Barihawk

Err, Magekllr? Why do you always paint me as some ultra-right wing bastard son of George W. Bush? Just because I'm a registered Republican does not mean I vote ® every chance I get or organize mobs to go raid town hall meetings. If your entire argument comes down to attacking my character in every thread by accusing me of being anything but the slightly right moderate I am, you are the one being "intellectually dishonest." For the last freaking time, I'm sick of both parties and the only reason I supported the Iraq War was because it rid us of Saddam. I did not support our reasons for getting into it, but I appreciate the outcome along with a good chunk of people in that nation, no less. You seem to be the one on the crusade to make your dare-I-say-it flawed views everyone's business and do nothing but mock and attack those who disagree with you. You will go out of your way to insult Republicans, despite the fact that I honestly don't care which ® is banging which South American sweetheart or which (D) is abusing taxpayer dollars. You are symbolic of the bickering between (lettersbetweenparenthesis) bullcrap that is almost completely neutralizing the effectiveness of the government. Dude, you need to get a grip. Your opinions are beyond bias at this point and you hide behind "intellectualism" at every opportunity for fear of having to admit that someone else has an opinion. I stand behind my post, as it is merely a reflection of what is happening now in regards to public opinion towards HR 3200, and what has happened in the past when any legislative body has done what the Democrats are thinking about doing, regardless of party affiliation. And for the last freaking time, stop treating me as if I go home and make out with a poster of Glenn Beck every night. It's rather irritating to see you demean yourself just to make a personal attack.

The President is stating along with Pelosi that they are thinking about nuking the bill through the Senate with 51 votes. I hope healthcare is that much worth it to him because if they attempt to ram a bill that 65% of Americans disagree or are unsure about (37% for), they are going to be utterly destroyed as a Party in upcoming elections. It will be their death sentence. Even several Democrats agree with that. All in all, the bill was poorly thought out and quite rushed. I'm telling you that if Obama spent his entire two terms working on the bill and putting other matters first, we might have a viable bill that would garner public support. But this bill is rushed, and it's no-compromise. Without the public option it's nothing but a bill that raises premiums and copays. With the option it faces opposition from 54% of the population and a good chunk of those undecided. Right now it's a lose-lose, and forcing it through will eliminate almost every American's trust in government, regardless of Party. This bill is nothing but a sign of how screwed up the government has been the last decade, where Partisan politics rules all. Six months is absolutely not enough time to overhaul something like healthcare. If nothing else, the debate over this bill has caused severe dissatisfaction among constituents and will hopefully make Americans more cautious in future elections for Congress and the Executive. I am predicting that we will be seeing quite a few more Independants coming into Congress in upcoming terms as people will end up trusting them more than traditional Parties.

Think you could explain what you're getting at to us? Looking at the definition, I expect it involves making the laws of one weed-tolerant state applicable to other states, or something like that. As you can probably tell, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. ^_^;; The movie that quote comes from a movie that every American needs to see, period. It's called "A Clear And Present Danger" and revolves around Colombian drug cartels. Stars Harrison Ford and is one of the Jack Ryan series by Tom Clancy. RECIPROCITY was a secret operation that took Latino US commandos and dropped them in Colombia to take part in an illegal war against the cartels.

One word. RECIPROCITY. I hope at least someone gets what I mean :P.

1. Kyra Sedgwik. She's pretty attractive, smart, sexy, and a damn good actress. And she's married to Kevin Bacon, who is attractive to every man and woman on the planet. 2. Sandra Bullock. Always had a crush on her. She's fairly good off-camera as well, producing a few shows that I have really enjoyed. 3. Jeri Ryan. Tall, Scandinavian, good actress (well, aside from Star Trek). If she had avoided sci-fi, she'd have had great success in acting on television and stage. 4. Katherine Ross. She was in a lot of western movies I used to enjoy watching and she's very attractive. Not all that grand of an actress, but she brings back memories of good movies. 5. Raquel Welch. Duh. Pictures: 1. [hide=][/hide] 2. [hide=][/hide] 3. [hide=][/hide] 4. [hide=][/hide] 5. [hide=][/hide]

I don't know what's more pathetic in this thread. The sheer amount of 4chan, trolling, or people who take this seriously and don't notice the trolling.

May I suggest something to those of you under the age of 18? Tell your parents that for next year, get the damn shots and physicals done with the doctor BEFORE August instead of trying to come in all within two weeks of school starting. Thanks, The medical community.

Not to be an [wagon]...but did you really just ask why god would be "protected" in America? Yes, I did. You can have characters shout "Jesus Christ!" and other stuff like that that would be considered "blasphemous", but you can't say that one thing in particular? It's for the Jewish. Saying God is considered blasphemous (instead you see them type "G-d." With the above mentioned profanity being more heinous than the F word could ever be. That's why.

Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule. Not to mention that they owed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds to King George...each. They took advantage of popular feelings of the days in order to skip out on a debt, it could be argued. Edit: Before you guys kill me, the guy who wrote the expose almost a hundred years ago was Frederick Jackson Turner, one of the most revered and respected historians of American history. And he had the records to prove it.

That's the thing, though. History is completely subjective. It's 100% interpretation. Having met several key historians, this only makes me worry. "Common Knowledge" for the most part is made up by lawmakers in order to create hegemony. Who discovered America? Ask any high-school graduate in America and you are most likely to hear "Columbus." And it's even more unlikely that the student can tell you the benefits of West-American interaction as opposed to the "common historical" interpretation that white man brought nothing but death to Native Americans (who miraculously appeared on the continent after Columbus discovered it, no less). The entire point of teaching analysis is to teach kids to shed off their own opinions, do research on a subject (historical or not) and make a logical conclusion based on what they find. That's a core life skill that millions of people never/will never learn. And why not? Likely because the government does not want them to. We present an educational culture where it's ok to criticize the distant and "safe" past but not one in which it's ok to question recent government actions (especially the current ones) because history "isn't ready yet." It's a trend that's been happening in Education for the last forty years. It's one of the reasons I don a tin-foil hat and claim conspiracy that history, government, and economics are being phased out of general education (leading to a "dumbing down" of America. It only makes me more nervous that people speaking out at these healthcare debates (in recent news) get called "un-American" by the same leaders who create education. To me it's like they are trying to stifle opposition from the people, which is kind of scary and I am sure some of you are gradually starting to picture me as Glenn Beck by reading this, but I assure you that's not my goal. There are only a handful of teachers out there who can manage to find the time to work analysis (real analysis) into their classroom because the states expect so much of us to teach facts. You can blame the States' educational committees for absolutely failing to work out No Child Left Behind by further increasing the importance of standardized testing and hence "teaching from the legislature" that is ruining education today. The shifting importance of teaching math and science (core skills defined by the testing) is leading to an absolute abundance of teachers in this field while creating less demand on the fields that are not as tested (such as history, government, sociology, etc) which are now becoming the domain of coaches who spend more time worrying about their lineups than creating an engaging educational community. People keep failing to realize that the people who create healthcare reform are doing so never going to use it. They impose education reform while their kids go to private academies. They don't pay taxes. They spend money like it doesn't belong to them (oh wait, it doesn't!). People need to realize that without an engaged political society to keep the government in line, it's going to be led by upper-class people with their own agendas. Even the Founding Fathers had the major motivation to sign the Declaration in order to absolve huge amounts of debt owed to King George. That, to me, is kind of silly when you think about it. People, and I mean the general population who has no intent to go to college because they make up the absolutely vast majority of this nation, need to learn the skills necessary to analyze current events and put them into perspective. Otherwise we will slowly become sheep, which is happening to an extent. Also, because magekllr will jump on this. Republicans suck as much as Democrats do. Please don't feel the need to remind me of it with a dozen posts about various ® people I don't care about. I didn't vote for most of them, I didn't even vote for John Cornyn.

This makes me mad. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the most kick-[wagon] guy ever. Having him as the leader of early 20th century United States? He should have a whole damn chapter. That's a pretty pessimistic view you have there Barihawk. What kind of textbooks are you basing it on? My AP US History textbook had I think two separate chapters focusing on Teddy Roosevelt's era, with one of them being almost entirely about him and Progressivism. The coal miners' strike, his issues with Taft, the whole deal. As I said, in the history classroom it all happened from ???BC-1945AD. We idolize the far past, though. The farther you go back in time, the more larger-than-life the Presidents become. Is this because they truly were heroes? (Don't get me wrong, I think Teddy was the absolute best President of all time). Or is this simply a tool of national hegemony providing us with a common thread of tales about men long dead that have been immortalized in stone and ink? To be honest, I hold onto the latter. The success of a President, and their legacy, will always rely on the times surrounding them. Lincoln in any other time would have been considered a Tyrant. But the Civil War gave him legitimacy to his actions. Andrew Jackson by any account was an arrogant fool, but the events surrounding his Presidency immortalized him in the annals of history. George W. Bush many of you dislike, but history will always remember him as the President who rapidly charged the nation after 9/11 and sent a message to terrorists worldwide that their actions would no longer be tolerated. Bill Clinton accomplished many amazing things during his Presidency, but will always be known for the AARP healthcare reform movement that forced him to change things in that regard. George H. W. Bush? Mediocre President happened to be in office when the Wall fell. JFK was an absolutely TERRIBLE President and would have been another Jimmy Carter if he hadn't been shot. The list goes on. It's not pessimistic, it's an understanding of what history is and why and how it's used. Also, AP history = entirely different animal. You guys get a taste of what history is actually about, the analysis. That being said, it still does narrow down too much and very little effort is put into the recent past, which to be honest is some of the most relevant things that kids need to be learning about. However, it is still also very limited. History for all intents and purposes is nothing more than fact recounting (even in AP) until you get to the graduate level. Then the gloves literally come off.

As a former history teacher, here's my take on recent history making it into the history books, as evidenced by what textbooks actually convey. 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will get an entire chapter. George Bush will be featured as prominently as Clinton was during his tenure. Katrina will get a footnote. The HLC will get a footnote and maybe a picture in some science textbook with little relevance to the unit it's in. Obama will be remembered for being the first African-American President. At the rate his approval rate is dropping, even if he serves a second term, this is likely to be his biggest achievement. I kid you not. Most Presidents are lucky to have a paragraph. It's the events that surround them that make them revered by history, not the man himself. The Warren court will still get more coverage than anything to do with Sonia Sotomayer after liberals realize she's not the next Ruth Ginsberg. The recession will be forgotten within a decade. Mark my words. It will be in the conclusion to the 9/11 (aka the Bush) chapter and maybe mentioned with President Obama's possible paragraph. The main thing to remember kids? If it didn't happen before World War 2, it's not worth giving more than a paragraph to. It's the sad state of failing education nationwide that we will overload kids with facts and dates but not teach them how to analyze history for what it is. No analysis + facts and dates = kids who can't rationalize politics but can win on Jeapardy. Schools are gradually cutting out history, government, and economics. Is there a sinister motive behind it or do they just not care? Your guess is as good as mine, but all the booksmarts in the world can't help you if you can't understand the world around you (I don't mean the natural world, either. I mean the geopolitical world.)

'94 Saturn SL2. Best car I have and will likely ever own. It drove like a dream until time caught up with it.

Education is essentially education. Unfortunately people seem to think that certain universities are more "prestigious" than others and that leads to academic bias. IE an idiot who had money getting more credit than a talented person who went to a state school.

I don't think you can really sum up attraction into definable physical or emotional traits. Like Laikrob said, most people have general negotiable traits that they look for in the opposite sex. Say for me, I would prefer women with no substance addiction, don't party too hard (I've held way too many exes' hair back over a toilet), and somewhat agreeable on religious/political beliefs. Being able to take care of one's self is also important, but it's very broad. Specifics only bog you down in trying to find a relationship as you narrow the field too far.

I'm sorry. Coming from you this statement is hilarious.

I am 6' 200 lbs. I used to be 255 lbs which was obese but I have managed to lose that, and am still on my journey to an average 175 lbs for my age and height. Along the way I've reduced my cholesterol from dangerously high to very below average.

For the record, I've been watching Fox News for several weeks now (due to it being on the TV's in the waiting room at work) and aside from Glenn Beck, the anchors have actually been thanking Bill Clinton for taking the time to go over there. The only controversy is if the White House had anything to do with the visit on an official level (ie asking Clinton to go over there as opposed to just providing a few aides) which would violated our foreign policy regarding North Korea and present the image that we are "Softening up" on them. I've not really heard any remarks about Hitler, and since the release of the hostages, Glenn Beck has only been ranting about the "mob controversy" and hasn't even touched this. Unless it was on some blog somewhere that I don't waste time reading (and why should you, if you hate him?) I mean, just saying. One person here who absolutely hates anything that's farther right than he is (including moderates, apparently) and seems to have a vendetta against the network posts something irrelevant and apparently untrue in this case, and everyone takes it at face value. While I normally agree that Fox has some issues (and I hate Glenn Beck personally), in this case it's untrue. They've been rather supportive of this affair. Edit: I also appreciate the power that former Presidents can have. Expect to see George W. Bush in Africa visiting nations in a few years. After a few terms, people who normally might have not liked you during your Presidency generally see you in a new light. Some Presidents even make better former Presidents than they did when they were in the Office (see: Carter :P)

It's not so-called "anecdotal" evidence. It's an observable trend. I work in the healthcare profession and this is something that everyone notices. It's not something that happens once in a blue moon.

I rarely, if ever hear of people traveling out of the US to get medical treatment, unless it is to meet or be treated by a specialist. (My friend got knee surgery in Japan while he was there because it was a bit cheaper.) I hear quite often of people coming into the US for medical treatment. US does have the highest quality of Healthcare in the world, from what I have seen and from where I have traveled (Europe and Africa.) The US might have some of the best hospitals in the world for people who can afford it, but the point is the US healthcare system is probably one of the worst in the "civilised" world for ordinary people due to patients being at the mercy of insurance companies who only care about how much profit they can make. As opposed to the government holding the cards of a patient's care and deciding what is "worth" covering? I've seen enough Medicare/Medicaid claims get rejected because the government kicked them back to us claiming "this ingrown toenail is not necessary, this swollen finger was not necessary" and we have to send those people a bill. You are basically taking control away from the "greedy insurance companies" (who, by the way, make craptons of money while insuring MUCH more than the government does right now for low costs to the consumer) and giving them to a government that is very badly in debt and is about to go into "penny crunching" mode. They are going to try to cut costs wherever they absolutely can. Also, this system is going to be horrifically abused. The price tag we have now is completely inaccurate, because it only shows how many people actually need it, but not how many could actually take advantage of it. You wouldn't believe how many people I see driving BMW's into the lot in designer clothing, their kids in name brand clothes, and pulling out medicaid cards because they are too cheap to buy good insurance. That's abuse considering that many people who actually need it can't get it. I think if Congress spent at least four (and preferably Obama's entire eight years) to pound this thing out (with new ideas and critiques coming in through election cycles in Congress, providing more input and response from the people), it might actually work. Instead we have a bill that's literally been crammed through the process as fast as possible with loopholes the size of Texas.

I hate beards :P. I grew one for Halloween a few years back (I was Al from Home Improvement) but it was annoying as hell and I kept scratching at it :P.

Don't buy overpriced LED's. Go for the 10 year lightbulbs that burn for a fraction of the cost of normal incandescents. These are the ones that Philips-Magnavox pioneered in the late 90's and the pricing has gone down considerably. It's still about $12 for 8 of them at Wal-Mart, but it's worth the price. I installed them in my apartment last year and cut $30 off my electric bill. Paid for themselves in less than a month.

Unshaven after a hard day of work building a house [hide=][/hide] And taking a break during said building of house. Older photos, dropped about eight pounds since then.

I'm not sure if I've posted it before, but I am deathly afraid of free fall. Roller coasters, skydiving, even the odd jump off the high dive set me off. All muscles in my body (including heart and diaphragm) seize up and I can't breathe, move, and I can feel the heart flutter. I still have nightmares about falling off a building or out of an airplane. Not only do I jump out of bed when I "hit the ground" but I've knocked people out of bed as well. Thankfully I also freeze up in my sleep so I don't end up screaming or anything.

For reference, McAllen has one of the six hospitals in Texas that are not operated under a not-for-profit agreement with the government. As such, they get no extra funding and have to pay taxes. It's fair to say that they would be greedy in trying to get their investment's worth. Why a profit hospital? Because McAllen is so remote that the not-for-profit groups had a difficult time trying to establish care, the PA-based profit medical firm swooped in and took advantage of the situation. Almost every major metropolitan area has a religious-based non-profit healthcare system in place that gives away not only free care to a LOT of people, but operates specialized clinics in rural areas that allow those patients to avoid profit doctors as well. In addition, all lab appointments are free of charge to both patient and insurance. Of course, this is the New Yorker. A magazine with a very poignant agenda that prides itself on it's ability to present a facade to it's readers (being a magazine marketed at the "wealthy intellectual elite" but really designed for those who wish to be). If the journalist had spent those eight pages reviewing other hospital networks in the state, it would have been a much different article. Yes, they are screwing people out there. But also realize that programs like Medicare are stretched extremely thin (because Hillary avoided all those questions about the baby boomers hitting that nice age about 15 years ago). No attempt has been made to regulate or reform what we have.