ChangoLanzao

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    1,456

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by ChangoLanzao

  2. Quote

    Quote

    The state of Florida certified Murphy as the winner of the race later Saturday.



    I think you are wrong...

    http://www.pbcelections.org/

    http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/FL/Palm_Beach/43850/111821/en/summary.html

    Updated 11/10/2012 11:10:09 AM EST

    Allen B. West - 50.07% - 68,314
    Patrick Murphy - 49.93% - 68,129



    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/blog-summaries/267213-florida-certifies-victory-for-dem-house-newcomer

    Updated 11/10/12 06:06 PM ET

  4. Quote

    Quote

    Continued denial will just result in the complete marginalization of the Republican party.



    It's true. We should ignore our principles and bow down to the Democrats! :S


    No. You should stick to your principles and shout them out loudly every time you get a chance so that the whole world can continue to see how unhinged from reality those principles are!

    So far, it's working. Don't stop!

  6. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Some Americans view elections as a time to express their disappointment or even their anger at the shortcomings of the major party candidates closest to their own positions, a tendency particularly noticeable on the Left.

    In recent decades, this behavior has contributed to a string of Democratic defeats at the presidential level – Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Al Gore in 2000 – as well as key setbacks in Congress in 1980, 1994 and 2010.

    And, with its disproportionate prevalence on the American Left, this voting pattern now threatens to cost Barack Obama a second term. Some on the Left feel no compunction about aiding in Obama’s defeat even if it means installing Mitt Romney, an unabashed one-percenter in the White House.

    Romney also would likely be accompanied by a Republican-controlled Congress with a mandate to complete the dismantling of the New Deal at home and, abroad, to extend the Afghan War and possibly start a new war with Iran. So the question is: should politics be an expression of your feelings or your expectation of consequences?



    Lefties will want to read more:
    CLICKY



    This article is nothing more than a mirror of the articles run by the Right saying don't vote your conscience, don't do what you think is the right thing, don't vote third party it will but the other guy in office!

    Sadly, we are reduced to the lesser of two evils vote and both sides play it to the hilt! Essentially admitting they aren't the best, but the other guy is worse!



    My hope is that undecided progressives who read and think about the content of the article will be persuaded. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a rats ass if right-wingers who read the article disagree with it's premises. If they go ahead and vote for a third party candidate because they don't think there's a difference between Romney and Obama, we'll all be better off.

  11. Quote

    Muslims hate gays too. I guess no more kabobs for you.



    As I already said, it's not about religion. It's about civil rights. Anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, who feels strongly about denying gays their civil rights deserves to be boycotted.

  13. Quote

    Quote

    It's not about religion. It's about civil rights. They don't want Chick-fil-a in their town because they don't want to support bigots who would violate the civil rights of gays.



    Has Chick-fil-A banned any Homosexual patrons from eating at any of their franchise locations? Has a Chick-fil-A franchise banned any Homosexuals from applying for jobs? Has a Chick-fil-A franchise harassed or fired any Homosexuals for their sexual orientation? Exactly what civil rights have been violated? Or do you believe in "Guilty until proven innocent" and "the only free speech I believe in, is when I agree with what is being said".


    Chic-fil-a's owner strongly believes that same sex marriage should be banned. People who feel that banning same sex marriage violates the civil rights of LGBT couples have every right to boycott his business for that. It has nothing to do with religion even though he uses his religious belief as justification. I didn't say that chic-fil-a has banned or harassed homos. However, based on his very strongly worded statements, it seems reasonable to believe that he would if he could get away with it. ;)

    Quote

    All that happened here was that the Head Honcho of Chick-fil-A exercised his free speech saying "He does not agree with same sex marriage". You have the right to disagree with his views of the world, but he has not committed any hate crimes and so far he has not violated anybody's civil rights.



    I can't argue with that.

    Quote

    To allow politicians to decide who can and who can not open up a business based on someone's religious beliefs and/or free speech is a slippery slope you do not want to go down. Let the market decide whether or not Chick-fil-A franchises can be viable in all their new locations.



    All they're asking for is a non-discrimination policy before they grant approval. Since non-discrimination is the law of the land, they shouldn't have a problem with that. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that city councils can do this legally.

    I do agree that we need to keep a close eye on what politicians do.

  14. Quote

    Quote

    In case you didn't notice, the verbs in your two distinct statements need to be consistent to sense the full affect they were designed to produce...

    Science flies us to the moon.
    Religion flies us into buildings.

    or

    Science sends us atom bombs for breakfast.
    Religion sends us to hell.

    Capisce?



    Without science, there's no airplane.



    Without religion there's no hell.

  15. Quote

    "Some [limitations] undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."

    “So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."



    CLICKY

  16. Quote

    The guy who owns Chick-fil-a is known to have strong religious beliefs. Doesn't bother me, cause we have Zaxby's nearby.
    I get a bigger kick out of the politicians who don't want Chick-fil-a in their town because they don't agree with the owners beliefs. I could swear I heard Rahm Emmanuel say, "That boy's different fum us. We don't want him in ar town."
    We can always count on the enemies of intolerance to show us what intolerance looks like.



    It's not about religion. It's about civil rights. They don't want Chick-fil-a in their town because they don't want to support bigots who would violate the civil rights of gays.

    Once the proselytizers insert religion into the matter, then the whole argument becomes hopelessly conflated with religion. Tacky, indeed.

  17. Quote

    While I find it distatstful that any candidate solicits donations outside the U.S. I find it even more disturbing that you have heard Romneys doing it and not Obama.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/busy-month-for-obama-campaign-with-fundraisers-in-switzerland-sweden-paris-and-communist-china/

    Clinton got quite a bit of money from Indonesia and China.



    Meh. We've had the best government money can buy from the very beginning.


    CLICKY

  19. Quote

    Quote

    Fourth - you like to throw the lord's name around

    I meant the fourth ... you sure do like to throw the lord's name around for just about any reason.



    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my frequent use of the name of my Lord and Savior.

    "Jesus, Jesus there is something about that name."

    John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

    Acts 3:16 And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

    Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

    Philippians 2:9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    The above are just a few of the many references to the power and justification of the name, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

    It is my duty and responsibility to proclaim the name of and give credit to the Lord Jesus whenever I am able.



    That's just fine, but many people find it extremely annoying at the very least. Especially when it makes its way into our laws. The Christian "Taliban" have been forcing their religious views on women throught the U.S. with laws that invade womens' right to privacy and insert the State into the doctor-patient relationship.

  21. Quote

    I don't think I was complaining at all. I think I said I don't think anyone knows what the document says or what the effects will be. Hard to complain about something when you don't know anything about it and doubt anyone else does, either.

    As for a better system? Seems the veterinarians have it figured out without any legislation at all.



    So, you have no problem with euthanasia, and forced sterilization then? ;)

    If your dog can't afford treatment, you can let him die! :(

    Veterinary health care isn't dominated by insurance companies.

  22. Quote

    Not trying to argue over Obamacare. I really don't think anyone knows what all it requires or what the impact will be. I would just think that 2,000 pages of legislation would actually attempt to fix something fundamental. Everyone already had access at the county hospital and county health clinics. So, what did 2,000 pages and an unknown number of dollars fix? Make sure everyone has equally bad healthcare?



    I'm pretty sure I was talking about access to affordable health care. We can't afford a system in which millions of people get their health care at emergency rooms.

    Enough already with the 2,000 pages!
    It has a table of contents, you know? ;)

    If it were only 100 pages long, you'd probably complain that it's too short.

    Quote

    As another anecdote, we took my wife to the doctor's office that has "Urgent Care" in their name. It took three hours to get to see the doctor so the doctor could sign a form for the Army. There was nothing actually wrong with my wife; I had already filled out the form; there was only one other patient in the place; we paid a co-pay and insurance paid another $200. My wife took her son to the Health Department to get his shots updated for school yesterday. It took about an hour and cost nothing. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but there certainly is one. And I don't think it is in availability, insurance, or who pays. I think its in excessive legislation and rules. Just my guess on the matter.



    The Health Department?? Isn't that a socialist organization? :P

    I've had similar experiences. Over here they call it "Convenient Care". It's not always convenient, needless to say.

    Honestly, I don't think it will ever be possible to devise a large health care system that isn't going to be challenged by bureaucracy, periodic personnel shortages, periods of high demand, some fraud, and some inefficiency. If we can't work together to make our system work, it won't matter what type of system we have.

  23. Quote

    I've been mulling over an email I received the other day. Generally, it described two patients.

    One went to the doctor, didn't wait long, got X-rays, the doctor looked at the X-rays, doctor treated and gave a prescription. Competent and friendly treatment. Everyone knew the patient's name on sight. Pay on the way out a reasonable fee for services and go on with life.

    Second patient made an appointment with the doctor, waited in the waiting area, waited in the treatment room, talked briefly to the doctor, got x-rays, x-rays went to a specialist to read them, patient waited a couple of hours for this to run its course, doctor sent the patient home with a referral. Patient waited a couple of weeks for the specialist, went through the waiting routine again, more x-rays and waiting, the specialist finally saw the patient and gave a prescription. Patient paid a second co-pay on the way out. Insurance messed up. Patient had to pay more and fight with the insurance company to get it to do its part. Many of the people throughout the process seemed competent, but not terribly friendly. Nobody knew the patient's name.

    I find both of these scenarios true to personal experience. The first patient was my golden doodle (dog). The second was my wife.

    I find it interesting that vets can treat a patient in house with little problem, but MDs seem to always need a specialist or a second opinion, take very long, aren't as friendly, and get paid loads more for being less friendly and less competent. But I'm sure Obamacare will fix that.



    Obamacare isn't designed to fix that. I have very good insurance and a very good HMO and I have had similarly bad experiences. I have also had a lot of good experiences. This nothing to do with Obamacare. Obamacare is designed to get the U.S. closer to a system of universal health care in which all Americans will have access to affordable health care. I think it's a flawed approach, but it's an improvement. What we really need (and will inevitably end up with) is a single-payer system.

  24. Quote


    1) My first experience with the US healthcare system was after a sports injury where I visited an emergency room in Colorado Springs on a Sunday afternoon. There was no line up, I was seen almost immediately, treated and sent on my way. I can't tell you why there was no lineup at the hospital, but it was a stark contrast with the massive lineups that can take hours and hours experienced north of the border.



    Sounds like you definitely lucked out on that one!

    A few years ago, my wife and I were at Z-Hills and she tripped on the RV step as she was letting our dog out for a walk around 1:30 am. Her ankle immediately turned purple and swelled up to the size of a softball. I took her to the E.R. at the Z-Hills Florida Hospital. It was around 2:00 a.m. She was crying with pain. I carried her in and first thing - top priority - they made her fill out insurance proof papers which took about twenty minutes and then told us to sit down in the waiting room. We waited for a half hour and then I asked if they could at least give her an ice pack. They grudgingly provided one (and charged us $30 for it later). TWO HOURS later, they got us into a booth in the E.R. area. Nobody had yet come to even take a look at her ankle. Several times I pleaded with the staff to at least get an x-ray. We waited in the booth for about an hour and a half before the portable x-ray machine arrived and they got the x-ray. Another hour and a half went by and they had a shift change. By now my wife was getting pretty cold, so we asked for more blankets. A half hour later, they gave her a couple of extra blankets. We waited for another hour. By then it was around 8:30 a.m. and nobody had seen her to tell her what the x-ray showed. We'd had enough and threatened to just walk out of the E.R. and a few minutes later a real doctor showed up and told my wife that her ankle was probably not broken, just severely sprained. The doctor said somebody would be by with a splint for her ankle. After waiting for another half hour, we walked out (I wheeled my wife out in one of the hospital wheel chairs). We drove to a nearby medical supply store and purchased a set of crutches.

    A severely sprained ankle which we though was certainly broken at first, and here is the bill:

    "Non-sterile supplies" -> $181.75
    "sterile supply" -> $ 68.25
    "DX X-Ray" -> $428.25
    "Emergency Room" -> $409.00

    On our way home we stopped in Douglassville (near Atlanta, GA) to visit a friend and my wife was still in a lot of pain. So we decided it would be prudent go to the Emergency room there. That time it only took a couple of hours for them to get another xray, confirm that it wasn't broken and put a splint on it. In that case, they charged us $1005 (not itemized) for that visit.

    ETA: While wait times do seem to be the biggest gripe that Canadians have with their system (which isn't exactly a purely "socialist" system. It's still a good system when compared to the U.S. There are factors other than wait time that are important too, not the least of which is cost and access.

    Here's some recent info. -> CLICKY

  25. Quote

    Quote

    Socialized healthcare rocks



    It does? That's not my experience.

    I live in a country that offers "Socialized Healthcare" and I don't have a doctor who knows me. If I need medical help I either need to go to the hospital emergency waiting room (first off not the place to go if your condition is not seriously, secondly not everyone has quick access to a hospital as there aren't that many of them in a very large country). The other place I can go seek help is at a clinic (once again there are not that many of them) where they do NOT know me, where there is more often than not massive line ups and instead of receiving personalized care for whatever condition ails you, the people working at these clinics care more about processing the patients as fast as they can, regardless of how inaccurate their diagnosis may be. If you are lucky enough to get an accurate diagnosis you are then put on a waiting list that could take months or years before the specialist sees you. No the only time our socialized healthcare system ever resembles anything that works is if you are on death's door at the emergency room and can be saved. Oh and don't tell me my "Socialized Healthcare" is free. It's not free. I send large portions of my income going to the government which in turn offers me impersonal long waits and substandard care before I can be diagnosed and even longer waits before I can be actually treated.

    Count yourself lucky if your "Socialized Healthcare" gives you rapid, accurate and personalized service. My "Socialized Healthcare" system sucks.



    Sorry you're having such a hard time with your health care. From what you're describing, it sounds like you have direct experience. You've given us a description of your negative personal experiences with the health care system. But, what are your positive personal experiences with the U.S. health care system that lead you to believe that the U.S. system is superior in each of the situations that you are comparing?