Nice try but the NSA has to verify the communications (which they were of course monitoring) were with a real terrorist.

So either (A) you get no money, or they believe you an (B) whisk your friend off to an"unsafe house" for questioning.

You try to find out later what happened to him and you get to visit him in person!

No, you're not understanding what happened. The new law made lots of insurance policies no longer allowed. For example: if you're a married couple 80 years old, you still have to carry, by law, insurance that includes full maternity care. So a lot of existing insurance simply evaporated. People who lost those insurance plans lost their health insurance. They then had to go find a way to buy new insurance - usually at much higher prices, often from a different carrier ... which wouldn't do business with the doctor you used to use.

This isn't a matter of the doctors retiring. This is about the law forcing people to buy very expensive new health insurance from a new provider that - because of all of the heavy new requirements of what and who they must now cover - greatly reduce the number of doctors they'll work with. And so people lost access to their familiar doctors, despite Obama's promise that no such thing would happen - remember, he said nobody would have to leave their plans (a lie).

Program crashing at startup? Okay, let's add debugging statements.

Can't get the debugging statements to execute? Okay, let's try removing code.

Doesn't fix the problem? Okay, let's keep removing more... and more...

A couple hours later, so much code was removed that the entire program had become nothing more than an empty main function that still crashed. This led to the following rule which I try to follow to this day: Make sure that you're actually compiling and executing the same copy of the code that you're modifying. ;)

That dictionary can't even spell colour correctly so it's hardly surprising it doesn't know how to pronounce the words either.

A can-do attitude is useful when you have an idea about how to do something new and nay-sayers then argue against that idea ever working. What we have here is a political goal with no clue about how to achieve it which is not the same thing. The problem with a 100 % 'renewable' energy solution is that the power is very variable. Show me a plan to deal with that and I'll be interested. Until then this appears nothing more than political hot air.

Which is exactly why I said what I said. There are people who show up here to scold people about holding onto (or exploring) some of the more exotic physics frameworks and compare that to being a True Believer (in the traditional religious sense). These are NOT the same things.

He said that because people were worried that the doctor the currently had would suddenly be unavailable to them when the law kicked in. This is exactly what happened, to a lot of people. It happened to our family. The insurance policy with which we were perfectly happy evaporated because the law considered it unacceptable (the new law requires that we buy insurance that covers, among other things, maternity care ... which is super handy now that we're in our 50's). The new plans from which could choose did not include the doctor we're happy with, and precluded the use of two of the nearest (and best) hospitals. Our premiums went from roughly $250 a month to over $500, and our deductible went from $2,500 to $12,000.

Each of these things was predicted with great clarity by not only the people opposed to the law's passing, but also by the people who WROTE the law. But in front of cameras, Obama lied about each and every point of it, repeatedly, and deliberately. If he had been honest, and if he'd talked Pelosi and Reid into also being honest about the consequences of the law (instead of the "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it" explanation she provided), it would never have passed. Democrats talked into voting for it have since said they wouldn't have voted for it if they'd understood the huge new costs, taxes, and service limitations that it puts on middle class families.

You know, and Obama knew, EXACTLY what "you can keep your doctor" meant when he said it - he was trying to tamp down the very vocal concerns that exactly what has happened would in fact happen. He knew it was going to, but he lied about it anyway. What I don't understand is why you're trying to spin it for him. What do you gain by attempting to back up the deception?

Sounds like you are, in fact, buying mid-tier cables on sale, not buying junk cables.

Now you understand how banking works. That's now a flaw in the system, that is the system. A savings account is a sort share in the bank, it's not at all a bundle of money in the vault.

Sure, all that's true, but most modern recessions aren't caused by lack of money supply, but instead lack of demand. If businesses don't see any worthwhile investment opportunities at any interest rate, additional supply won't help. You can't push on a rope. Stability (and its counterpart, uncertainty) is the chief concern for most recessions: when businesses and consumers reach the point where they believe they understand the "new normal", can cope with it, and have survived, only then do they start spending again.

Actually the argument also used pulsars. These have densities at, or above, that of a nucleus. A blackhole produced at the surface of one would swallow the entire star due to the phenomenally large cross-section. Pulsars are easy to detect and since we have never yet observed a pulsar winking out of existence we can exclude dangerous black hole production.

Hilarious.

What does it matter if there is some future change to the law (not counting the illegal unilateral changes made by the president by selectively choosing whether to follow the statute's specific requirements once he realized it wasn't politically expedient). If you've already lost your insurance plan, or you've had to give up your doctor, and can no longer use the convenient nearby hospital because of the law's impact (all things that we were promised wouldn't happen, which the law's partisan authors knew WOULD happen, and about which the president repeatedly and deliberately lied), then that damage is already done. Not that it matters. Even if you can afford one of the new plans, the deductibles are hugely higher - making the effective premiums even higher than their new, higher stated values.

So for many, many people the "affordable" care act has: blown away existing insurance plans, removed choices of doctors and hospitals, doubled and sometimes tripled premiums, and in many cases quadrupled deductibles. All of which was well known in advance, and was proactively lied about, repeatedly, by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Republicans also knew it was coming, which is why NOT ONE of them voted for that monstrosity of a law.

cooking my self I can manage a (I hope) tastier alternative for less,...

Sorry, but I really don't get why this is interesting at all

You answered your question in the first word of that quote. Soylent buyers don't want to cook. Many of them don't know how to cook. Few of those are interested in learning. I spoke with a man who literally gets anxiety just walking into a grocery store and seeing all these things he has no idea what to do with.

I think it's nutritionally foolish ("science" has a moderate but incomplete conception of nutrition), and I think with my stomach, but that doesn't mean there's no use case.

Oh, sure, if you don't value your time at all, that's the best strategy. Just keep trying cheap cables until one seems to work, and return the rest. Personally (and professionally), I have better things to do with my time than screw about with sketchy cables, but to each his own.

How is that off topic? The entire thread is about some hand-waving "priorities" she'll have as president. Which has absolutely nothing to do with which compromises she's willing to make the legislative branch when it comes to things like tax credits or other regulatory/funding matters. Pointing out how disingenuous she's been on pretty much every other issues she's ever mentioned is NOT off topic. It points out exactly how to think about anything and everything she says during her limited, poll-tested public remarks.