous in giving out other peoples' money.

Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

Read more at www.realclearpolitics.com

How does one copy and paste a graph or pie chart from an article

to a discussion post or a comment reply. On my I-pad, whenever I copy some text along with the graph or chart, when I try to paste it, only the text shows up. The graph or chart will not copy in. Is this an I-pad issue?

Why is so much tax money spent on AIDS research vs cancer or other diseases?

Many, many more people become ill from cancer. $180,000 per death spent on AIDS vs just $1,971 per death for lung cancer alone, both of which are preventable diseases, for the most part.

www.science20.com

We spend more on HIV/AIDS compared to other preventable diseases
By Matthew Lazenka | April 22nd 2014 09:06 AM |

Do we spend too much on HIV/AIDS research?

I ask this question, but do not plan to give an answer. It is an open-ended question of mine because,as a biomedical scientist, I am trying to understand the philosophy of how government decides to spend money.

Most biomedical scientists receive funding from the National Institutes of Health(NIH). For 2014, the government wants to allocate 2,722 million dollars for HIV/AIDS research. Based on the number of people living withHIV/AIDS, the government plans to spend ~$2500 dollars per person per year in2014.

If one looks at deaths, it is about $180,000 per death per year in 2014. Another way to look at it is per new cases, which is $54,000 per newcase per year. For the most part,HIV/AIDS is a preventable disease in the United States. Yes, women who are raped would not beconsidered in this group. I am notcertain how many women in the United States contract the disease each year because of rape, but ~20% of new cases are in heterosexual women each year.

These data are likely very different inAfrica, but the focus of this discussion is the United States.

So, in comparison, how much does NIH spend onother preventable diseases? Well, themost similar preventable disease is lung cancer due to smoking. Currently, (for the most recent year I could find data, which is 2012) NIH spends $314 million on lung cancer. Based on the number of deaths by lung cancer(159,260), the NIH spends $1971 per death per year. Based on the number of new cases (224,210),the NIH spends $1400 per year per new case. Contrast this with HIV/AIDS, and the NIH spends 38 times more money onHIV/AIDS based on new cases and 130 times more based on deaths per year.

The interesting thing here is deaths because it would appear that medicine is doing a better job at preventing HIV/AIDSdeaths compared to lung cancer deaths. This is most likely due to the difficulty in treating HIV/AIDS vs lung cancer.

It would be cynical to suggest it is due to less money being spent on lung cancer. Again, this is all rhetorical. It’s just interesting.

Cars, pools, food, football all more dangerous than guns in the home.

Www.gunowners.org

Myth #2: Children Gun Deaths Are At Epidemic Proportions

1. Fact: Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That's right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.

2. Fact: More children will die in a car, drown in a pool, or choke on food than they will by firearms. Childrenare at a 2,000 percent greater risk from the car in their driveway, than they are by the gun in their parents' closet. Children are almost 7 times more likely to drown than to be shot, and they are 130 percent more likely to die from choking on their dinner.

3. Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase.

4. Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children, most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." According to Dr. Gary Kleck, many such accidents are misnamed -- those "accidents" actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse. Dr. Kleck also notes that, "Accidental shooters were significantly more likely to have been arrested, arrested for a violent act, arrested in connection with alcohol, involved in highway crashes, given traffic citations, and to have had their driver's license suspended or revoked."

Stay on the plantation, or else.

5 Ways Liberals Try To Control You.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/04/5-ways-liberals-try-to-control-you-n1803689
Liberalism is an ideology that believes in control, not freedom. That's why liberals love the federal government so much while they detest states' rights. It allows them to bend hundreds of millions of people to their will with one imperial edict. It's also why liberal judges don't believe in the Constitution like conservative justices do. Sticking to one set of rules means people have freedom to do what they want as long as they adhere to the basic rules our society was formed around. A "living constitution" means you can put the force of law behind the whims of liberal judges. Why is Barack Obama so insistent on listening in on your phone calls via NSA? Because if the government can't watch you, it can't tell you what to do...for your own good, of course.

Granted, conservatives aren't perfect in these areas, but at least we believe in free speech, free markets, and states' rights. The all-encompassing, all-smothering liberal nanny state has no use for freedom. The only freedom liberals want to give people is the "freedom" to do as they're told.

1) Liberals want to control you with government regulations: There are 174,545 pages of federal regulations. Let me repeat that: there are 174,545 pages of federal regulations and the numbers are only increasing. As a practical matter, what that means is that we've long since passed the point where any one human being could have an understanding of all our regulations and we've moved on to the "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" era. In fact, you probably did five illegal things before breakfast without having a clue about it, which you'll find out about the moment some liberal decides you have to be put in your place and looks for a way to do it. Liberals control what you eat, what clothes you wear, what TV you watch, what kind of car you drive, what size soda you can drink, and even what toilet or light bulb you can use in your house. Complain about it and you're accused of wanting to end restaurant inspections and safety standards that prevent cars from exploding. So, what would be wrong with permanently fixing the number of regulations at 1/10 the current number and dropping one every time a new one needs to be added? The only thing wrong with it would be that it wouldn't allow liberals to micromanage your life.

2) Liberals want to control your major life decisions: Liberals aren't just picking at the margins; they're now making some of the central choices in your life. They oppose vouchers and charter schools because they want to make sure your child is exposed to the right kind of liberal propaganda courtesy of the teachersí unions. Creepily, Melissa Harris Perry took it even further when she said, "We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities." They don't want to own your children's education; they want to own your children. They control when you can retire by refusing to let people have even safe, limited investment opportunities in Social Security. Obamacare is an attempt to take over the health care system, which will literally give a liberal death panel the ability to decide whether you live or die. Given that Barack Obama himself once famously suggested, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," that's not a comforting thought. Shouldn't you be making those decisions about your life instead of disconnected bureaucrats in D.C. who pay no price for being wrong when they make bad choices that hurt you?

3) They want to control your speech: Why do liberals push speech code designed to kill talk radio like the fairness doctrine and "localism?" Because talk radio is conservative and it gets an alternative viewpoint out. It's the same reason that they futilely try to discredit Fox News and why conservative speakers on college campuses are often attacked and shouted down. It's also why liberals embrace speech codes on college campuses and political correctness. Liberals typically don't even argue an issue in any sort of meaningful fashion so much as they shout "racism," "sexism," and "extremism" in an attempt to define all differing opinions as illegitimate by default. Since liberalism works about as well as Communism in practice, the only way it can be implemented is either by force or by preventing the arguments against it from getting a fair hearing.

4) Liberals want to control minorities: If you're not a straight white male, liberals think they own you like a slave. They're not allowed to whip you like a slave any more, but if you leave the liberal plantation by thinking for yourself, they will try to destroy you as a human being. Why do liberals hate men like Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson so much? Because they're successful, intelligent, well-liked black men who don't see themselves as victims, complain incessantly about racism, or believe that they need liberals to succeed. If you're a "feminist," why wouldn't you be celebrating strong, successful, much-admired women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Dana Loesch or Michelle Malkin? Because they don't hate men, look at themselves as victims, or believe in aborting as many children as possible. Therefore, they must be demeaned, smeared, and hurt in any way possible. What if you're gay and don't see yourself as a victim or believe the central focus of your entire life should be gay marriage? They want you destroyed. What if you're a strong Hispanic man or woman who doesn't see unlimited illegal immigration as good for the country? They hate you with the passion of a thousand suns. Liberals believe you are free to be anything you want to be, as you long as you stick to the extremely narrow, well-defined roles they've created that allow you to say, speak, and think whatever they tell you.

5) Liberals want to control your money: Liberals are happy to hand out food stamps, welfare, and school lunch programs. They love extending unemployment insurance benefits as long as possible. They're big fans of people quitting their jobs and going on disability. Why? Because once you're financially dependent on them, you're like a dog on a leash. You'll sleep in the doghouse, eat the Alpo, and roll over when your master says so in hopes that he'll give you another treat. They take tax money from the states and demand those same states jump through hoops to get it back. They take money from productive Americans, use it for programs those people don't want or need, and then take credit for spending the money while accusing the people who actually paid of being greedy for not wanting to "give" even more. You're paying the salaries of the IRS workers who audit you for being conservative, the EPA goons who declare your land is a protected wetland when it rains, and the politicians who declare you're a horrible racist for disagreeing with them. Liberals believe we should have a populace that is controlled by the government, not a government that is controlled by the populace.

If Fox News lies so much, why do all of the libs watch it every day? Here's why.

The real reason those on the left hate Fox News
July 20, 2012
http://jlue.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/the-real-reason-those-on-the-left-hate-fox-news/
Fox News Channel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Light pierces darkness and truth trumps lies. If this were not so, Fox News would be ignored by liberals, not feared and fought against. Liberals do not hate Fox because Fox is biased. Liberals hate Fox because Fox reports news that other media sources would like to ignore.

Example: When Barack Obama said, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.“, most major news outlets waited, some up to four days, to report this. Fox reported it the day it happened. One has to wonder if it would have been reported at all without Fox News.

Do you read comment sections on news stories across the web? If so, it doesn’t take long to realize that the far left have a deep hatred for Fox News and would love to see them off the air.

This has always been a bit of a mystery to me. MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and often CNN present a left leaning bias on a regular basis. The media in general are pro-Obama and often appear to be a part of his re-election campaign. On the net, Obama has sixty popular sites that do his bidding.

So why does Fox News disturb so many liberals and stimulate such vicious attacks from them?

I believe that the answer is this. Many liberals (especially politicians and those who profit from politicians) do not want a conservative voice allowed anywhere. Many do not want dialogue and they do not want freedom of expression. They want one view and one side given to the public – the liberal view. Liberals fear the general public hearing what conservatives have to say because when people hear unbiased news and reasons why conservatives love capitalism and our constitution, people gain new understanding and often reject the agenda they were taught in government schools. Many will no longer buy into the “take wealth from the rich, give it to the government and Uncle Sam will take care of everyone” argument after hearing statistics and being presented with factual information.

Fox is accused of being the most biased news agency. The truth is that Fox News is the only major news agency that presents both sides. Fox has liberal voices on a regular basis, but there are always conservative voices. That is what sets Fox apart from the others. Fox also reports news that would go unreported in a liberally biased media. This is why Fox is the most popular news agency in the country and this is why it is feared and hated by many.

Imagine an America, or any country, where over 1/2 the people have no voice. When Fox is shut down or taken over, that is basically what we will have in the USA. Even if we still have radio programs like Limbaugh, without a news agency to actually get reporters into the field, much information will never get to the people.

Texas and Florida best. California, New York, Illinois worst. Hmmmmm,

I wonder why??? Could it be lib tax burdens???


In the 10th annual survey of CEOs concerning their views of the best and worst states for business, over 500 CEOs across the U.S. responded. Business leaders were asked to grade states with which they were familiar on a variety of measures that CEOs themselves have said are critical. These include the tax and regulatory regime, the quality of the workforce and the quality of the living environment. For example, a state’s attitude toward business is viewed as a critical component of its tax and regulatory regime, while employees’ attitude toward management is considered a crucial factor in the perceived quality of a region’s workforce. Public education and health are also important factors in the living environment, as are such things as cost of living and affordable housing.

Texas continues its 10-year historical position as the best state overall; but Florida, which ranks No. 2, is edging up and even overtaking Texas in its quality of living environment. “We’ve learned from Texas how to tell our story better and it helps that we’ve cut taxes 25 times—about $400 million,” Florida Governor Rick Scott told Chief Executive. Scott points to what he calls the Jim Collins “flywheel effect” where momentum is generated as more big name companies invest in his state. “When companies like Hertz, Amazon, Deutsche Bank and Verizon add jobs here, it causes more people to look at us. Business is comfortable that we’ll keep the tax base low and improve our workforce.”
Tennessee edged out North Carolina to take third place with North and South Carolina respectively capturing 4th and 5th place. Indiana, Arizona and Nevada finished 6th through 8th, respectively. Having jumped 31 positions from 40th in 2010 to No. 9 this year, Louisiana is the Cinderella state of Chief Executive’s ranking, proving that a concerted effort to transform old habits and policies can truly pay off. Wisconsin comes close with a meteoric thrust from 41st five years ago to 14th in 2014. Having survived a bitter recall last year, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recently signed Senate Bill 1, legislation that provides $504 million in tax relief over the next two years to state taxpayers. The bill reduces income- and property-tax rates, as well as eliminates income-tax rates for manufacturers, making the Badger state even more competitive.
Likewise, Ohio has seen dramatic improvement due, in part, to an energetic governor in former congressman John Kasich, who, like Walker, pushed a vigorous turnaround. During his tenure, Ohio became the No. 5 job creator in the nation and No. 1 in the Midwest. Unemployment is now 6.5 percent, the lowest in Ohio since June of 2008. Likewise, Ohio has gone from an $8 billion deficit to a $1.5 billion surplus over the same period.

California, New York and Illinois continue to rank among the worst three states in 2014, with virtually no change from previous years. California has gained breathing space since Governor Jerry Brown took office and is credited with a budget surplus. But despite the return of fiscal discipline, it has exchanged acute problems for merely chronic ones. It is a state that continues high personal income tax rates and regulates with a very heavy hand. Its top, marginal tax rate of 33 percent is the third-highest tax rate in the industrialized world, behind only Denmark and France. This situation creates a bias against savings, slows economic growth and harms competitiveness.
- See more at: http://chiefexecutive.net/2014-best-worst-states-for-business#sthash.rpJtprSU.dpuf
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »