Usually do. People tend to not like harsh truths which conflict with their constructed realities. Fortunately I'm still right, which is all that really matters. 8-)
You and your dad can both fuck off and die in a fire like the ignorant, worthless cunts you both are. I'll come roast marshmallows over your flaming corpses and wash it down with the tears of your loved ones. Nothing I said could possibly have been construed as you suggest by your post. Good day...
No, not JUST, but that is an integral part...probably THE integral part. Not merely pharmaceuticals mind you, but treatment in general. If you know how to set a dislocated finger (or whatever) then you don't really need a doctor for it (unless complications arise). People deliver their own...
I was just able to get above 1.5 last year finally, but it's ridonkulously expensive. No eta on getting into the 7-12 range yet, but they're guessing 5-10 years (and probably for about $100/mo).
Which is where a doctor comes in, and why they hold the keys to the medicine cabinet and expensive machines and labs.
Patient - Hey here's my deal, should we 'x'?
Doctor - Yeah, that's likely, good plan.
or
Doctor - I don't think so in this case because of 'y'. Instead, let's try 'z'...
None of which was done with me or any of the other three people I know with murmurs. It's simply not a big deal most of the time, and almost no one cares unless it's serious or causing issues. The doc gave mine a listen, wrote up an order for the echo (as I requested), and reported back that it...
Why would you wish for someone to waste money? What's more, where would you get such an idea in the first place since I never said anything remotely related to not going to the doctor when suffering a serious illness or condition?
In short, I think you're lacking in some comprehension.
Obviously there are going to be idiots. However, idiots don't (or at least shouldn't) set the baseline from which we all operate. I presumed we were dealing with at least averages rather than lowest denominators.
Actually I have a pretty good handle on it as I watched a friend go through it, and...
With advanced or complex issues medical professionals are undoubtedly required. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about basic things like smoking, drinking, obesity, etc. To whit:
All those years of training and education you talk about are not exclusive. Others deal...
18 years too late for that, and the world is better off for it since my daughter has learned from me to take personal responsibility for her life rather than being a mindless sheep like so many on here that need a doctor to tell them that the extra helping of dessert has made them fat, or that...
Ummm, how about no. If you need to go to a doctor to get life advice like 'exercise is good for you' or 'if you have high blood pressure you may want to correct it' then frankly you're not worth saving. It doesn't take a doctor to know those things, or learn how to correct them. The ONLY thing a...
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't go to a doctor for medical advice and guidance. I go for treatment or to have prescriptions written. I can do the research and make the choices myself, but I'm not able (legally or because of resources) to obtain the treatment. That's all a doctor is...
While what you say is likely true (after all, people are stupid) I don't think it plays into this in any measurable way. I think most of it (nearly ALL of it in fact) is not wanting to save/invest, or not having the money to save/invest. I don't think it has anything to do with options, or ease...
He can say anything he wants, he's addressing a non-existent problem. Like I said, there are plenty of savings and investment options. That's not why people aren't doing it.
For the tiny percentage of people that save (never mind invest) they can almost certainly make do quite well with...
I think it's largely a waste of time. The reason people don't invest/save now isn't a lack of options, it's a lack of money. 55% of the nation make less than $30k/yr (barely enough to survive). 85% make less than $50k/yr (the point where most people can actually begin significant savings). Costs...
Not to take the other side, but when you're wrong you're wrong.
While courts are always gun free, most states don't prohibit carry in churches. Further, while many malls asks that you not bring firearms in it's usually without force of law. It really varies from state to state, but in general...
Despite the fact that it was so long ago, I have to support giving Led Zeppelin awards over pretty much any other musical act since. They were Gods. Every one of them.
Heh, yeah, they do have some good food, but it's too pricey anyway so it all makes a good package reason to not participate. I realize it's private property, and they can do what they want, hence the reason for the boycott (which is us doing what we want). It's all on the up and up, just...
I only go to Cinetopias or IMAX now, but I also only go when I get a deal (like Groupon) that brings the cost down significantly. It's just so much more comfortable, and it seems (though I've no hard evidence) that it attracts a better overall clientele...more polite, etc.
Unfortunately a...
Fire everyone involved, prevent them from ever holding a position of trust again, distribute all of their belongings to those impacted, and publicly shame/stone them on their way out of the country as a warning to others.
Problem solved.
Yeah, I realize it's not all sweet, but most of what I like is sweet enough to be a problem in large quantities. At least when compared to hard alcohol alternatives. Maybe sweet is the wrong word though...perhaps 'rich' would be closer to accurate.
I've drank til I pass out regularly, but never 'blacked out' where you're conscious but unaware. I've even had severe alcohol poisoning, but still no blackout. Then again I have stupid resistance, don't get hangovers, etc...so it's all probably tied in.
Easily put down two bottles, but after that I have to stop from the sweetness and general calories. That's why I drink hard alcohol for buzz, and wine for taste.
What confuses me about the whole thing is the idea of someone needing a license to open carry or target shoot. I realize you need one for hunting, which is semi-reasonable to limit what you take from a limited environment. I also don't seriously mind having to have a cpl for concealed carry...
Intelligent.
I realize it's been said again and again, but that's really what it comes down. The two-party false dichotomy is a big part of the reason so much sucks today. Doesn't matter which one you vote for, you're almost certainly hurting the people if you vote for either.
Yes, it can go either way. While walking my dog through a small park area one evening a man came suddenly out of the bushes at me. When my dog started bark/growl/alerting he lifted his shirt and reached for his waist. I immediately drew and held at low ready. He stopped, stumbled, turned and...
Most states have no explicitly stated protections for such cases, but prosecutors tend not to go after them due to the IMMENSE outrage that follows. The general defense is that 'use of force' is the affirmative defense, not merely 'shooting someone'. Hence, drawing a weapon at all is 'using...
Well here's the issue:
Everyone with a clue realizes warning shots are dangerous, so no one minds them getting on board when the state makes that illegal and prosecutes for it...even though it FORCES gun owners to appear bloodthirsty by always firing to kill (ie stop the threat).
Then you get...
Sorry, but you're wrong. While we today use regulated to mean that, at the time of writing the Constitution 'well regulated' (as a clause or phrase) meant practiced, or competent. Look it up, it's a well researched point that isn't in dispute among experts on either side of the debate.
Actually shoot an attacker? You may well be right, I've never seen valid studies to be sure. However, it isn't actually shooting that matters, it's merely using the weapon defensively. By THAT standard firearms are used defensively as much or more as they're used offensively.
And meanwhile:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm...
It can, and does, account for changing environment in two ways:
A. It provides the general rule, without getting bogged down in specifics. For instance, it provides the right of 'arms' rather than saying a musket or anything else that would have to be changed every couple decades.
B. It...
Not unsure at all. In Miller they were reinforcing what I've been saying all along. That the 2nd grants every citizen the right to whatever arms an average soldier in the army of the day is issued. Soldiers aren't issued sawed off shotguns, and therefore the 2nd conveys no inherent right to such...
Because you're not using them the same. Arms meant 'what a soldier carries at any given time'. Therefore it meant slings, spears, and so on archaically, muskets and swords when written, and select fire m16a4s or equivalent today. The definition is the same, what it grants evolves.
Similarly...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.