Angelus ,'Damage'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, pandas, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
In the Charlotte airport, and I'd pay someone twenty bucks if they gave me a cot and half an hour for a nap.
CLT has rocking chairs! But no cots, afaik. ::waves SW at Dana::
I giggled all the way home reading the business speak. We don't get much of that, but we do have some bs backronyms. And we do have a serious knowledge silo problem.
NGOs seem to looooooove business-like obfuscatory language. I guess there's only so many times you can say, "We helped them build a hospital. Then there was a civil war and it burned down and all the staff were shot. Now were helping the new government build and staff another hospital," without diving into a whiskey bottle and refusing to come out.
(the problem with silos is that they exist and make my life hell)
(scrum and agile, an the other hand, don't exist, not really)
(back to the status report of hellage)
Mind you, I've ONLY seen the clip on the Maddow show. But what I'm getting is the whole "what can/can't the government say a private business can do" thing. That whole libertarian angle. Where does the rights of a person to have a business and say what goes on there end, and where does the right of the government to say what is allowed in your business start? It's a libertarian thing. At what point does the right of a business owner to say who they serve (many bars have that whole "we reserve the right to kick out who we want" language posted, no?) and what's accessible in their business (his example being guns) stop being OK, and where does the government start "having" to come into it? He's obviously way more on the "the business owner should get to make ALL the decisions" end. And I can see that. I don't AGREE with it, but I can see it.
I don't know his other positions, so I suspect from what other people say he's not taking the libertarian thing across all venues, which makes me LESS sympathetic to his position on this one.
He doesn't like government spending, except when it benefits doctors like him.
But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.
In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.
(scrum and agile, an the other hand, don't exist, not really)
um, check with Vortex - I'm pretty sure her rugby-playing boys indulge in scrums now and then.
Scrums most definitely exist, and you should tape your ears if you find yourself in one regularly.
Tape your ears, block your ears, whatever it takes.
So, I don't know much about Rand Paul except what I've heard over the past few days, but he's a fuckhead, right?
I think naming someone for Ayn Rand gives them a big start on a career as a fuckhead.
“Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living."
Make a comfortable living from payments from the government, which is, for libertarians, only supposed to provide for a common defense and regulate interstate commerce. Where's your entrepreneurial spirit, Dr. Paul? Shouldn't a good capitalist be out there rejecting government payments? Why should the government pay for old people's eye treatment, anyway? If they can't pay, let them go out and make their own white canes. In the snow.