Dorkington

I know most here will point to the deep ball and sideline throw percentages, and rave about how much EJ sucks.... But I look at this as very promising overall.

Makes my eyes a bit misty seeing this all.

I could easily point to a dozen studies comparing different countries, but it'd get thrown out since they aren't *this* country. And we can't compare Medicare in this country to privatized, because Medicare only covers a certain segment of the population. Any comparison would have faults, and thus would be irrelevant. The only way to truly compare a socialized system and a privatized system is to have two copies of the United States that exist in perfectly parallel realities. Obviously that is impossible for me to achieve. I have zero answers for you. Any metrics I could possibly provide would have their own set of faults, and could be thrown out for being imperfect. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

I don't. I already said so. All I have is an opinion based on the empirical evidence of my own experiences. I do not have any comprehensive metrics to compare most government functions to a private alternative, as there's no clone of the United States that exists sans government. The best I can do is look at the history of the US, specifically the before/after effects of various government programs. But I do not have the time to do such a study, and as such I rescind my point of view, as I cannot back up my argument with the requested metrics.

I don't surround myself with those who agree with me. I spend a great deal of time reading the forums here. You, Tasker, etc are significantly more intelligent and educated than I am, so I need to take a back seat, shut up, and change my views on the world. Also, name calling is unnecessary, but I do like kitties, so I suppose that's not such a bad thing to be. Thank you for your patience, as I continue to learn right from wrong in the political forum.

You're absolutely right. I rescind my opinion. I have zero proof that any part of the US Federal Government functions well, nor do I have a subjective measurement that could be used to determine what "functions well" is. My apologies.

Unless you put up Peyton numbers, you aren't a NFL ready starting QB. Good thread.

That twitter convo between the teams is a lot of fun.

I'm picky with where I expend my energy Arguing which disappointing president is worse doesn't really interest me that much. The poll numbers were really all I wanted.

Considering it's an opinion, it'd be difficult. Best I could do is quote some studies on a couple, and the rest look at history. But neither would be what he's looking for.

I can't. You win.

The following are services that I'm thankful for... admittedly some are state based: - Social Security - Yes, this needs adjustment, but there's no arguing that this has benefited a great amount of ederly. There are better options for many now in the form of private retirement. But Social Security still has a place in most people's lives. - Medicare - Again, imperfect, but certainly works better than the private insurance industry in my experience (and the experience of people I know that use it). I would be interested in seeing studies that compare Medicare to private. - National Highway System/Interstate Highways - not sure what to expand on here... toll roads are a mixed bag in my experience - Public roads, sidewalks, public transportation and infrastructure in general - related to the above... not sure how completely privatized infrastructure would even work. Are there links to successful implementations? - US Military - Over paid, and bloated, sure... but can you argue that it underperforms? We have the best in the world, for the most part. Who would pay for a privatized force to protect our country and it's interests? - FDA - Generally they implement reasonable regulations that keep our food and drugs relatively healthy. There are some some concerns from both sides of the aisle... sometimes things aren't regulated enough according to the left... sometimes things are regulated too much according to the right... - EPA - Similar to the above... reasonable regulations on drinking water, and general pollution. Left think it's not enough, right thinks its too much... There's more, but I'm about to head out the door... I'm sure there's problems with each and every government entity. There are problems with privatized entities as well. The main thing though is... will a for profit entity have people's interests in mind over a non-profit? Is there a difference anymore with the amount of lobbying and contract work? Who knows. Either way, I'm thankful for a great amount of local and federal government, even if it's slow moving and bloated at times. The VA mess is just that, a mess. It needs to be fixed, and it's a damned shame that we are so quick to go to war, but we don't do what is needed to fix the soldiers that come back broken. ACA is incredibly imperfect. I've said before I'm not a huge fan of it overall. I think certain regulatory parts of it make sense (the "Patient Protection" part of "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". I think the mandate is a good idea on paper, but in practice falls short without comprehensive subsidies. But, in order to cover everyone, you get into universal/single payer, and that was DOA when presented initially. The mandate (and the ACA) is a middle ground solution, and in this case, middle ground doesn't work incredibly well. Does that mean a single payer system won't work in the future? Nope. Does it mean it will work in the future? Nope. It all depends on how such a system would be implemented, who is running it, and who else has their claws in it. The cynic in me says it won't work in this country until we fix the lobbying problem.

Bills have nothing to worry about. We don't harken any Buffalo Bill imagery.

If that's what you think I am, then fine. I've gotten involved in discussions on this forum before, but generally things devolve into name calling and trolling, so there's really very little point. I'm not going to defend myself. I am exactly what you, or whomever, say I am. I shouldn't have responded when I did, I should have kept quiet and continued reading, but I couldn't help myself. That was my mistake. Cheers.

There's maybe two or three here that agree with my political views, one of them might be mentally disabled (we all know who I speak of), there's very little point in me getting into actual discussion here, as I'd just be shouted down by an avalanche of dissenting views. If that means I shouldn't participate, then I suppose I won't. My apologies for wasting your time. Mods, feel free to shut down this thread and any of my posts within PPP.

Are you seriously going to suggest that zero parts of the US government function well?

The government isn't "one entity", even though it's easy to present it as such. Hence why certain parts of it function well, and other parts of it function poorly. Everything is legislated, funded and run differently. Politically, though, I absolutely agree with you... the VA and certain parts of ACA, will hold back any discussions of a single payer system being implemented.

Ah, connected politically, but not connected in function. Had me confused a bit. Anything can be connected politically these days, but the VA and ACA are two totally different fumbles. One is Obama's, the other has been a fumble for a good 20+ years.

Ok, color me ignorant. Please tell me what my agenda is according to you, and what my purpose of this poll was? It seems like you know more about me than I do, so go right ahead. Just putting my simplified list out there was met with a resounding "you're wrong", so there's really no point. I was corrected, and that's the end of it.

Oh, I don't think this will do it. But I think this, with mounting pressure, and maybe some other action, will lead to a change at some point. Assuming the pressure doesn't let up anytime soon. I don't think there's legally much that can be done to force the name change.

I posted my list of what I think both did earlier in the thread, and it was torn down pretty quickly. It'd just go down that road again. I'm not going to change anyone's opinions, you're probably not going to change mine.

I just don't understand the attachment to the team name. It's clearly something that offends a segment of the population... is a team name really that important to your enjoyment of the game? If the Bills changed their name tomorrow, I'd still be a fan of the team.

There has been plenty of social change over the last 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if things are different this time around. (Also wouldn't be surprised if the same results happend... just saying, its not set in stone)

Wait, the VA scandal is connected to the ACA now? I thought the VA nonsense had been going on for years now.

Here's my rather simple opinion/breakdown - Team names change all the time, but the team (generally) still remains. Washington won't be moving anywhere, the players won't all disappear, sundays will still be "fun"days. So changing the name? No big deal. - The name "redskin" is offensive to a great many people. To me? I'm white, it doesn't effect me, so no skin (heh) off my back if it changes or not. However, if we're talking up to a million people in this country that it does directly insult? Then their voices should be heard on the subject, and if they want it changed, I feel like it should be. To most of us, it's just a team name, and team names aren't a huge deal. To others, its more than that, and that should be respected.