Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Just another (Score 2, Insightful) 251

by Q-Hack! (#46850517) Attached to: HealthCare.gov Back-End Status: See You In September

As a Libertarian, I am going to have to side with the republicans on this one. The ACA is complete and utter crap. The fact that the backend of the website doesn't work is just the tip of the iceberg. But by all means, go ahead and continue to follow your elites and their welfare state agenda.

Comment: Re:As long as the Republicans... (Score 3, Insightful) 359

by Q-Hack! (#46763115) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained



Comment: Re:Politics as usuall (Score 1) 723

by Q-Hack! (#46722079) Attached to: Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

The insurance companies were happy to jump at an opportunity to raise their rates and get new customers. If the law was removed, I'm sure they would just complain about losing customers and raise rates even more.

Not going to argue against that point. I have often heard that the ACA was merely a means to destroy the current system and usher in a single payer system. There may be some truth to that.

Comment: Re:With Congressional authorization unlike Korea, (Score 0) 383

by Q-Hack! (#46092995) Attached to: Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him

After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.

Way to take it out of context and put your own spin on it. Bush was addressing foreign nations at that point in his speech. The "us" he was referring to, was the majority of Americans who supported some sort of retaliation for 9/11. But by all means, go ahead and tout your revisionist history.

Comment: Re: One and the same (Score 3, Insightful) 441

by Q-Hack! (#46048441) Attached to: Why Whistleblowers Can't Get a Fair Trial

The creation of the electoral college had nothing to do with large distances or travel time. It had everything to do with giving the lower population areas a voice. If we went with just the popular vote, candidates would end up only campaigning in a handful of high population cities. I once saw an extreme example, but quite apropos. Imagine somebody campaigning on the idea all our problems would be solved by nuking Montana. That candidate would only have to convince enough people in the top 5-10 population centers to win enough votes to do so. Can you at least see that the people in Montana might have a problem with that? I am always open minded about replacing the electoral college, but unless an idea comes across that gives low population centers a voice, it probably is not a good idea.

Comment: Re: police arive within 'minutes' (Score 1) 894

by Q-Hack! (#45701217) Attached to: How the Lessons of Columbine Saved Lives At Arapahoe High School

Seeing how his using #2 in your list is exactly what he was doing... the reason for excluding major crime areas in your comparison, is for the very reason that they have the strictest gun laws on the books and don't fit the general populace of the rest of the US. Now if you want to include those data points, then reduce your data points to individual counties instead of entire countries. When you do that, you will find that areas with strict gun laws do, in fact have higher crime rates and those with liberal gun policies have much lower rates.

It really isn't all that hard to comprehend... an armed society is a polite society. Those who wish not to be polite, quickly find themselves removed from that society. While on the opposite hand, criminals will always choose the path of least resistance when conducting a crime.

Comment: Re:Officials say? (Score 1) 644

by Q-Hack! (#45565143) Attached to: Officials Say HealthCare.gov Site Now Performing Well

There is a difference here still. One voluntarily signs a loan that requires full coverage insurance. You could always save your money and buy the vehicle out right, but for the convenience of using someone else's money, the lender requires it. This is much different from the ACA which is a straight up tax on people to redistribute the cost of those who could not afford or would not normally get insurance.
