merkin

Hey we got lucky, Just a dusting of snow. Looks like south of us got hit pretty hard though. Still having the lows in the negatives and highs in the teens for the next few days. I think we have had 6 to 12 inches of snow cover since about the beginning of December.

CS I agree with RichardP on almost all of it. I thought there was a pretty big difference between the academy and a forte II for center. I do understand space limitations though, I had none and you already have the academy. I made some risers for my surround forte's to bring the mid range up so that it is centered with the top of my sofa. That way I don't have to set up straight and proper to get the whole surround effect while I watch movies. On the movies like "Master and Commander" the surrounds definitely make a difference for the acoustic space. You can hear the cannon balls whizzing over you and debris landing behind you. The wind through the ropes and sails. You may lose some base by elevating the forte but I think that it is made up by the subwoofer. I'm using a Sunfire 400x7 for mine so I set the crossover at 60hz. The forte II's can go pretty deep and if you have enough power to push them they can really preform. I feel they are one of the best full range speakers that you can use because their ability to go low with crisp clear highs.

Macho, You are what keeps this economy going and this country great!

ditto on what dtel said

I see youthman, I didn't know what the size of that center was. I could just as well use 3 academys as that. I already have 2.

I have my forte II system in the basement with the projector. Up stairs for daily news watching and ect I have a quintet II system with a Denon 3805. I was thinking about upgrading the upstairs system and the first thing the wife said was " I don't want any big speakers. I thought that maybe I could replace the quintets with some reference and she would notice the size difference to much. The fronts will have to be book shelfs, there is no room for floor standers. I don't watch many movies up stairs but I would like a better sound stage especially for FM radio and a few CD's. What I was first looking at was some used RB-5's with a RC 3 center. I did notice a while back that Boomac had one for sale. In the new reference series what is comparable. RB61's or 81's with a RC 64. I don't know how the reference series run. I'm not too worried about surrounds because I think about any reference would be good enough, or am I mistaken. I will probably go with used. Will I be happy with the reference sound. Will the reference be a big enough difference for the buck? Thanks in advance for any input

Sorry to hear that. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

I want to watch Saw for Hire. Probably not as good as "Have Gun Will Travel".

Hey Mark, if I may call you that, When you gave the long list about civilians to Jeff you forgot to include one number. Out of the 40M uninsured how amy are illegal aliens? Out of the 40M don't want insurance? How many left Cuba for health care? I can answer that at least one named Fidel. How can you keep a straight face and say that our unisured get worse healthcare than the people of Cuba? Why does the Clevland clinic have a large patient population from Canada(I have a friend who is a hospital administratior there) that come and pay cash for procedures? What is the ratio of people leaving the US to go to countries with socilized medicine for healthcare compared to people coming to the US for healthcare from countries with socilize medicine.

HIfi I did like the jools holland show also. I use to get it on cable but I haven't found it yet since I switched to sat. TV. My favorite and about the only one I fathfully watch is "24" Fast action and great to watch while on the treadmill.

Hifi, I don't think Rush TV has been on for years unless it is reruns.

At the end of Whoa this economy stinks thread mdeneen and Hifi started talking about dumb TV. I thought maybe we could get a few more votes on this. I'll give you news, news channels and network news as givens. My vote is for reality TV which has no reality. Maybe biggest loser. I'm note sure if the title is to describe the program or the viewers.

I use 5 forte II's and two quartets. They sound great together. Since you don't want to go 3 forte II's across the front my second choice would be for a quartet for a center. I tried the academy but the forte II blew it away. I'm sure the quartet would beat the academy also. For surrounds and/or rears go with forte II's or quartets if possible. I'm sure you could slip a forte I in and not notice much difference. There is not nearly as much information coming out of surrounds and rears and if you have to go with a different series us them there, you will not notice the timbre mismatch as much.

Bisamuel You take pictures of your food at restaraunts? I'm going to have to google that to fine the name of that fetish. You could have taken a picture of your waitress if she was cute. Has fini changed his avatar yet? PS> I like Gino's east also. Also I think there is a place called Uno's in Chicago land which has pretty good pizza.

Does Klipsch make a Rapala series? I used some Polk audio marine speakers on my runabout that sound pretty good. I beleive the front ones are called mammo's or something. they are a 6 /12 inch with a tweeter that is movable in the middle so that you can aim it dorectly toward the listening area. They preform well. My rears are polk 9x7's three ways which also sound great. The greatest improvement of the sound system was adding a 4 way amp. Mine is a JBL marine grade. The amp gave it much more clarity at higher volumes and a better bass response. I would guess that your boat has a duel battery set up? Mine didn't so I added it after the amp so that I didn't run down my battery and get stuck drifting down river. Now go lunker hunting.

From My post on page 7 of this thread. And yes the police, fire, utilities and public education are paid for on a socialistic method to a degree. Fire and police I have no problem with since it is local and we have more control. Education is another whole bucket of worms. I did not say that all socialistic ideals are bad, they are a better way for certain goods and services, I just don't beleive that they are our answer to all problems either. mdeneen wrote the following post at Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:25 PM: Why should "disease and sickness defense" be any different than "defense against bullets?" I pointed out this same ideas with Police and Fire services. You know, back in 1900 in San Francisco, you DID have to hire your own private fire protection. Those schemes proved unworkable and more importantly, unpopular. When referring to the government, it isn't "them" some alien entity, it is US. We are simply deciding what we want US to do for US. Private armies running all over are probably a bad idea, so we unified it. Private insurance companies for healthcare also seem to be a bad idea, so we are going to unify that too. I would not dream of standing out in front of my fire, or police department and saying, "Man, you SOCIALISTS have no clue how wrong you are!"Is General Patreas a socialist too? So Mdeneen if you would reread my post which I quoted above it would answer your rant. I believe there are certain goods and services that are better handled and managed by a central government, some by a local government and some by the individual. As my central argument was that expansion of medicaire is an increase of control of all healthcare by the central government which I think is a mistake. I believe it is a mistake for numerous reasons some of which I gave examples. I have not stated anything about stopping all central government control of all programs. In a earlier post you said something about radio talk show kiddie bantor when you can't make a good argument on the subject. Would your above section that I quoted be an example of that? I have never called anyone a socialist, but I would not be upset if you called me a capitalist.

mdeneen-dkp In reality corporations don't pay any taxes, all of the taxes are passed through to the consumer. Taxes are an expense item. When you calculate the cost to provide goods or services the taxes are an expense added in. So the corporation calculates the price point at which it can make a profit which is higher due to the expense of taxes. If the consumer will not pay the higher price for the goods or services the corporation can not make a profit and will go out of buisness. So by having corporate taxes is just another means by which the government can get their hand in the individual consumers pocket. Corporate taxes also put US manufacturing at a disadvantage to manufacturing outside the US borders. So to be a good buisness man I move my manufacturing out of this country/state to decrease expenses and provide the same goods and services at a lower price point. So by having high corporate taxes you discourage the expansion of buisnesses jobs and economy. It doesn't matter how what or why you tax anything in this country it eventually filters down to the individual paying it.

mdeneen wrote the following post at Sat, Jan 24 2009 10:35 AM Since you repeated the "it's socialism" claim still again as your central argument, I am going to move on. No, my central argument was that medicare expansion wasn't the answer. I gave specific experiences that backed up my argument. I just happened to use socialism as a discription of the medicare program which is true. He who pays me employs me indirectly and controls when, where and how I provide services. Medicare already has a large controlling factor over healthcare in this country. Expansion of it is just an expansion of a socialistic program. I don't care if you call it socialism or Fred it is still a bad idea to give government a larger control of the purse strings for medical reimbursements. (or almost any other goods or services) The more government takes over the more it squeezes out private enterprises. All of this is done under the pretense of a greater good for all. Well there can be a big argument on whether there is actually a greater good for all. (reference my statement about pharmacies closing in southern Ill. The people in those small towns are not receiving a greater or better pharmacy care) My reference about failing was the failing of socialism as in USSR, and eastern Europe not medicare. Even though medicare is failing in funding which no politician will touch. Also several of my examples show how medicare is failing in providing a resonable standard of healthcare for it's recipients. But lets not look at its failings, lets just say everything is good and great, take more of everyones tax dollars to waste on bureaucrat BS and expanded it. The only people that gain in this scenario are politicians that can get re-elected by saying they are compassionate and the people who receive government jobs for the expansion of the administration of the program.

Picky, How's your back holding up? After puting down all that brick and retaining walls you probably needed back surgery.

mdeneen wrote the following post at Sat, Jan 24 2009 1:30 AM: I completely dig policy arguments when they are about the material ideas in play. If someone can show a superior means of delivering healthcare to 300M people, I'd love to hear about it. But simply invoking childish and totally bogus emotional tags like "communism" and "socialism" to an idea because you think it has magical emotional power is just nonsensical TalkRadio kiddie banter, and I am sure people on here are way better than that. I can't show you a superior means of delivering healthcare to 300 M over what we have, I just showed you that an expansion of medicare may not be superior. What is childish and totally bogus emotional about describing something as a socialistic program that is by definition a socialistic program. If it was a capitalistic program I would have no problem calling it a capitalistic program. I am not the one that came up with the meanings of words. I haven't used the radio or kiddie banter. I don't think that using any decriptive words have magical emotional power do you? I feel that reply to what you think I mean ( and can have no idea) is arrogant and condescending. Is not the healthcare of Denmark, Finland and Britain considered socialized medicine. I have heard that term used in discussions on capital hill. So our representatives must all be using kiddie bantor, which they may be at some times. So sometimes kidie's say the truth and the truth hurts. You are the one that said socialism is a nasty sounding name. Why do think it is nasty sounding? Could it be because so many people have seen it tried and failed in so many places. And yes the police, fire, utilities and public education are paid for on a socialistic method to a degree. Fire and police I have no problem with since it is local and we have more control. Education is another whole bucket of worms. I did not say that all socialistic ideals are bad, they are a better way for certain goods and services, I just don't beleive that they are our answer to all problems either. Webster's Socialism 1. Any of various enconomic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

I watched it on New Year's eve. There was a television special that included a back flip with a truck.

mdeneen wrote the following post at Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:46 PM: I remember (because I am old) how the AMA campaigned against MediCare in the 1960s. It was "communism" it was "socialized medicine" and it was going to WRECK the medical profession. They spent tons and tons of money on all that propaganda and advertising. Nothing of the sort happened at all. Doctors love Medicare because in many cases it pays better than insurance contracts. People who have Medicare love it, because the alternative is to A) die; go broke paying doctors. I have several doctor friends. You know who they HATE? HMOs! That's right - they hate the "private enterprise" HMOs that are jamming these guys with horrible contracts. Patients love medicare? Not the patients that I have had to deal with that medicare refused coverage or made them stay as in-patients instead of pay for home IV therapy which would be cheaper anyway. Medicare refused payment for multitudes of therapys so patients don't receive the therapys do to complicated bureaucrat BS from medicare. Not my patients that medicare part D doesn't cover certain meds. Not the patients that wanted to stay at home and die and only needed fluids for hydration for comfort that medicare would not cover on a out patient basis. Doctors love medicare? Ask almost any doctors office manager about the hoops that they have to go through for medicare billing. My wife's office has to spend a lot of money for training for her employees every year just to keep up on all of the red tape caused by medicare regulations. Most of the ***'s payment schedules are based off medicare payment guide lines. The physicians I know, including the one I'm married to, believe medicare is a pain in the A** along with the ***'s. Pharmacies love medicare? Our pharmacy has to go through a ton of checking and data gathering above and beyond the normal for good pharmacy practice just to have data available for a medicare audit. All of this cost money and time from providing good pharmaceutical care. If you think government can provide universal healthcare for the greater good of all you are sadly mistaken. My children have each lived a year in a socialized medicine country. Finland and Denmark. In each country there is a gray market for healthcare. The citizens could go to the "free" health clinic which they pay enormous taxes. Both of my children had incidences in there host families where the families went to the gray market and paid cash instead. They could have received the care in the government clinic but would have to wait a unappropriate amount of time or the care needed was not provided. So the rich or more well off receive better care than the masses and the masses still receive inferior or inadequate care. The only thing that changes is that the government has a stake in the decision and controls their lives. In Illinios down state pharmacies are closing since the state government will not pay their medicaid bills. The pharmacies can not operate with payment 6 to9 months late. That is a government payment system. So how does that help the greater good of all the patients in that town that are not on medicaid that are paying taxes to support it. Now they don't have a pharmacy to go to. Vets are happy with VA hospital care? My father went through the VA system for his bowel resection and following therapy. The care was substandard and very limited. My brother -in law was going through the VA system until he finally got fed up and went to private system. A back surgery which he needed was preformed and he is back to work now. In the VA system he was told he would have to wait for 6 months for evaluation to see if he was a canidate for the surgery. Check out the VA hospital formulary for drugs. Yes they have a large selection but not standard for non VA hospitals. I did a rotation through the VA system in my training. The medicine praticed there is all governed by what there regulations provide. So the care was regulated by a bunch of bureaucrats. When there is a single payor they will be able to dictate who, when, where, why and for what they will pay. It will also dictate the standard of care and who will be able to provide it by choice of who they will pay. What is the difference if the doctors are employed by the state or just paid by the state. Either way the state still controls them. Medicare is socialized medicine. What else could it be. It is a social program provided by the government that the people have to pay for whether they want it or not.

Back to the original topic on this thread, the economy This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that can be explained using the Q and A format: "Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment? " A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers. "Q. Where will the government get this money? " A. From taxpayers. "Q. So the government is giving me back my own money? " A. Only a smidgen. "Q. What is the purpose of this payment? " A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy. "Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China? " A. Shut up. Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely: If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China. If you spend it on gasoline, it will go to the Arabs. If you purchase a computer, it will go to India. If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic). If you buy a car, it will go to Japan. If you purchase useless crap, it will go to Taiwan. And none of it will help the American economy. We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.

mdeneen wrote the following post at Thu, Jan 22 2009 11:10 PM: You can be free, or you can be secure. You can't be both. I know that may not seem obvious at first, but to be ultimately secure, you have to give up being ultimately free. This is what is meant when it is said that it takes great courage to live in freedom. In this world today, there are precious few people who have the courage to live free. Here is the U.S., we lost that courage. We've allowed ourselves to be infantilized through the clever manipulation of fear. I would say that 9-11 ought to have been a useful lesson about the futility of excessive defense spending to buy security. From WWII to 2001 we spent about $3 Trillion dollars on national defense. Those defenses were rendered utterly impotent against 20 young guys and $20 dollars worth of box cutters. Not many people understand that lesson in false security. I can only be free if I am secure as secure can be. Secure from the control and manipulation of government. Isn't that what our fore fathers fought for? Didn't they fight ( not just live with courage) against England. They fought with militias, they didn't just decide to give all there weath to a socialist program and say they are living free. Yes, no matter how much you spend on security there is always a risk that it may be breached, that doesn't mean that what you spent was futile. It stopped numbers of threats. If a bank robber holds up a bank with a 20 dollar pistol was the bank wrong for buying a vault to store the money. Just because security is breached does not mean that all security is false. All security is not total or absolute there is always a risk, that is why the price is so high. Isn't that what Live free or Die means. Paying for your freedom with life by defending and protecting freedom is what our military does. "I'd happily slash the defense budget by 60%, eliminate the NSA completely, repeal the Patriot Act, end the GWOT, and restore the Bill of Rights 100%. Yes, there would be more risk to life. But, it would be offset by real freedom and democracy once again. As the motto IN New Hampshire goes, "Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils." As you say, it's just a POV. " So death is not the worst of evils, but having your tax dollars spent on our defense department is? I feel death is pretty bad, I don't know if I would call it evil it is natural. I don't mind paying for our defense so that more of the people that are trying to do us harm die, I don't think that that is evil.

mdeneen wrote the following post at Thu, Jan 22 2009 6:43 PM: I'm just suggesting that defense related spending is growing faster than entitlements. By referencing the idea that it is already larger than the next 10 countries combined, I am also suggesting it is completely and entirely "out of control" and strategically ludicrous in size. i.e. more problematic than Social Security or Medicare, which actually provide some human benefit Well I guess that that is your POV. I feel that that defense spending is not ludicrous and does provide some human benifit. At least to this human by keeping him safe and free. I could say that it may need to be more than twice the next ten countries I don't know. I just want it to be large enough to protect me and my family. But as you can see by other sources that the defense spending is not the only thing, or not even the largest expenditure in the federal budget. These latest bail outs have cost us more than any war. The proposed package now in congress is more than any war. By the act of deficit spending these packages may comprimise our security and way of life more than any military action.