The PULSE Review - Latest Comments

Re: The Distraction of Personality

cheap nfl jerseys — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:09:44 -0000

They're just a lot for instance cheap nfl jerseys. They’ve existed forever, they're just of easy layout in addition to even now visible with today’s modern society and so they hold several pittsburgh steelers jerseys connotations.
The crew features worn countless hats because turning into the actual cheap nfl jerseys throughout 1912: your blue-and-red layout from the ‘40s, your sailor-type from the ‘70s along with, recently, your inverted coloration design which includes a charcoal P including a orange track record.

Re: The Distraction of Personality

cheap jerseys — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 05:04:01 -0000

Prior, your lover mentioned she would certainly handle MPs about nfl jerseys Monday in relation to the woman "concerns" over the closeness belonging to the connection concerning Reports Worldwide and also court arrest. I have obtained this specific determination caused by the particular on-going rumours along with allegations in relation to this Met's links together with News Worldwide in the senior citizen degree along with specifically when it comes to Mr Neil Wallis. " He or she extra: "Let me point out obviously, WHEN I as well as folks who realize me personally, understand nba jerseys this the honesty seemingly intact. 】

Re: Risk and Health Insurance

Rhea Seo — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:59:32 -0000

this is an old issue even with the previous administration.

Re: The Distraction of Personality

Football jerseys — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:06:00 -0000

Obama has done a great job!!

Re: Why We Are Called the Paper Tiger

Maize5 — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:52:32 -0000

This article is, essentially, much ado about nothing. You spend six paragraphs on less than a bumper-sticker sentiment. There is nothing in this piece to engage a person who might have a different opinion, spur debate, or launch an open exchange of ideas simply because you have not actually said anything. It is all filler and no point.

I firmly believe that the majority of people who discuss politics, especially foreign policy, should be stripped of their freedom of expression. Simply because I do have some talent with reading comprehension, I gather that you feel that American foreign policy should be more killing, and less talking. If this is your intended point, and I am not entirely sure it is, you should stick to preaching to the converted. I don't know if you ever had an ability to actually debate and think critically, but being among your own kind seems to have softened your brain. The problem you seem to have, which I am still unsure of, is that you view every other country in a very narrow relation to our own. The problem with this is how quickly it goes from annoying to pitiful in regard to countries like China. China is not a country that can be viewed through the lense of a modern industrialised nation. China is in the exact same boat we were in just a hundred years ago, but thrust into a modern era. The Middle-East is, politically, where we were in the 1950s, and embroiled in McCarthyism.

The biggest problem with failed military men is their incessant need to over-compensate in every aspect of their lives. They sincerely view the entirety of their lives as abysmal failures, so they go over-board now in the hopes that nobody will notice. Perhaps you think you didn't kill enough people while you were in the service, so you're not macho. To make up for this imaginary short-coming you seem to advocate the wholesale slaughter of all non-Americans, and probably all the ones who are, but aren't white. You are a frightened little child screaming at all the perceived monsters in the dark just because you refuse to turn on the light switch and have to admit there was nothing there the whole time.

In closing I would like to suggest you re-focus your efforts into more rewarding, and more productive, ventures. The reason I won't is because I know it won't work. I could suggest you open a book that isn't a self-published manafesto purchased off the website of some Idaho militia. Again, I know you won't because it would be too difficult and uncomfortable to admit your ignorance and admit a myopic world-view. I could even suggest you do something that absolutely suits your education, life-experience, and secret passions. I could suggest you hang around a truck stop and peddle your ass for cheap booze. That much self honesty would probably be just too much for you to handle, however. So I won't do anything more than finish my own little rant and leave you as I found you; alone, confused, afraid, and stupid.

Re: DEFCON 17

remove antivirus action virus — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:08:57 -0000

I like it. Keep these great posts coming!

Re: Populism and the Media Coverage

Sid z — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:19:52 -0000

It has helped me a lot in understanding this term populism.

Re: On Judicial Review

Autumnh65 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:23:04 -0000

this is good for people who are being bad

Re: A Little Knowledge in China

Name — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:48:37 -0000

Tibet was not controlled by China since 1271! The Mongolian empire ruled over both Tibet and China meaning Tibet was never directly controlled by China until the 1950s. Secondly, the incredible growth and infrastructure in Tibet is for the sake of Han Chinese settlers, not for the indigenous Tibetan people. When people put Tibet stickers on their cars, sure they might not know the whole story behind the Tibet occupation, but the situation is still as bad as it is normally depicted as. Tibet had its own, independent government before the invasion and Tibet today has been illegally made into a colony ripe with exploitation.

Re: A Little Knowledge in China

Name — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:47:58 -0000

Re: Introducing “The Idealist”

johnwyatesjr — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:07:37 -0000

LET US PUT UTO / TIFP'S WEB SITE ON THE INTERNET,ETC

Re: Introducing “The Idealist”

johnwyatesjr — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:03:39 -0000

CLEVELAND 10/28/09

ELIASIS YAHWEHEI (THE MAIN MAN ) IS COORDINATOR/ INVESTIGATOR FOR: THE UNIVERSAL THEATER OCCUPATION(ORGANIZATION) AND THE IDEALISTS FOR PROGRESS.
At least twenty five bilss,rules or Laws in our Political set up have the will and influence of the infant organization. we must jockey/ organize yahwei's organization. help with a massive Web
site,.. there be many plans / proposals,etc which the Congresses have files for or a large folder - maybe, even a drawer which they houses Yahwehei's work in,..More than a few members of ( the
two divisions )Congress knows of these works,..And should assist with helping to build the massive Web site,..

Efforts were made to launch http//:www.uto-tifpunivthea.com but help will be required by some powerful cooperatives. the Web site will be able to publish the many plans,proposals,etc as Web
pages, Sub-Web sites of Web pages,.

The general public needs to know about the many works,projects and implementations that would be to Yahwehei's enguinuity.

UTO / TIFP

Re: G20: The Lull

The_Socalist_Opinion — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:58:56 -0000

The Protest Crowd was so thick that the police have to lauch tear gas to disperse the crowd. Of course this is after the fact that the crowd were attacking the police and the barricade with trash bins. The victims here are not the protesters, definately not the police, but the poor residents of Pittsburg. I can not imagine the harship of living in Pittsburg during the Summit. Hot humid weather, bad traffic all around, and then Missing trash bins?! That would be my final draw.

Re: Will the G20 solve the banking crisis?

The_Socalist_Opinion — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:05:38 -0000

A) To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can.

B) To spend the next third making all the money one can.

C) To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.

Above is the belief from one of the most famous (or infamous) capitalist in the history of America, Andrew Carnegie. In this voletile times, we've seen so many adhere to the first two principles religiously but rarely we've found individuals setting examples as our great capitalist ancestors did in the 19th century. We are living in the future and yet still can not tame our most primal desire, Greed. This recession is not just brought upon us by just the wall street bankers. Years of laissez-faire attitude has groomed this financial roller coaster. I'd say, it is time for regulation, it's time for the government and the people to say "ENOUGH!"

Re: DEFCON 17

melissa — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:00:31 -0000

Oh thank you, gentle writer!

Re: Why We Are Called the Paper Tiger

Twit Twon Two — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:32:33 -0000

With a massive demonstration of miltant natioalist behavior and industrial sabotage America does become a paper tiger, or rather a bear with its nose stuck in a bee hive unnable to paw off its attackers.

Paper Tiger fits, if the opposing force are willing to live with the reprecussions.

Whos to say the moral authority of this question can be answered by Americans?

Re: Back to School, Time to Move Forward.

robemmons — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:59:26 -0000

Do you think its possible that many of the Americans who voted for President Obama just wanted a change away from George Bush, and not necessarily change in the form climate change legislation and government control of the health care industry? I know I've spoken to quite a few that individuals that voted for Obama that did not expect change to come in the form we're seeing now.

Re: Good Riddance, and Good Morning: The Future of the News

ariallen — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:32:53 -0000

"None of us are bias-less, but between the five of us, you'll be sure to get the full picture."

Re: Good Riddance, and Good Morning: The Future of the News

The Rationalist — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:14:04 -0000

This is interesting. Your post is a mirror of itself. It's true, as you state, on The PULSE Review we proudly proclaim our biases, and don't hesitate to reveal them to others.

Similarly, the fact that you chose The Daily Show to represent the best news hits me over the head with the fact that you enjoy pandering to a liberal cause. And that's fine! I happen to enjoy The Daily Show, and they tend to ask good questions, but if directed at a liberal, the answer is always diverted to a new question before they are completely on the spot. For example: http://www.thedailyshow.com...

Now contrast that with the Jim Cramer video. I think you'll get the picture.

The point is, this post exemplifies The PULSE Review. For those interested in getting the flip side of Ari's coin, check out the other authors! None of us are bias-less, but between the five of us, you'll be sure to get the full picture.

Re: DEFCON 17

Susan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:29:28 -0000

Excellent article. I would like to find out more about how to protect my personal information. (I'll stay away from the DEFCON Network) Are there other information sources which my computer and my less-than-stellar computer skills can manage?

Re: DEFCON 17

The Rationalist — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:06:59 -0000

I went to the DEFCOM link up there (http://www.defcon.org/html/... - officially DEFCOM is just about the coolest convention I've ever heard of.

"Is there a network at DEFCON?

Yes. It would be fair to describe the network as ‘hostile’. It has been described as ‘the worlds most hostile network’, but such descriptions are just attempts at flattery. It is recommended that if you want to connect to the DEFCON network pretend that you are sharing out your entire hard drive to 5,000 hackers. You may want to bring a ‘clean’ computer that you don't mind being infected/hacked/etc. It is considered very poor form to attempt to DoS the network; while the DEFCON staff may not do anything about such attempts it is reasonable to assume that ‘peer justice’ may be meted out. If you're unhappy about the possible risks associated with connecting to DEFCON networks there are a couple of options: refrain from computer use for a few days or connect using another network elsewhere in Vegas (another hotel or something)."

Re: Healthcare Reform Reset

TSHughes — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:55:20 -0000

Bipartisan support for healthcare reform of some kind does not mean that the Republican party will ever support the thrust of the initiative that the Obama administration has proposed; namely, expanding routine access to medical professionals and care to the poorest Americans. These Americans rarely have access until they suffer some catastrophic illness or injury. It is significantly more expensive to give avoidable trauma care to people whose conditions could have been alleviated with a couple of outpatient doctors visits, or even consultations with an RN and a prescription. And I don't think it is morally defensible to argue that society should allow the poor who become seriously ill to perish because they are uninsured; as it is, Americans today do pick up the tab for the care of the indigent, either through higher private health insurance premiums or through tax dollars. The difference would be that providing access to routine care could avert many of the traumatic injuries and conditions that are the most expensive to treat. I think the fundamental ideological divide between progressives and conservatives on the issue of public benefits is the (now smaller) elephant in the room for any "serious" discussions of healthcare reform.

I heard one commentator describe this not as "healthcare" reform but as "disease care" reform, because after all healthy people tend not to have to visit the doctor and incur lots of charges in time and equipment. Unfortunately, there isn't much of an effort at present time (that I know of) to provide meaningful preventative education and resources to people of any socioeconomic class; things like effective P.E. programs in schools, nutrition training and healthy-habit reinforcement. I'm not advocating that the government should get involved with monitoring each person's diet and exercise routine, but I do think that establishing healthy habits during one's youth is far more cost-effective than treating the health problems of adults who made poor life choices.

Your concerns about healthy Americans paying for the unhealthy choices of people who choose to smoke, eat poorly, or live sedentary lifestyles are well founded. My car insurance provider charges me significantly more as a young male than it does a 45 year old single woman with an unblemished driving record, and for good reason. I think that there ought to be some penalty for people whose lifestyle choices cause their health care expenses to outpace the average. Of course, the analogy is not perfect; if my driving record were sufficiently bad, I might not be able to find a company willing to provide insurance at any price, and I would be forced to walk or take public transit. In a system designed to provide universal coverage, such an outcome isn't possible. But how about putting smokers at the bottom of the list for lung transplants? Alcoholics last in line for liver transplants? Crucially, who should decide who is deserving of care and who is not? Would such a policy be morally defensible, especially in a system which is supposed to provide every American with healthcare access?

Re: Representative Democracy in the Mass Media Age

The Rationalist — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:17:45 -0000

I don't disagree. I only think it is cause for concern when the original purposes and safeguards in our political structure are being distorted or debased by innovations elsewhere.

What's the answer? Probably lowering term limits to 3 or 4 terms. It hopefully decreases vote-seeking behavior, and it still allows for some continuity of operations.

Re: Representative Democracy in the Mass Media Age

The Internationalist — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:20:20 -0000

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, as flawed as our system is, almost every cure would be worse than the malady.

Re: A Little Knowledge in China

The Internationalist — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:58:18 -0000

Kniall,

The articles you link are interesting, however their content is high on conspiracy and conjecture, but low on evidence. Does the NED lend some support to organizations such as the World Uyghur Congress? Perhaps. But it is highly unlikely that the US is attempting to destabilize China. In fact, a chaotic China or one focused on conflicts in far flung provinces is counter productive to US interests. Because of the deep economic ties between the two nations, if one collapses, the other almost certainly will suffer tremendously as well. The NED may be interested in greater representation for minorities in China, but it is not interested in destabilizing the US's biggest creditor.