“I think it is very telling that he has used this NBC interview to discuss who he has been portrayed by the media instead of the alleged actions and capabilities of the NSA. I think this was always just an way for him to seek the fame and adoration that he feels he deserves.”
“You really should get your facts straight. 1) There is no Embassy in Benghazi. The location was a diplomatic mission. There is a difference, look into it. 2) the Ambassador had been told it was dangerous to travel there, but he did so anyway. 3) the reason Conservatives were originally so upset about this was the claim that this was a terrorist attack that was covered up by the administration for political reasons. The fact that this whole thing was revived on e-mails which supposedly implicated the White House in crafting the language for the talking points leads me to believe it still is.
The reason that no one can argue with you people is that you don't know the facts and just make statements of outrage based on gut feelings that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.”
“Who do these people think they are? They're not marrying the people. There is nothing spiritual or biblical about large elaborate baked goods. Do they ask all of their patrons about the religious beliefs? They may have unwittedly condoned the behavior of satanists and child molesters by bestowing them with the honor of one of their magical confections.”
“I usually sympathize with HuffPo and most of its like minded readers, but this headline and many of the comments are way off base on this one.
Denial of service attacks are cyber terrorism. Countries attack each other using this strategy. The Syrian Electronic Army (or whatever they call themselves) use this form of attack. Just becuase we don't like the people he attacked... Just becuase this guy may have been too stupid to realize what he was doing... This guy committed cyber terrorism.
Ignorance is no defense.
If we decide this is ok, you guys might as well just unplug your computers now. The internet would grind to a halt.
Laws aren't always perfect, but having them sure beats the alternative.”
contest d on Dec 3, 2013 at 15:17:42
“If those imperfect laws were being evenly applied you would have a good point.
As long as these companies abuse the public trust, stealing with one hand, condemning theft with the other, the rabble will lash out.”
Ithinkergo on Dec 3, 2013 at 13:52:12
“While some of what you say might be true, the brothers' meanspiritness, vindictiveness and greed are despicable: the amount of fine should've been commensurate with the harm he caused. They want to recoup all their expenses that were used to protect their site. Maybe they should've demanded to be paid for their travel expenses to the trial, and lunch....
Alas - no surprise there - snakes will be snakes.”
“Why doesn't Ms. Bachman show the same concern for everyond who has had tgeir insurance cancelled over the past 20 years simply because thet got sick? Why is she concerned with the health care of this one small group of Americans while simultaneously apathetic about everyone else?”
“The students don't see the difference between these two flags. That says a lot about the efforts they've taken with their education. Maybe is would be equally appropriate if they wore a nazi flag. A flag is a flag, right?”
ajm36 on Oct 12, 2013 at 13:50:47
“Maybe they see the difference in preferential treatment of some forms of speech and groups--and maybe that's what they were drawing attention to. Keep in mind what the American flag represents to Native Americans; yet it's flown outside of every federal building...including BIA offices on Indian lands. If we ban things simply because they "offend" someone or some group, we'll have to ban everything.”
“Hitler's wife was a female. Mrs. Barton should keep a close eye on her husband.
The sad/scary thing is that these people really think they have a valid point. It must be truely scary to see the world through their eyes. A logic class should be required in high school. You know when somone uses a fallacy in an argument that they are a fool or they are trying to fool you. I'm pretty sure this lady is the former.”
“I'm so sick of this talking point. The exchanges are meant for people whose employers don't offer insurance. You all work for an employer that does offer insurance. Why does Congress have to use the exchange? Because some dolt like you couldn't wrap their head around the fact the the federal government is an employer that offers insurance. The people who use the exchanges wouldn't have asked "why doesn't Congress have to do this?" Because, before the ACA, they did not have insurance.”
susie1776 on Oct 8, 2013 at 16:51:21
“Thank you for (1)calling it the ACA and not using the other term and (2) for pointing out that the ACA exchanges are for people who do not HAVE insurance. As you said, the federal gov't provides health insurance so the ACA does not even apply to them. The whole purpose of the ACA is to help those people who need but can't get health insurance for various reasons like pre existing conditions or lack of money. I find it unbelievable that some of our elected representatives are willing to encourage people NOT to participaye in a program that will only HELP them.”
PBOHIO on Oct 8, 2013 at 16:51:02
“They can blame the Grassley Amendment for having to go on the Exchanges..Now, they have a new whining point,,well, why doesn't the POTUS have to do it too? Well,,,maybe because Sen. Grassley forgot to add them....getting a little dodgy.”
“There is no mechaism to pay interest only. If you have a term loan (i.e. Principal and interest payments) and you pay only the interest... You're still late. You're conservative represenatives think you're stupid and you're proving them right.”
“"I don't believe it's researchers making the decisions here."
Based on what? Your gut feeling? That's a great reason to be outraged, and it is so much easier than trying to consider their side of things.
"And to suggest that it is okay not to do anything because people all over the world die from not getting drugs is just plain ridiculous."
That is not what I said, but it is clear from reading many of these comments that our nations has a real problem with reading comprehension, so I am not surprised that's what you took away from my comments.”
phagent on Sep 13, 2013 at 10:38:14
“You propose that we should all just trust these entities. Go for it, if that's they way you are, trust your corporate overseers and step in line and march the beat like a good little sycophant. Maybe you'll be rewarded. More likely you will be kicked to the curb. ”
“I am not saying people don't have the right to their opinion. I am saying it is ok to sometimes not have an opinion. It's probably more healthy than constantly getting upset about issues that we don't fully understand. It seems like everyone has an opinion on everything these days. I am just sick to death of it. It's ok to sometimes say, well I probably don't know enough about the situation to condemn anyone about the decisions they have made.
There is unfairness and arbitrariness in every aspect of our existence on earth. I am not apathetic, but sometimes there is nothing that can be done. I am willing to give people who have devoted their life to cancer research the benefit of the doubt and say that they are probably not monsters.
She has had access to healthcare. Many people die without getting the care that she has received. We all have equal access to this experimental drug in that none of us have access to this experimental drug.”
Cougar90210 on Sep 11, 2013 at 23:25:41
“I agree that it is okay not to express an opinion on some things, at least not until someone is informed enough to speak "rationally and reasonably." As to the presence of "unfairness and arbitrariness in every aspect of our existence on earth," it's hard for me to argue that we are in complete control of our lives .... as we hurdle through space on a mere mote in this vast universe. That said, however, I think it is reasonable to expect man-made societal institutions to at least try to ensure that decisions made and services provided are not based upon arbitrary and/or unfair processes.
Lacking sufficient expertise, I'm not arguing the merits of this particular drug, nor am I arguing that this woman should receive it. I am saying, however, that the so-called "health care system" that currently exists in America is characterized far too often by similar situations (different details, of course) where some people receive a certain level of medical services, while others cannot or do not. I think that is a serious flaw in how medical decisions are made and in how medical services are provided in this nation.
I would also argue that this woman has had access to "medical treatment," not "healthCARE." This is much more than a question of mere semantics, and it is a point of contention that must be resolved as we determine modern day societal responsibilities for the well being of the citizenry.”
“It is an experimental drug. There are probably many liability issues that we don't understand. I cannot believe THIS is what people chose to get upset about. There are people all over the world who die every day because they cannot get drugs that are available to for a few dollars at every corner store. Is that fair. No. It happens every day though. Why aren't we on here every day complaining about that if we care so much about access to medication? Why now? Because this woman has an extremely unusual case, and she is very talented at public relations. It sounds like this woman has had an enormous amount of resources used to help cure her cancer, and I appreciate that she doesn't want to give up, but she doesn't have the right to force a company to use her as a guinea pig and deal with the consequences of that decision. Whatever they may be. I get it... she has nothing to lose, but the company is just following the rules and potentially making decisions to protect it's own survival. This is not about insurance companies or drug companies being evil. This is about researchers having the right to choose whether or not they are going to become part of a public spectacle and human experimentation. I don't know the reason they chose not to give her the drug, but just because you cannot think of a good reason does not mean that there isn't one.”
phagent on Sep 12, 2013 at 10:11:36
“Disagree. I don't believe it's researchers making the decisions here. But you are correct that the drug company can do anything it wants. It's not obligated to do anything. But is that right? And to suggest that it is okay not to do anything because people all over the world die from not getting drugs is just plain ridiculous.”
“This is a perfect example of a story that probably has dozens of considerations of which the average person would not have the first clue. I feel sorry for this woman, but I am in no position to have an opinion on this either way. I suspect the same is true about 99.9% of the commentors on this article. The problem with America is that no one trusts instituions and everyone thinks they are qualified to have an opinion on everything.”
renoir on Sep 11, 2013 at 14:28:48
“The opinion you CAN have is that access to health care should be a human right, and that keeping a for-profit component in health care creates a situation where the people who get the best treatment are those with deep pockets... which means that the other 99.9% of Americans either have to go bankrupt to pay for care, go with limited or inferior care, or go without.
We all have stories, right? Right now my beloved Dad, a WWII vet and retired public school teacher is in a losing battle with lung cancer. He's been given the run-around... stalled care, stalled access to VA care causing him to go to private care physicians resulting in depleted personal resources via exhorbitant co-pays (threatening his housing), bounced from care giver to care giver.... he can't even get basic advice from his oncologist about effectively mitigating the side effects that are debilitating him. So we cobble together what we can as a family, and muddle towards the inevitable.
What we have now is both immoral and unethical. This story aside, a civilized society should at least be able to assert through public policy that all citizens are equally worthy of care and access to treatment.”
Aabby on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:42:08
“Well then we read to make up for the gap. And three things are impartment here are: 1. The drug company has been vocal about how affective this drug has been for the type of cancer this woman has in their press releases. 2. She has no options left and will sign a weaver. She has little time left. 3. Drug companies often make exceptions like this on a compassionate bases as detailed by her oncologist who has experience in this.”
claraluz on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:37:51
“This has nothing to do with lack of trust or knowledge on the part of commenters -- HER OWN DOCTOR wants her to try the drug. She's on the brink of death, it's only natural that she should be allowed to grab the only potential lifeline available. Moreover, this could be one last service she can provide to other people in her situation, as regardless of the outcome, Bio-Marin could follow her response to the drug and use the data in their continuing research.”
Cougar90210 on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:30:58
“I agree that this story probably has tons of details that are hidden and/or not understood by the vast majority of those commenting about it here. That said, I will defend the right of anyone to express an opinion - as long as it is rationally and reasonably stated.
What this story illustrates to me is the inherent unfairness and arbitrariness or much of what occurs in our health care system. Some people are able to access treatment, while others cannot, and that access is based upon what ....?
We do not have "the greatest health care system in the world." We have the capability to provide some of the most advanced medical interventions in the world, and we have some of the most highly qualified medical professionals in the world. But "health CARE" - as in seeing that everyone has equitable access to the same level of CARE? Hardly.”
mollymac on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:30:42
“Opinions do not require qualification. They are just opinions and everyone has them.”
phagent on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:29:50
“The notion that there are people out there "who know better than us" is conclusion I have real problems with, particularly at this moment in time. As you note, no one trusts institutions-- and why should they? Everyone knows they lie. Everyone knows that they may say one thing, all the right words, but what they really mean is that there's nothing in it for them, so why should they help you? For that very reason, I'm not willing to throw up my arms and say, What do I know? There are some real basic things that are unambiguously right. If there's some compelling reason to deny that woman drugs, then perhaps the pharma companies, in their infinite wisdom of knowing more than us, can credibly explain the denial. They cannot do that. Maybe some folks believe their hot air. But most thinking people do not.”
“I support the President, but why can't he ever seem to do things in the time frame that he announces? Why tell us 1:15pm if it's going to be more like 1:30? What's the hold up? Is he still writing the speech? Stuck in traffic? It's sort of un-presidental. If we have to bomb somebody because he accidentally used a loaded word and we have to show the world we mean business, ect. Might we say the same thing about him being on time? If he cannot give a speech on time... does that embolden Iran to move forward on there nukes cause we look ineffectual?”
“Police are there to enforce the law. Their opinion About the creation or interpretation of a law has no more value than the general public. The only time they should be consulted is if a policy change will make gheir job more dangerous. This is clearly not the situation here.”
“This guys is the State Treasurer? Shouldn't he have some knowledge of accounting rules and the like? This is why Republicans believe government doesn't work! They elect people who lack the basic qualifications for the job.”
“I'm gay, but this is insane. The only thing female about Bradley Manning is that he's a drama queen! This does a disservice to people dealing with real transgender issues. Lock him up and forget about him. He needs therapy... Not more headlines.”