Jump to content
Quit Smokeless Community

Luke's Dad

Site Moderators
  • Content count

    3,702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Luke's Dad last won the day on August 31 2013

Luke's Dad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-33

About Luke's Dad

  • Rank
    Advanced Lord of the Sith

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Death Star; Minneapolis

Recent Profile Visitors

1,098 profile views
  1. Luke's Dad

    114th Congress

    I'm curious what you guys think about these "Right to Work" laws that ALEC is passing around the country.
  2. Luke's Dad

    114th Congress

    Hey guys. Like the new avatar Buckeye.
  3. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    I suspect that it will pick up again in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential elections. Or maybe not. Perhaps if someone posted something worthy of debating . . . .
  4. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    Outsourcing the Obamacare website cost the U.S. Taxpayers $300 million. And it doesnt even work. So much for outsourcing. It would be fun to be one of the lawyers suing these companies for gross incompetence: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/technology/obamacare-website-contracts/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
  5. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/07/opinion/bergen-terrorist-hunters/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Interesting article on SEAL Team 6.
  6. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/government-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 A blow to the economy The shutdown of the federal government -- the country's largest employer -- isn't happening all at once. Federal employees who are considered essential will continue working. Those deemed non-essential -- more than 800,000 -- will be furloughed, unsure when they'll be able to work or get paid again. Most furloughed federal workers are supposed to be out of their offices within four hours of the start of business Tuesday. The shutdown could cost the still-struggling U.S. economy about $1 billion a week in pay lost by furloughed federal workers. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. While many agencies have reserve funds and contingency plans that would give them some short-term leeway, the economic loss would snowball as the shutdown continued. The total economic impact is likely to be at least 10 times greater than the simple calculation of lost wages of federal workers, said Brian Kessler, economist with Moody's Analytics. His firm estimates that a three- to four-week shutdown would cost the economy about $55 billion.
  7. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    Case in point: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2013/04/25/ceo-pay-unitedhealth-hemsely.html Tracking the pay of Minnesota’s business leaders Stephen Hemsley CEO UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) Headquarters: Minnetonka Business: Health insurer Total pay 2012: $13.89 million, up 3.7 percent 2011: $13.39 million 2010: $10.81 million Base salary 2012: $1.3 million 2011: $1.3 million Bonus 2012: None 2011: None Stock awards 2012: $7 million 2011: $7 million Option awards 2012: None 2011: None Incentive pay 2012: $5.3 million 2011: $4.94 million Other compensation 2012: $287,000 2011: $155,000
  8. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    The care you deserve... like, free healthcare? That's of a higher quality? And that costs your society less? That'd be awful. I can't believe you'd wish that on your worst enemies. There are a lot of assumptions there. You start off by asserting that it would be free. Then tell us that that is will just cost less, therefore not actually free. Ah the bait and switch! And of course you also use the liberal phrase that pays....."deserve". And once you have convinced a group of people that they deserve something, that they are owed something, then it is all over. And voila......a new "right" has been created out of thin air. Listen, Ted Cruz is an idiot and is just trying to please his fans. He is no better and no worse than another politician of either party. He is doing this for his own benefit and it is just wasting everyone’s time. But I am not buying the same old crap about the panacea that is about to envelop our world. This is really just the first step of the eventual 100% overtake of all healthcare in the U.S. Obama and the rest of the "deserve" crowd wanted and didn't get single payer. They settled for the ACA. Once the kinks are found in this system, that will serve and the catalyst for the inevitable takeover. U.S. Government run anything rarely if ever increases quality or lowers cost. In fact if you have some examples to the contrary that you would like to share with the class, please do so. First off, the care you deserve was not me, it was J5K. Let's get that out there. Lower cost is worse how? And right doesn't come from thin air. Sorry about that, but heathcare is a human right, not a privilege. And when you get on board that train and realize that it's cheaper and better for society to give healthcare to everyone, you'll see that. I'm not pulling things out of thin air. Examples to share with the class. Canada spends less per capita on health care (you spend more than any other country. We're up there, but still at 7 instead of 1). We've got better longevity (we're four, you're 33). We have less infant mortality (4.7 v 5.9 per thousand live births). So, tell you what. You tell me what stats you do BETTER on in healthcare (other than that you spend more) and we can chat. Get on board, it's less expensive and it's better! And you've got nothing that shows anything else other that trying to create straw man arguments. Got anything you want to share with the class? +1 I don't understand why anyone supports health insurers. They are an unnecessary middleman. I've really come to hate health insurance since I've been self-employed and have to pay $1000.00 a month for coverage that doesn't kick in until I spend $3000.00 on one member of my family or $6000.00 for my entire family. I finally come close to my $6k deductible for the 2012-13 period. I have one month of non out-of-pocket health insurance. I'm getting a vasectomy next week.
  9. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    This is the first time I have seen gun rights tuned into a race issue. Not surprisingly it comes from the left. I just thought it was funny. That was funny. Try this one too: A tad long, but I damn near peed my pants. +1
  10. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    This is the first time I have seen gun rights tuned into a race issue. Not surprisingly it comes from the left. I just thought it was funny.
  11. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    The Black NRA http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/sarah-silverman-black-nra-funny-or-die_n_3894945.html
  12. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/syria-war-questions_b_3870763.html
  13. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    I guess we didn't heed Ike's warnings: A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
  14. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    This is the best explanation I've heard or read so far: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/ Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aims of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire out some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death. So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles. That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much.
  15. Luke's Dad

    113th Congress

    I'm don't truly understand how Egypt plays any vital national interest to us to begin with. Same with Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc... It is the most populous Arab country and controls the Suez canal. The wrong government could really jack the price of oil (and everything else that gets shipped by boat) if they shut down the Suez. Also, Egypt controls the Sanai and the border of the Gaza Strip. If they opened the border to allow weapons into Gaza, that would be bad for Israel. I guess we could let Israel and the rest of the world fend for themselves since we have so much oil in North Dakota now, but I don't see that happening. I understand all of that. Your last sentence follows my line of thinking. I think we should follow President Washington's advice and avoid long-term alliances and rivalries with all nations. That didn't work out so well for avoiding WWII.
×