StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) So do you really believe that because they are the biggest threat to the US, they should reported more often than things that are actually happening in the day to day news? Should the lead story on the networks be the Taliban every night? No, but that's sort of the point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 09:12 AM) ACORN is an organization that our President stood in their midst during the campaign and said THEY would shape American public policy with him. I would call their actions fairly relevant. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you believe ACORN is more important than the Taliban, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 09:01 AM) who cares It ties in well with the networks' idea of balance being stacking up equal amounts of bulls*** from each side.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) Then why did organizations like CPAC get so much coverage in the prior eight years, without being federally funded and breaking laws? That is irrelevant to the current situation.

The GOP totally suXorz at teh internets.

Woke up quick at about noon just thought that I had to be in Compton soon

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 13, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) Considering that was the one and only time I will ever visit that site, I'd say it was all-in-all, pretty damn bad. But, you know what...they are asking for help to code it, so it will only get better. Can't those damn socialists pay for their own work?!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 13, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) Its even more amazing the Democrats couldn't hold their own coalition together for one of their pet issues. This could have been done months ago. Its really not amazing because a bunch of conservative democrats were elected to replace conservative republicans. That's why the OMG 60 SEATS! hysteria was so stupid.

I like the "What Up" column by Michael Steel. That hip slang is sure to bring in the younger crowd.

With the way they are acting, I'm all for single-payer UHC and legally abolishing all insurance companies. I like my politics based on vengeance against the stupid/ liars.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 13, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) You mean the ones that are 23 hours of gossip, shiny objects and internet finds, with an hour of actual news sprinkled in? No, I'm not familiar with those ones. The ones I know of have less news content.

I really, really hate the 24 news networks.

I don't see 1P goldeneye being a lot of fun anymore. I've been enjoying Paper Mario lately.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) In the sense of what you are insuring them for, they are practically identical. You are insuring against a potential loss of income. Yes, but find a new low-skill worker in a s*** economy is a bit different than finding a new spouse with similar income. I don't have any problem with the insurance policies on highly-skilled employees. And I don't really see a reason to make these policies illegal or restricted. I guess I'm just confused how they're justifying the policy levels to the insurance companies.

L.O.L.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) Since it doesn't ask for any personal (ID) info, it may skate by. But I'm not a fan. Its more than enough information to identify the people in smaller, rural towns. It's already being challenged on technical grounds. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/featur.../okla_abortion/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) You can make a similar argument for husbands and wives as well. Should we stop life insurance? Really? You're going to compare employment in a low-wage job to a marriage, probably with children? edit: you just can't make a similar argument. At all. They are not analogous situations.

What Balta said is absolutely correct. However, we all love arguing over minutia so I don't predict this thread dying any time soon.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) 2K5's question seems irrelevant but it was spot on and exactly to the point. It's not as much about the employee as it is about the continuity. As long as Wal-Mart isn't capping their employees in the back of the head or putting them in ridiculously unsafe working conditions and crossing their fingers hoping they die I don't see where there's a problem. Well, you end up with incentives to offer your employees little or no health care, so there's some ethically questionable benefits there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) Can you guarantee that? Yeah, pretty much. Can you really argue that low-wage, low-skill workers, especially in this economy, are hard enough to come by that Walmart is going to incur significant losses if that person died? The fact that they are low-wage workers, and thus likely to leave quickly if a better position were available, seems to indicate that no, they're not at risk of losing significant revenue. Otherwise the skill would be more highly-valued and the employee would be paid more.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:42 AM) So you are telling me that anywhere in the country, that in any Wal-Mart you could fill a position for someone to be decorating cakes, guarenteed, in one day? Is Walmart generating a million dollars a day on a cake decorator?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) There just doesn't seem to be a point to it other than to profit off someone's death. There would be no loss of revenue streams if a cake decorator were to die since they can hire anyone off the street to fill in the very next day and not miss a beat. I agree. That's why I said its questionable ethically. But, it doesn't appear anyone is actually hurt by this. As long as Walmart isn't then trying to knock their employees off, what's the harm?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) You are insuring the employee to protect against the lose of revenue from their work. In that sense you are protecting the revenue streams of the bakery. But you're protecting against the loss of a low-wage worker who can be quickly and easily replaced with minimal or no training necessary. Revenue would not be disrupted.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) At least in the tens of trillions. It would be difficult to find someone off the street to write "Happy Birthday Timmy" on a cake. I can see the big risk they have if somehow the local cake decorator were to die. It seems ethically bizarre, but who is really hurt by that policy?