A fine example of how the government run health option will be cutting costs if passed. This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The Obama administration comes in and studies this for a few months then over-rides the American Cancer Society that has been doing this for years... Yea, these are the people I want running my health care.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-womens_health/?GT1=43001

---

Jason
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

PuroFreak:

A fine example of how the government run health option will be cutting costs if passed. This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The Obama administration comes in and studies this for a few months then over-rides the American Cancer Society that has been doing this for years... Yea, these are the people I want running my health care.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-womens_health/?GT1=43001

i saw this story earlier today. it was linked elsewhere and the person said that this was the first of many "cost cutting maneuvers" that are inevitable under socialized health care.
im not sure im ready to make that leap, but i do feel that the ACS is a bit more informed on this one than just about anyone.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

Now why would these scientists have any reason to lie... It couldn't be to protect their funding could it??? I'm interested to hear more about this story as it develops.

---

Jason
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

PuroFreak:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

Now why would these scientists have any reason to lie... It couldn't be to protect their funding could it??? I'm interested to hear more about this story as it develops.

Yeah, that's priceless!!

PuroFreak:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

Now why would these scientists have any reason to lie... It couldn't be to protect their funding could it??? I'm interested to hear more about this story as it develops.

What a simplistic view you have on this matter Puro.
Let's say you are right that these scientist' are only saying these things to protect their jobs... WHY? Do you think that science stops after the climate debate is concluded? These scientist' who's integrity you are calling into question will just move on to another scientific problem. It isn't like there is a shortage of things for them to work on.

Given your arguement Puro, I guess we can conclude that if the place where you are a Police Officer, were to experience a month with no crime, then you and your fellow officers would be out in the community that you are charged to protect, doing crimes because you would be expected to look after yur own interests. This is the same arguement that you are making in regard to the Climate Scientists that you don't agree with. You are questioning their morals,and integrity and want us to believe that people in their position would do what they need to do to protect their incomes.

So please explain to me what would be different in the case of the police and the abscence of crime. Would you guys then become the criminal element that you are supposed to be working to get rid of? Are we to question all the stats that tell us about crime rates that the police use to get policy changes and to fund their programs, because they are just looking after their own interests?

Your accusations are VERY irresponsible Puro, you are disparaging a whole field of study, to try and make sense of your own personal views.

---

First of all your analogy using a police dept. is absurd. Police Depts don't get funded based on the amount of crime. For a Climatologist, if there becomes doubt that global warming exists or doubt that it is man made their funding would be cut. If they aren't getting funding from climate change then there isn't a lot for a Climatologist to study is there?

Also if you would calm down and read my post I never said they ARE lying. I just said I'm interested to see how this unfolds. If you want to dismiss anyone else's views without all the facts thats fine, but I'd rather wait and see what happens...

---

Jason
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

PuroFreak:

First of all your analogy using a police dept. is absurd. Police Depts don't get funded based on the amount of crime. For a Climatologist, if there becomes doubt that global warming exists or doubt that it is man made their funding would be cut. If they aren't getting funding from climate change then there isn't a lot for a Climatologist to study is there?

Also if you would calm down and read my post I never said they ARE lying. I just said I'm interested to see how this unfolds. If you want to dismiss anyone else's views without all the facts thats fine, but I'd rather wait and see what happens...

Now why would these scientists have any reason to lie... It couldn't be to protect their funding could it??? I'm interested to hear more about this story as it develops. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason

That is exactly what you said.

As for my arguement being absurd... I expected NO LESS from you. Thanks Puro.

---

laker1963:

PuroFreak:

First of all your analogy using a police dept. is absurd. Police Depts don't get funded based on the amount of crime. For a Climatologist, if there becomes doubt that global warming exists or doubt that it is man made their funding would be cut. If they aren't getting funding from climate change then there isn't a lot for a Climatologist to study is there?

Also if you would calm down and read my post I never said they ARE lying. I just said I'm interested to see how this unfolds. If you want to dismiss anyone else's views without all the facts thats fine, but I'd rather wait and see what happens...

Now why would these scientists have any reason to lie... It couldn't be to protect their funding could it??? I'm interested to hear more about this story as it develops. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason

That is exactly what you said.

As for my arguement being absurd... I expected NO LESS from you. Thanks Puro.

Expect no less? No less than what? To point out an inacurate statement? It wasn't anything personal Laker, just pointing out that Police agencies here aren't funded based on the amount of crime.

It's sad you can call my views on the world simplistic then when you make a totally false statement and I call you on it you get all pissed off. There is no need to take this so personal just because someone has a different view than you. Does it make you that angry because we disagree? You attacked me personally and my views, and say something that is untrue in the process, but somehow you see me as the bad guy?

---

Jason
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

PuroFreak:

laker1963:

PuroFreak:

First of all your analogy using a police dept. is absurd. Police Depts don't get funded based on the amount of crime. For a Climatologist, if there becomes doubt that global warming exists or doubt that it is man made their funding would be cut. If they aren't getting funding from climate change then there isn't a lot for a Climatologist to study is there?

Also if you would calm down and read my post I never said they ARE lying. I just said I'm interested to see how this unfolds. If you want to dismiss anyone else's views without all the facts thats fine, but I'd rather wait and see what happens...

Now why would these scientists have any reason to lie... It couldn't be to protect their funding could it??? I'm interested to hear more about this story as it develops. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason

That is exactly what you said.

As for my arguement being absurd... I expected NO LESS from you. Thanks Puro.

Expect no less? No less than what? To point out an inacurate statement? It wasn't anything personal Laker, just pointing out that Police agencies here aren't funded based on the amount of crime.

It's sad you can call my views on the world simplistic then when you make a totally false statement and I call you on it you get all pissed off. There is no need to take this so personal just because someone has a different view than you. Does it make you that angry because we disagree? You attacked me personally and my views, and say something that is untrue in the process, but somehow you see me as the bad guy?

I naver attacked you personally Puro. I said your view on this subject was simplistic. I never said a word about you personally. That is what I was talking about. When someone says something YOU don't agree with you label it as lies, extreme, absurd etc. When you say something that I disagree with then you tell me not to get pissed off, calm down etc. I am NOT pissed, I don't need to calm down, but nice try Puro. Your little methods of NOT discussing an issue by turning the debate into something different entirely is NOT as cleaver as you may think. Did you learn that in first year psychology ?

---

When you say my views are simplistic, that is an insult to my intelligence. What I said was absurd was your analogy about Police and Climatologists. It was just untrue and did not apply. That is not how police departments are funded. I never said they DID lie, what I asked was what reason would they have to lie. My entire post was that it was an interesting story and it was relevant to the debates we have had here before about climate change. As I said in my first post, I think it will be interesting to see how the story developes. I wasn't trying to debate or argue, all I said is it was an interesting story. It may turn out to be nothing at all to it, or it could be a bomb shell... which ever it turns out to be is interesting.

---

Jason
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

PuroFreak:

When you say my views are simplistic, that is an insult to my intelligence. What I said was absurd was your analogy about Police and Climatologists. It was just untrue and did not apply. That is not how police departments are funded. I never said they DID lie, what I asked was what reason would they have to lie. My entire post was that it was an interesting story and it was relevant to the debates we have had here before about climate change. As I said in my first post, I think it will be interesting to see how the story developes. I wasn't trying to debate or argue, all I said is it was an interesting story. It may turn out to be nothing at all to it, or it could be a bomb shell... which ever it turns out to be is interesting.

See my response in the No regulations needed thread. It applies here as well.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/18/democratic-districts-won-twice-stimulus-gop-districts-study-shows/

---

Jason
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

Although I cannot say definitively, as I have not done all the research, I would make the initial observation that part of this may be due to the many republicans known for taking a "stance" on non accepting any "hand out money" like this as the reason. I think the real stpry here may be the closed minded politicans not willing to accept money desparetly needed for the people they serve. Or perhaps the unfortunate and oft-uneducated people in these districts who think a vote for a Republican is a vote for god and freedom and a vote for a democrat is a vote for killing babies and helping negroes.

---

Never make a decision, by not making a decision.

Additionally, have we thought that many disctricts getting large amounts of money are also largely democratic (ie: Chicago, LA, Detroit) and take a disproportionate amount of money due to their disproportionately large size.

---

Never make a decision, by not making a decision.

Not to side track/derail this thread but ...Vulchor ...The cigars in the bundle in your avatar ...what kind are they ?