Displaying 1 - 10 of 3811 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Aug 13, 2017 10:33 AM
    Last: 14hr
    69
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Does it have to do with income. Seems like most of the laborers I have hired over the years were taking some kind of pain killer and most of it was opioids. Are poor people treated with opioids because it is an easier way to treat them and more affluent people are treated with medicine that requires a stronger patient participation. Another way to say it, are lower income people less likely to work with their pain or are lower income jobs more painful. It just seems the problem is more prevalent with lower incomes. Just a personal opinion never researched it.
    People of means are just as susceptible to addiction as people without. The main difference is that there's plenty of help out there for people who can afford it and there's just not enough help out there for those who can't. Our society long ago decided that poor addicts aren't deserving of much, if any, help.
  • Aug 13, 2017 10:33 AM
    Last: 14hr
    69
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Wide support for battling opioid epidemic. But why is there an opioid epidemic?

    As with many things in this country - it's complicated.

    Many people are addicted to heroin and other opiates because they were prescribed pain medication after an accident at their work place, a nasty car wreck, or falling off a ladder.

    Doctors legally prescribed rather powerful opiates and didn't monitor their patients well enough. That one, two, or three month supply of legal opiates then suddenly vanishes after the prescription is up and people didn't receive enough help weening off their prescription. The patient, now pretty much hooked on opiates and without a legal way to get them, resorts to the black market to feed their addiction.

    There are millions of people like this in the United States. Big Pharma had a decades long full court press pushing opiates for all ailments and they spent billions of dollars lobbying doctors to prescribe drugs like OxyContin, Demerol, and Fentanyl. Doctors then began prescribing these drugs to kids as young as ten, turning unsuspecting people into drug addicts overnight.

    It's almost like physicians never bothered to take a history class during their studies because if they had they would have realized that history is repeating itself and they are now partially responsible for it.

    Other people are addicted to opiates for various other reasons, but there is plenty of empirical evidence drawing a direct line from the push for legal opiates in the late 1980's and 90's to the explosion in opiate related deaths in the aughts.

    The same goes with the direct line from Ritalin to Meth addiction. Millions of unsuspecting kids dutifully took their Ritalin prescription for decades only to become chemically addicted to the compounds that make up the drug, making them fall more susceptible to becoming addicted to Crystal Meth.

    If anyone is to blame for this current epidemic it's Big Pharma and the physicians who threw away their oaths as doctors and fell prey to their propaganda machine.

  • Aug 12, 2017 09:49 AM
    Last: 10hr
    456

    Nothing like having JC come out of the woodworks to blame victims and push false equliveance arguments only to change his tune once someone calls his bullshit.

    You're no different than Donald. Blame victims and say both sides are equally to blame. It's so depressing that there are millions of people like you out there.

  • Aug 04, 2017 03:32 PM
    Last: 5d
    1.1k
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: I want jaredsxtn to examine the numbers. What was Hillary supposed to win by.

    SHE WON BY THREE MILLION VOTES. Thirty-one states don't have a population of three million people.

    Hillary lost because our backwards voting system gives white people in a handful of predominately white states the ability to pick and choose who our President will be. I know you will never accept that, but that's just a fact. And the great thing about facts is that they are irrefutable.

    That is unless you are Kellyanne Conway. Are you Kellyanne Conway's twin?

  • Aug 04, 2017 03:32 PM
    Last: 5d
    1.1k
    Schmidt Wrote: I am not off topic. If Dems want a winning platform that independents can get behind, then they should look at hers. If Bernie plans to run again in 2020 to be a spoiler again, then Democrats will lose. The Our Revolution platform is not a winning platform.

    The vast majority of self identified Democrats, myself included, whole heatedly agree with you. That's why Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by over three million votes.

    It's just depressing how so many people have convinced themselves that they will be able to get everything they ever dreamed of by voting for one person who promises them the world without ever taking the time to understand American civics.

  • Aug 04, 2017 03:32 PM
    Last: 5d
    1.1k
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "Did you just honestly accuse someone else of taking something out of context?"

    You changed what I said to have a different meaning and then attacked it. I said content which pertains to different subjects. You changed it to context which changes the entire meaning. Why?

    Come on Chet - I called you out for constantly highlighting a sentence out of a long response and you responded by highlighting a sentence out of a long response. You seriously have to work on this man.

    Weren't you the one complaining that the discussion about Bernie Sanders is getting off topic because some of us talked about Bernie Sanders in a way you don't like? Let's get back to that.

  • Aug 06, 2017 02:36 PM
    Last: 5d
    215
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Yes technology is moving along ultra fast, not only in parts of the USA, but also Europe, Japan, China and India...some countries that we seem to think of as "developing". Once China purges itself from coal (and they have a plan to do exactly that) then coal energy will be history.

    Battery operated cars and charging stations will be common place on the roads before I die (and I'm 70). And I won't even have to drive...my robot will just answer to my command. I'll drink a cold beer as we motor down the road, and I won't even have to worry about a DUI.

    Oh to be young again.

    I'm quite excited about electric car technology. Hell, even the head of Shell Oil Company said that his next car will be electric.

    Electric cars already make up a decent chunk of automobiles on the roads in major metropolises and that is only going to expand with the roll out of the Tesla Model 3. Charging stations are becoming faster and faster and they are also free of charge. Imagine being able to take a 2,000 mile road trip with never having to spend $4.00/gallon on gas.

    My wife and I just talked the other day about how the car we purchased last year will likely be the last one we buy. That's because we foresee a day, in the very near future, where we hop in an autonomous vehicle that takes us out to explore Mt. Hood or the Pacific Ocean. Stuff like that sounded outlandish years ago, but it's coming sooner than we ever imagined.

    Autonomous trucks are already on our highways, but no one notices because someone is still sitting behind the wheel. I see that changing in the next decade and wouldn't be surprised if we become accustomed to seeing a trailer driving itself without having a cab in the front.

    The same goes with cars being developed by multiple companies. Facebook, Google, Lyft, Uber, and multiple other companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on autonomous technology.

    It excites me, but I appreciate how it scares others. That's why job retraining will be so important moving forward. There are millions of truck drivers in this country and they, whether they like it or not, are going to be out of a job in the not too distant future. Taxi drivers are already feeling that pinch.

  • Aug 04, 2017 03:32 PM
    Last: 5d
    1.1k
    Dutch Wrote: Schmidt; sorry to say this Perez guy is not very energetic; neither I've seen an sound message from the DNC; I did give plenty of examples of what they should do, but they stick to the old Wasserman mentality as well copy the GOP things like "jobs". No it should not be "jobs" ; at 4.3% it is about as good as you can get it. The Dems should focus on reforming ridiculous voting laws; getting the "money" out of voting as well as social things which makes life better, including the environment. etc. Right now regardless of Bernie they are floating in no direction at all.

    I don't understand why so many people put the national party's on a huge pedestal. People don't vote because they just LOVE what a national party apparatus says.

    National committees have a hell of a lot less power than they used to. Party bosses used to be able to sit in back rooms and tip the scales, but those days are long gone now.

    If anything, national party's are there to conduct opposition research on the opposing party and support the candidate of their party.

    Has anyone ever thought that the DNC might have held Bernie at arms length because he only switched to being a Democrat so he could run for President? And they were right - he switched back to being an "Independent" immediately after losing the primary. A primary, mind you, that he lost by millions of votes.

    The 2008 Primary was far uglier than the 2016 Primary, but 2008 was different because even the most die hard Clinton supporters understood that Obama was better than any Republican Presidential candidate so they swallowed their pride and voted for him. On the other hand, Bernie supporters were so pissed their guy didn't win that they decided to sabotage everything to prove a point.

    Now Chet insists people like that are our only hope. People who, for no other reason than spite and hatred, handed the keys of the White House to a buffoon, the Supreme Court to far right conservatives, and both houses of Congress to the Republican Party just so they can say "I told you so!!!"

    I hope it was worth it for them because they are why we will have a conservative Supreme Court for the next generation.

  • Aug 08, 2017 08:00 AM
    Last: 8d
    91
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    I wonder though if the centrist can ever see themselves compromising with the far left Bernie supporters for the good of the people?

    What does that have to do with the Antifa movement?
  • Aug 04, 2017 03:32 PM
    Last: 5d
    1.1k
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Sorry jaredsxtn, it was not on topic.

    I hate to break it to you, but moderators are the only people who decide what is and isn't on topic.

    We let threads ebb and flow to an extent, which has greatly benefited you considering you turn every thread into an attack on popular vote winner Clinton or how America would be a wonderful utopia if we simply listened to you and enacted your economic philosophies without debate or compromise.

    Schmidt discussing why Bernie Sanders has done a disservice to the Democratic Party is absolutely on topic simply because the vast majority of this entire thread has been about Bernie Sanders!

    I mean...seriously man. You called him the party's only hope in the opening thread.

    "If jaredsxtn and Schmidt could recognize the trouble the Democratic Party is in and throw support to Bernie and whatever or whoever he wants the country could go back to the people."

    You not only brought Sanders up in the opening thread, but you singled out Schmidt and I for not supporting your point of view. Schmidt absolutely has a right to respond to that.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Simply having to do with opens every thread up to general discussion. You can't take points out of content and then create false arguments for one person and then absolve it for another. Want another Democratic loss, then have your way?

    Are you fucking with me? You're fucking with me, right???

    Did you just honestly accuse someone else of taking something out of context?! You do realize that you are the one who highlights a single sentence out of a paragraphs long response and attack it while completely ignoring any and everything that you can't argue with.