Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: billing scams (Score 1) 565

by harvey the nerd (#47564409) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'
A lot of bills these days are fraudulent in nature. Some are subscription mentalities, eager to charge like municipal taxes, instead seem to miss the concept of delivering satisfactory service or goods. Others may be generational changes in perception as to what constitutes adequate completion and quality for final payment.

Medicine is a wasteland of overcharges and ineffectiveness. We are able to reduce major medical costs 90-99%(!), with better results, through cheaper overseas providers AND our own applications of medical freedom from FDA and US med mafia.

Overall, incompetence and grossly overpaid nobodies eat a lot of time on bad bills. They may aggressively report bad payment for false bills, while it takes time to settle anything fairly or correctly, if ever. May not even be worth it. F'em, we can do cash or not buy at all.

Comment: Re:It's worse than that, it's physics, Jim (Score 1) 49

by pudge (#47557827) Attached to: Just how much lying is acceptable in support of "Higher Truth"?

I don't see it. I see the article as saying more that Hitler was horrible, and Bush is even worse than that.

The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.

It's a false dilemma to assume this means the writer thinks Hitler's dishonorable acts were ok

I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.

Of course, as pointed out by both smitty and I, the writer is factually wrong that Hitler meant well.

And I agree with that.

I find your mockery wanting

I find your understanding of it to be wanting.

and it is more likely to backfire and make the left stronger.

No, it's not.

Taking weak and cheap shots makes your side appear petty and unable to field a better argument.

Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?

Comment: Rule of law (Score 1) 29

by pudge (#47554741) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

I've been saying for years, leftists generally hate the rule of law. They just do. The rule of law means they are restrained from doing what they think is best. Therefore, they hate it. There is infinite evidence of this. They openly question whether we should follow the law at every turn, from the top (Justice Breyer and President Obama) to the bottom (pretty much every "occupy" protestor).

We actually had a majority of the federal legislature decry a Supreme Court decision that merely said -- in reference to Lily Ledbetter -- that you cannot punish a company under the law, unless it actually breaks the law. Not to mention the case that said the federal legislature cannot restrict political speech by a person or group of persons, just because they are organized a certain way under the law, that also got massive opposition from liberals.

Time and again, the left just demonstrates a very clear and palpable hatred for the rule of law. They would have us ruled by enlightened people who would be free to make up rules as they went along.

Impeachment is a stupid idea. It will likely give the country little benefit to shave a mere year or so off his presidency, and generate massive animosity that will increase the liklihood of another law-hater being elected.

Comment: Re:It's worse than that, it's physics, Jim (Score 1) 49

by pudge (#47554671) Attached to: Just how much lying is acceptable in support of "Higher Truth"?

I think you're missing my point.

The article I linked to said Hitler was bad, but at least he meant well, unlike that evil Bush.

I was being mocking, parodying leftist idiocy that will mitigate -- at least, by comparison -- the most dishonorable acts if we can pretend that they were done with noble intent.

Comment: Re:It's worse than that, it's physics, Jim (Score 1) 49

by pudge (#47544561) Attached to: Just how much lying is acceptable in support of "Higher Truth"?

Right. But the point is that they now say it was an oversight, even though the architect said it was intentional, and for a specific and well-defined purpose.

So we know the language of the text is clear: it's for state exchanges. Their argument became, "well that wasn't intentional; if it were, that would be contrary to the purpose of the ACA." We know however, based on this quote and other similar ones, that it was intentional, and perfectly in line with the purpose of the ACA.

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Working...