Ping Larkin

Nah, liberals go there. You want her to go someplace safe -- like this one:

Not hardly. Why do liberals wusses label every conservative as a religious nutcase. Anyone who pays attention, apparently not Mr. Wescott, will have taken note of my declaration of atheism _many_ years ago. ...Jim Thompson

Comments?

VLV

Because MOST CONservatives are religious nut cases. Maybe there are a few like 0.1% who are not but the vast majority are religious fundies, like Palin and Huckabee. You're in "good" company right in there with the fruit loops.

Sounds fishy, particularly after just watching Al Gore handle a audience question he didn't like by turning off the questioner's microphone.

I live in Arizona, obviously, and the numbers don't gibe.

I'd be happy to walk, and cut off California's water in the process ;-)

BTW, Indiana is quite solvent ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Usually I can put my finger on a state-by-state Federal flow.

For some reason tonight, I can't seem to find one that's actually per capita.

Past numbers I've looked at certainly indicated that Arizona and Texas would be better off.

I do know, that if we killed all liberals, it would benefit not only the economy but the climate as well ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Is it asking too much to get back to electronics? The spam from Google is bad enough, why do we also have to tolerate same coming from Arizona, with followups?

One, education at a university is what the "student" makes it to be.

Two, what does she plan to major in?

Three, look at the grants and publications of that department. More grants and pubs = actually doing something and possibly awake enough to teach a good course.

Four, then look at the ratio of hired instructors and grad students to professors teaching Math and English. If you have a high IG to P ratio, bail....

Math and English are the weedout courses for scholarship students.

Steve

I'm the pro here, so why would I be asking circuit questions ?:-)

And I _do_ respond to valid technical queries. ...Jim Thompson

If you're a neo (read "fake") conservative in the US these days then you're either a religious nutcase or you're operating under the delusion that you can use religious nutcases to further your agenda without seeing your country turn into a religious nutcase police state.

Since an atheist who willingly turns his liberty over to a bunch of religious nutcases is clearly a nutcase himself, the liberal so-called- wusses will be at least half right every time.

Why do conservative nutcases label anyone who comments on their narrow agendas as a liberal wuss? Are they afraid of something?

Sorry you can't take a _joke_ Jim.

I couldn't tell... looked like you were serious to me ;-) ...Jim Thompson

"Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters."

That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the federal government.

But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is.

And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. That' s the way it should be.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Complication: the states that offer free or cheap medical care will become magnets for the people with expensive medical problems.

John

True. But such people usually come with their families, who usually are a resource to the state that they reside in.

The truth is, experiments such as taxuchuses are apparently failing. Universal health care is a fallacy, as not everyone wants to participate!

Charlie

Not always. For example, with grossly obese people I see family patterns.

I've lived in Europe. The good thing there is that people with pre-existing conditions do not become pariahs like here. We must remember that it's not always their own fault. However, that system often leads to behavior such as going to the doctor for every little constipation or demanding antibiotics for minor sniffles. I see similar habits here with folks like retired bureaucrats who have cradle-to-grave healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer.

We need serious cost control, starting with cutting the lawyers out of the system, and negotiating for generic drugs for public health programs. And we need a network of free clinics, staffed by nurse practitioners, that anyone can walk into with zero paperwork.

Tax laws should be structured to encourage Kaiser-type systems.

But the current drive isn't about health care, it's about power.

John

You're invoking logic, foresight, & reason. That's cheating. I too have a litany of objections to the schemes, but was answering the complaint that red states are somehow holding back the blues. And, I'm allowing for the fact that clever states might solve those objections & prove me wrong, which would be great.

As for this objection, are there so many, and are they all that mobile? In other contexts, would-be liberals would argue no, that people in, say, Detroit, are hopeless, hapless victims, incapable of relocating, and need assistance where they stand.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Jim Thompson a écrit :

Yes... The pro and cons...

so why would I be asking circuit questions ?:-)

Fear someone else answers it?

I have very few questions... occasionally digital logic synthesis, which I do post, and gentlemen answer.

If you have an analog question, please post it, or STFU ;-) ...Jim Thompson