A Forum For All Things CPAP
https://www.cpaptalk.com/
Joe50 wrote: I can see where a lot of people are going to need a hook implanted in their back so they can be hung from it at night.
I would probably get sued because someone in an 80's slasher movie already had the idea. It seems most of the the people that went up to those mysterious camps by the lake during the 80's ended up on a hook. Of course Jamie lee Curtis didn't end up on a hook but she did show her boobies which were natural. I guess they figured since she was natural a hook in the back was not needed. Who knows maybe the makers of Slasher movies were ahead of the curve when it came to dealing with sleep apnea by hanging the person from a hook.roster wrote:Joe50 wrote: I can see where a lot of people are going to need a hook implanted in their back so they can be hung from it at night.
Joe50, You might want to go ahead and patent that one.
'Pirates Of The Caribbean 4' Bans Breast Implants
Talk about being busted.
Moviehole reports that Disney has sent out a casting call looking for beautiful models for its upcoming blockbuster "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides."
Those with breast implants need not apply.
The breakdown read :
Beautiful Female Fit Models. Must be 5'7-5'8, Size 4 or 6 - NO BIGGER OR SMALLER. Age 18-25. Must have a lean dancer body. MUST have real breasts. Do not submit if you have implants. This is a show and tell of costumes with the director and the producers. Plan on an entire day of trying on clothes and being photographed.
Article: http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/disne ... es-4-15516
That's not a good idea either, you wouldn't want to enlarge a already defective part. JimDreamStalker wrote:People that think they need any kind of implants need to start off with a brain implant.
Nope. The SEC did not do its job and was watching pornography and the central government was creating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and putting pressure on lenders to give mortgages to people who had little-to-no evidence of ability to repay them. Democrats and Republicans have their very cozy relationships with Goldman Sachs and most of the rest of Wall Street and now they add health insurance companies in a big way. If you think these businesses are being regulated to prevent abuses, you need to have another think.Arizona-Willie wrote: Rooooster
"Any time I am told not to worry because the government will regulate something and we will be saved from the problems of reckless, anarchic free markets, I cringe about the naivete of those who believe such things."
================
Anytime someone tells me removing regulations from business will make things better I know they are either a scoundrel, or incredibly wellll let's charitably say " misinformed ".
In our own recent history we have seen the results of removing regulation from business. This approach gave us the financial meltdown and payday loan stores that charge 400% interest.
Business is good. Unregulated business is very very bad.
roster wrote:Nope. The SEC did not do its job and was watching pornography and the central government was creating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and putting pressure on lenders to give mortgages to people who had little-to-no evidence of ability to repay them. Democrats and Republicans have their very cozy relationships with Goldman Sachs and most of the rest of Wall Street and now they add health insurance companies in a big way. If you think these businesses are being regulated to prevent abuses, you need to have another think.Arizona-Willie wrote: Rooooster
"Any time I am told not to worry because the government will regulate something and we will be saved from the problems of reckless, anarchic free markets, I cringe about the naivete of those who believe such things."
================
Anytime someone tells me removing regulations from business will make things better I know they are either a scoundrel, or incredibly wellll let's charitably say " misinformed ".
In our own recent history we have seen the results of removing regulation from business. This approach gave us the financial meltdown and payday loan stores that charge 400% interest.
Business is good. Unregulated business is very very bad.
The problem with these businesses is that their industries are regulated and the big ones are propped up by our central government. Without a very real fear of failure, a free market doesn't work. Obama has said he wants to take the possibility of failure out of the equation. It is basic economics that a dysfunctional market will get far worse if the participants have no fear of failure.
Our central government is doing many things that they should not be involved in and that are unconstitutional.
Most payday lenders are legitimate businesses that provide a legitimate service. Many of their clients are poor people who would be worse off if the lenders were regulated out of business.
You said 400%, I will give you an example using 16,500% effective annual rate (515% simple annual rate). That sounds horrible to you I am sure. Going on with the example, let us say you are a poor person living payday to payday and you are in desperate need for $100 to keep the water or power from being turned off or to repair the car so you can continue to get to work or to pay a fine to keep yourself out of jail. Further let us say you are flat broke and ten days away from the next paycheck. You go to the payday lender get $100 and sign a contract stating you will repay the lender $115 in ten days. That is 16,500% effective annual rate!!!!
So what do you think the poor dude is thinking when he walks out? I will tell you what he is thinking, “Thank God, I have $100 and will have heat in the house tonight and it only cost me $15 out of my next paycheck.”
So you want to stop that voluntary transaction between two parties? You want the dude and his wife and kids to sleep in a cold, dark house for the next ten days?
I think the dude is a hero and the guy who made the loan is an even bigger hero. Loaning $100 like that is very risky and the reward ($15) is very small compared to the risk. These lenders are very hard working individuals.
Leave the payday lenders alone.
I can deal with any supplier in a free market. What I can’t deal with is a supplier in a heavily-regulated market who has the mighty power of government regulators backing him up. The citizen comes out on the losing end of that every time.
DreamStalker wrote:
That is a load of crap! All the poor guy does is postpone the cold night for his family til next month and the loan shark is $15 richer for it and the poor dude $15 poorer.
roster wrote:DreamStalker wrote:
That is a load of crap! All the poor guy does is postpone the cold night for his family til next month and the loan shark is $15 richer for it and the poor dude $15 poorer.
All you can say is "crap". Your brand of socialism does not hold up to hard numbers and logic.
That dude wants his heat and power for the next ten days and is happy to pay the $15.
The problem with socialism that is so often overlooked is that it hurts the lives of poor people the most.
Willle sees 400% and has a gut reaction that it is bad. Just do the numbers before you go vote and do damage to people through your votes.
Spinner, I'm all for trading free favors with 'ya ... can I come spend my summer vacation with you?BlackSpinner wrote:How does big breast lead to a free trade capitalism fight?
You are all not paying enough attention to the nipple bounce. Follow the bouncing nipple boys!
It's hard to focus on nipple bouncing, when the government and business have their hands in your pocket fishing for change.BlackSpinner wrote:How does big breast lead to a free trade capitalism fight?
You are all not paying enough attention to the nipple bounce. Follow the bouncing nipple boys!
