Why are republicans doing this?

It wasn't like his posting slowed down because he was getting busy with something like work.

Just one morning no more AK. That was, what, about a month ago. I think I've seen one post from him sense then and it had nothing to do with his previously single topic, defending Obama.

Can there be little doubt someone was funding his participation here?

 

You mean the kid had to go get a real job?

I had a real job once when I was young, I didn't much like though.

 

lol, everytime im having a tough time in the market, i remind myself of how much shittier a "real job" would be. Im pretty sure i have corrupted myself for life, i cant even imagine the jobs i used to do in university, or waiting till your boss tells you its ok to take a piss.

No way i would last more than a day now in a "real" job, 9-5 with someone telling me the exact hours i have to work, and when i can take my fifteen minute breaks.....

 

What you're doing with this post is trivializing something you've already decided to trivialize prior to giving this matter some thought. You're not weighing the details, rather, you're pushing your political opinions and making poor assumptions about mine. My political affiliation is not relevant and neither is yours. Frankly, l'm surprised you've taken this route as it shows the weakness of your position.

You've misconstrued everything I posted so as to support your already formed opinions. That's weak.

Case in point, I used the language of the original article. Its a republican sponsored bill. I asked why both parties would object to this. Why do they agree? I told you how I voted, that does not mean I am a libertarian. I voted for reasons you wouldn't understand that have nothing to do with a political party. Per the picking of winners and losers... you are taking my comments out of context, again. I said I value the role of government in supporting disruptive tech.

Maybe you're used to the bullshit here but I don't participate often. Thanks for pointing that out. You may want to consider that you're jaded and biased. Try to be objective and try not to come across as a holier than thou, it weakens your point.

 

I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you. I do NOT support the government SUBSIDIZING technology. Especially if, as you claim, that technology will be a game changer in which it will need NO HELP. Once you get into the subsidizing game, you bring in the cronies. And with the cronies comes corruption. We saw this case in point with all the solar companies we "helped" that went bankrupt with tax payer money. The reality was that money lined the pockets of Obama's close donors.

If anything, I would concede the EXACT OPPOSITE of your argument. That is using government money to support things that have no redeeming value. Yes, in a twisted bit of irony, there are things that actually are bad investments which no one in the private sector will make. For example healthcare. Or repairing infra-structure. But when you come to me and tell me you have this game changing technology that will revolutionize the world and make everyone a fortune and yet it can find no investors and the government is it's only hope of surviving? Really? Come on. I honestly am dumbfounded at the point you are trying to make. That's like me saying I have this hot chic and I can't get any of my friends to fuck her unless I pay them. You know, because she is just too hot.

 

Like we haven't heard that one before.

get a new schtick azzhole

 

Ditto. People ask me if I work and I tell them "I'm unemployeable."

"What do you mean? Do you have a disability or something?"

I tell them, "No, I don't have a disability, it's just that I worked for myself so long, I can't even stand working with me as a boss."

 

If you voted Johnson, then I am surprised. Your commentary here in this thread does not seem very libertarian. You should be pushing for less government involvement, less subsidizing.

 

also serious is the blocking of tele -medicine by the states, which has cost many lives.

"And I learn of a solution for hospitals, like the one in my suburb, when they have no stroke specialists on duty: telemedicine.

Through something like Skype on steroids, any stroke specialist could provide virtual care in any emergency room. The technology is most developed in places like Arizona, where it connects big urban teaching hospitals to dispersed rural health care centers that will never have a stroke neurologist. Most of the signs of stroke are visual, meaning an expert diagnosis and swift application of the right medication are possible without laying on hands.

I interview Dr. Yulun Wang twice, first using his technology — with me at a Long Island hospital and Wang in Santa Barbara — and then when I visit his company, InTouch Health, a few months later. Here’s Dr. Wang describing these tools and the hurdles to wider adoption of the technology:

The merits of telemedicine seem utterly obvious, but I learn that Medicare and insurers don’t reimburse for this sort of care, with a few exceptions, because the doctor is not physically at the bedside.

Well, there was no living, breathing stroke specialist at my bedside to bill in those first vital hours. Give me a virtual doctor any day.

There are other impediments to what’s called telestroke technology, including licensing roadblocks preventing doctors from practicing across state borders."

 

Welcome back Mav!