U.S. ranks 25th in life expectancy while we pay the MOST for health care

[cindylou]

i love the planet...please elaborate??

That was a joke...I was kidding, sorry. A high protein diet isn't very erf friendly.

 

[digimon7068]

That was a joke...I was kidding, sorry. A high protein diet isn't very erf friendly.

but my overall calorie consumption is likely significantly lower than the average american...leaving more food available for the rest of the poor slobs out there...i eat to live, rather than the other way around

 

[cindylou]

but my overall calorie consumption is likely significantly lower than the average american...leaving more food available for the rest of the poor slobs out there...i eat to live, rather than the other way around

Erf first. Starving poor slobs last on list.

 

[digimon7068]

Erf first. Starving poor slobs last on list.

i prefer my grain consumption in the form of jim beam...thank you very much.

 

[Mr. dB]

C'mon redsam, don't dodge the issue.

You claimed Barry has been "slashing regulation in every field" except health care and banking/finance.

I offered-up the NLRB as evidence that your statement was untrue.

So how connected to reality are you? Do you agree your original statement was mistaken?

I offered up a link to an article which supported my statement. Searches on "NLRB" don't immediately bring me to anything relevant to your argument. Again, I'm not going to put any effort into doing your homework for you.

 

[Spartacus]

You wanna live past 80?

I buried a 400lb or so 82 year old
muthafuvkin genetics
that size is cottage cheese oak trees for legs

 

[mrplunkey]

I offered up a link to an article which supported my statement. Searches on "NLRB" don't immediately bring me to anything relevant to your argument. Again, I'm not going to put any effort into doing your homework for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/economy/nlrb-eases-unionizing-at-nursing-homes.html

Even your beloved NYT describes it as: "a flurry of moves favorable to unions"

The NLRB is an executive branch regulatory agency formed in 1935.

All five members of its managing board are appointed by the President.

Now assuming that reading a few sentences doesn't count as "doing your homework", are you now ready to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your original statement? Or shall the denial continue?

 

[Headholio]

Even your beloved NYT describes it as: "a flurry of moves favorable to unions"

The NLRB is an executive branch regulatory agency formed in 1935.

All five members of its managing board are appointed by the President.

Now assuming that reading a few sentences doesn't count as "doing your homework", are you now ready to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your original statement? Or shall the denial continue?

You should read your own article. The NLRB decisions listed are just reversals of Bush era radicalism. Of course we know Republicans want to kill unions, give all power to the rich and to corporations, and to keep the middle class down.
DB's original statement was that Obama was slashing regulation, and he was correct and provided a link to back it up.
NLRB has nothing to do with his comment; it was simply your diversion. The NLRB has applied existing law and reversed anti union republican union busting efforts.
Recognizing worker rights and collective bargaining rights is not increased regulation.
Although interpretations of law will vary according to the party interpreting those laws, the laws have not changed so regulation has not changed. And the NLRB "power" as you say, has not increased or decreased, it is bound by the same laws it always has been. Just because unions are getting a more fair shake under the dems does not mean NLRB power has increased.
Hope that helps.

And this has nothing to do with the crappy healthcare in the US and disproportionately high price we pay for it.

 

[ceo]

Of course we know Republicans want to...give all power to the rich and to corporations, and to keep the middle class down.

And so do the Dems. All politicians care about is themselves and getting re-elected. If you think any of them truly give a shit about you or the poor or middle class (other than telling you what you want to hear to get your vote) you are being foolish.

 

[mrplunkey]

You should read your own article. The NLRB decisions listed are just reversals of Bush era radicalism. Of course we know Republicans want to kill unions, give all power to the rich and to corporations, and to keep the middle class down.
DB's original statement was that Obama was slashing regulation, and he was correct and provided a link to back it up.
NLRB has nothing to do with his comment; it was simply your diversion. The NLRB has applied existing law and reversed anti union republican union busting efforts.
Recognizing worker rights and collective bargaining rights is not increased regulation.
Although interpretations of law will vary according to the party interpreting those laws, the laws have not changed so regulation has not changed. And the NLRB "power" as you say, has not increased or decreased, it is bound by the same laws it always has been. Just because unions are getting a more fair shake under the dems does not mean NLRB power has increased.
Hope that helps.

And this has nothing to do with the crappy healthcare in the US and disproportionately high price we pay for it.

Redsam couldn't have said it better.

Mr. Db -- this is exactly what you sound like when you go into denial.