A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wesley clark just entered the race



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 23rd, 2003, 06:58 PM
HealthNutz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"Barry Smith" wrote in message
...
....
But these 3rd word ********s aren't the most powerful country on earth.

They
Something that I'm continually grateful for. Think of what they might have
done, had they the means to do so, in: Bali, Mombassa, Jakarta, Jerusalem,
Riyadh...

don't stand for freedom and democracy around the world. They didn't do

much
So that makes it okay for them to act the way they do?

to fight Nazism/Japanese imperialism. The then decent USA did, That is why
when the USA is being run by a cabal of utter *******s, men driven by

power
You sir, have just made the transition from being a student and scholar of
history, and a citizen of the world, to utter and insouciant idiot!

....
other countries take notice. Ignoring acts that are little short of evil

for
reasons of party loyalty isn't going to make things better..

You have neatly and succinctly just described yourself and the basis for
your blind allegiance to those who would wish us harm! Thank you for taking
the time to do so...

Later all,
Dusty
--
Fighting the myopic lunacy of liberalism wherever I find it...


  #52  
Old September 24th, 2003, 12:52 AM
HealthNutz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"Lexin" wrote in message
...
"HealthNutz" wrote:
I've never heard of anyone being turned away from any emergency
room or denied medical care.


Funny, that. Both here and on livejournal I have come across several
people in the US who won't go to their doctor - if they have one - for

"Several" people? A whole several out of close to 300 million. Damn! I
guess we'll have to just become socialists in order to care for those last
two folks...

Look, you're confusing medical care and the costs associated to giving care,
with cradle to grave "anything goes" dispensing of medical services. ANY
medical care, whether self-acquired or as a "benefit" from someone else, is
a service that needs to be paid for. When an employer provides medical
benefits for his employees, he simply goes out and for some sum per month or
year purchases a medical insurance policy.

Anyone can purchase one of them, even individuals (albeit usually at a
higher premium). If it came with your job, it's not really a "benefit",
it's part of the cost of getting you to do their business--and as such it's
simply subtracted from the amount that would have been paid to you. Hardly
a subject for an economics 101 dissertation.

When "the government" does it for you, it ALWAYS includes the unfought
inefficiencies of any bureaucracy. Just like American social security. For
each $1 that goes in the top, about $0.26 is dispensed to the recipients.
That's ALWAYS how unaccountable bureaucracies work.

A private insurer fights inefficiencies, because they take from his bottom
line. A government sponsored service simply raises your taxes or reduces
your services, or most likely both! I saw that happen in the UK, and other
countries as well as here. It will ALWAYS be the result of government
meddling in what should be a private matter.

The reason hospital visits here are so expensive are manifold. But here's
one example that happens countless times each day across this land (my SIL
is an ER-tech so I get this stuff FIRST HAND). Local indigent (drunk, alky,
stoner, illegal, looser, or just plain poor pick your poison) goes to the
ER for treatment of one thing or another. Sticks his head in and finds 10's
or many dozens of folks ahead of him waiting to be seen (the load varies but
it's almost always a wait). He goes back out, walks down the block, finds a
phone, and calls 911. The typical response is fire, rescue, and EMD
(ambulance) is dispatched. 3-vehicles and about 10-20 people. He gets
picked up, taken back to that SAME ER, and gets seen IMMEDIATELY, jumping
ahead of all of the folks; mothers with kids, colds, coughs, flu, wounds,
broken bones, etc. He gets his boil lanced or finger wrapped, says he's
hungry (and they MUST feed him) has usually soiled his clothes (and the MUST
re-clothe him), and goes on his way. The county will not get one, thin,
dime from this looser who just scammed the hospital [& taxpayers] for the
service and the $5k ride (about the average cost to the county per
dispatch).

The hospital can't function w/o $$, so they pass this cost on to the rest of
the folks that use their service--and of course the guileless taxpayer. And
in our local ER, about a third of the folks they see are "can't/don't pay"
or skip-artist drifters.

There are other reasons for the high-cost of medical care; fear (of being
sued) and others. But it's the freeloaders on society that impose the high
price on all of us. And there's no amount, kind, or type of government
bureaucracy that will ever reduce that--it will only and always encourage
it. It's a socialist pipedream, and can never come out successfully unless
human nature can be modified. And the only folks recently that managed to
that was the old Soviet Union. You got the care you got, and you didn't
complain about it. And since folks couldn't complain, the complacent world
thought that this was the neatest thing for mankind since sliced bread (I
probably shouldn't use that analogy in this NG (:-)! ).

Socialized medicine does not work. I have no wish to see my medical
services go the way of yours just so every hung-over or malingering dimwit
can run down to the docs to get their "slip" to be off work for a few days.
No. Not me!

things which would have me running to my NHS GP yelping for help because
they say that they can't afford it. It's folks like that who worry me,
who have something niggling, or even quite serious but which isn't
serious enough to go to the local hospital which takes poor people, but
can't afford the doctor bills to get it sorted out.

That's why you carry medical insurance. And that's why you plan on taking
care of yourself. Instead of investing in another pack'o fags (cigarettes
for the yanks reading here), this weeks lotto ticket, a few pints at the pub
while standing at the oche and tossing a few...

As the old Arab saying goes; once the camel gets his nose in the tent, it's
his. First the stupid compassionless liberals wanted social security, then
medic-aid, and now insurance...there's never going to be an end to it.
Human nature will ALWAYS want more than they pay for. Soon it'll be shoes,
then VCR's, then satellite systems, there's no end to what folks
want...except to take care of themselves...at their own expense...

I pay for my family and my own medical insurance, why do you feel entitled
to stick your hand into *my* pocket and demand that I pay yours as well?
That's not freedom for me, that's enforced, indentured servitude.

....
You must have been very, very unlucky in your treatment over here

Perhaps, not enough exposure to know. But I do know that my British
neighbors seemed to concur with my observations.

....
I'm delighted that they've been captured and are now down there.


Even the ones who haven't done anything?

Of course. The place is filled to overflowing with innocent, peaceful,
Muslims. When they are found to be without involvement, they are released
and repatriated immediately.

Keep in mind that those folks weren't taken captive by storming and subduing
a coffee shop. They were taken captive during and after violent
fire-fights. So please don't lay the "those poor folks" argument on me too
thickly.

And I
suspect that the victims of the events of 9/11 not agree with you.

How does imprisoning innocent people get them justice?

As long as the victim are still dead, they'll see no "justice". See above
for your specious guilt assessment.

....
Yes, I noticed those countries, too. I don't see any rush on the part
of any country - yours, mine or anyone else's - to solve the problems of
the people laboring under tinpot dictators but whose countries have no

It was wrong not to interfere, so we agree. Something should have been
done. By force of arms if necessary. But who? The UN? They're a debating
society that has no army, no purpose, and no courage. By the French? The
Russians? Chinese? Or possibly the US? If we don't go in; and we're
uncaring, clueless, unfeeling assholes. If we go in; and it's to rape,
plunder, murder innocent (gun-toting) citizens, and grab all the oil &
mineral rights as we wrap up yet another imperial conquest. As the saying
goes, we can't win for losin'...

oil. Coincidence? Or does the USA's desire to intervene in other
people's countries only apply in certain circumstances?

Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with no one from those countries
having flown airliners into our cities, stridently braying how they were
going to defend their causes against "the evil ones" (anybody except
themselves), and none of them have the means to mount a meaningful attack
against us or their neighbors?
D'ya think that might have had anything to do with it?

The third-world ********s with oil, literally pump their treasury out of the
ground. The have vast wealth, that appears even greater when set against
their rather meager numbers and their stark, institutionalized poverty.
Like all tin-pot dictators the first thing they do is use that oil money to
buy weapons, and "become important!" Nobody, in that neck'o the woods
becomes really important until and unless they can tweak the nose of the
"great Satan". And if easily and often done, that begins to empower them to
think that maybe they are the equal of the "great Satan". One thing leads
to another, and you have a fracas over it.

If the US had the balls and will to do so, they'd wait for one of those
third-world wanna be's to reach out and try that. Then turn and stomp 'em
absolutely flat and back into prehistory. The lesson would only need be
done once. I'd bet the rest of 'em would find other things of occupy their
free time, as opposed to angrily posing for CNN...

Damn! Where's the time gone...gotta run...
DustyB


  #53  
Old September 24th, 2003, 08:29 AM
Lexin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

Lexin wrote:
Funny, that. Both here and on livejournal I have come across

several
people in the US who won't go to their doctor - if they have one -

for

"HealthNutz" wrote:
"Several" people? A whole several out of close to 300 million. Damn!

I
guess we'll have to just become socialists in order to care for those

last
two folks...


The fact that there is *anyone* in an advanced and wealthy country like
the US claiming that they can't afford basic medical care is worrying,
at least to my mind. And one of those was working, but at a job which
didn't include medical insurance as a benefit and which was so low paid
she couldn't afford hit herself. Not didn't want to pay, but couldn't.
I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
wouldn't.

When "the government" does it for you, it ALWAYS includes the unfought
inefficiencies of any bureaucracy.


And when the service is provided by private industry it includes the
inefficiencies of private bureaucracy. Administration of medical care
and insurance services is unavoidable and expensive, it makes little
difference whether it's private or public - except that when it's
private you get many more bureaucrats, because each private company has
to have their own. This even spreads as far as having their own company
lawyers. I do know that in the UK (for example) all legal services for
the whole of three government departments, one of them being health, is
provided by about the same number as can be employed by one very much
smaller private company. And legal services ain't cheap.

I once had the pleasure of having dinner with a top NHS executive (a
Chief Executive of a major city hospital, and a very pleasant and funny
bloke) and a selection of other executives, including ones from private
companies involved in support services. In response to questioning from
a group of students they had to admit that privatisation of hospital
services such as cleaning and catering probably hadn't saved the UK
taxpayer a single penny. And, IMO, those services in hospitals now are
worse than they were when they were publicly provided, the staff
providing them are paid less, and have poorer job security. The theory
that private companies could provide these services cheaper and better
because they had an eye to the bottom line - which was what we were
told - simply hasn't been borne out by experience. Which was what the
public service unions said at the time, only the government of the day
didn't want to listen.

Just like American social security. For
each $1 that goes in the top, about $0.26 is dispensed to the

recipients.
That's ALWAYS how unaccountable bureaucracies work.


Where do you get these figures from? I wonder because social
security - in both the US usage of the term and the different European
usage - is something I happen to know a great deal about (social
security systems and how they compare across countries was the subject
of my masters degree) and I don't recall seeing those figures before.

There are other reasons for the high-cost of medical care; fear (of

being
sued) and others. But it's the freeloaders on society that impose the

high
price on all of us.


More likely it's the multiplicity of service providers in the form of
insurers which all have separate bureaucracies in the form of
administration.

I pay for my family and my own medical insurance,


So do I, only it comes out of my wages in the form of taxes and national
insurance. Besides, how is someone very elderly supposed to pay for
medical insurance? It's fine for someone young, who's working and can
take care of themselves in the way you espouse but I wonder what you'd
think if your parents were elderly and in poor health - they have
medicaid and the like, and thus would be among those 'freeloaders' you
castigate. By the time people are elderly and in poor health and need
medical services, their insurance premiums have long gone into some
company executive's house in the country.

That's not freedom for me, that's enforced, indentured servitude.


Well, yes. But they so is working for an employer as soon as you have a
mortgage or a car loan. It's life, live with it.

I'm delighted that they've been captured and are now down there.


Even the ones who haven't done anything?

Of course.


And that, guilty or not, consulates attached to their home countries are
having difficulties gaining access to them and organising legal
representation - the plight of three of the detainees who have British
citizenship made the news the other day. As far as representation is
concerned, they're entitled to it whether guilty or not because without
that decent representation we can never know whether they're guilty or
not.

In the face of atrocity (in this case an IRA bomb which killed several
people) public hysteria and the understandable desperation of law
enforcers to have something to show for their efforts led to the
miscarriages of justice known as the "Guildford Four" and the
"Birmingham Six" - people who spent several years in prison for
something they hadn't done. In the case of the Birmingham Six, had we
had the death penalty they would have died so strong was public opinion
against them. I wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen again in my
country, and I don't want to see it happen in anyone else's.

If we don't go in; and we're
uncaring, clueless, unfeeling assholes. If we go in; and it's to

rape,
plunder, murder innocent (gun-toting) citizens, and grab all the oil &
mineral rights as we wrap up yet another imperial conquest. As the

saying
goes, we can't win for losin'...


That's the price you pay for being the most powerful country in the
world. Like a parent, you can never be right, and it's something you
have to learn to live with.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)


  #54  
Old September 24th, 2003, 09:08 AM
Barry Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race


"HealthNutz" wrote in message
...
"Barry Smith" wrote in message
...
...
But these 3rd word ********s aren't the most powerful country on earth.

They
Something that I'm continually grateful for. Think of what they might

have
done, had they the means to do so, in: Bali, Mombassa, Jakarta,

Jerusalem,
Riyadh...

Irrelevant..

don't stand for freedom and democracy around the world. They didn't do

much
So that makes it okay for them to act the way they do?

Irrelevant

to fight Nazism/Japanese imperialism. The then decent USA did, That is

why
when the USA is being run by a cabal of utter *******s, men driven by

power
You sir, have just made the transition from being a student and scholar of
history, and a citizen of the world, to utter and insouciant idiot!

Is that the best you can do?

...
other countries take notice. Ignoring acts that are little short of evil

for
reasons of party loyalty isn't going to make things better..

You have neatly and succinctly just described yourself and the basis for
your blind allegiance to those who would wish us harm! Thank you for

taking
the time to do so...


So to whom do you think I owe my "blind allegiance" then? Or does thinking
your president is an unworthy peice of scum mean that I am automatically
anti American and pro terrorist?


Later all,
Dusty
--
Fighting the myopic lunacy of liberalism wherever I find it...

More like defending the cause of authoritarianism and political *******ry
wherever it is under challenge by free thinking people.


  #55  
Old September 24th, 2003, 02:39 PM
Chet Hayes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"rosie readandpost" wrote in message ...
For example, I have no problem with a wire tap being granted that
allows the govt to intercept a suspected terrorists calls wherever
they are made, eg public phone, cell phone, internet phone, friends
phone, rather than getting a seperate warrant for every place calls
are made. Would you prefer to dance around on the head of a pin here
while more Americans die?

As for learning from history, most Americans did, on 9/11. And
compared to what this country's response and course of action could
have been, all that we have done so far, looks very reasonable and
humane.



this is a totally FEAR BASED response, and EXACTLY what the present administration is doing to the AMERICAN public.





This is simply updating wiretap laws from 75 years ago to the reality
of how communications are made today. What exactly is your problem
with this? Following your convoluted logic, if the FBI already has a
warrant for a suspects home phone, business phone, etc. and they see
him take his buddies cell phone and start talking, they should have to
go get another warrant and start all over again, instead of being
allowed to intercept that call under the original warrant. Sounds
very logical, fair and straightforward to most Americans. We would
rather catch criminals than play some liberal nonsense games, by which
suspects who aren't completely stupid, can keep moving to different
ways of communicating and accomplishing their goals, while the FBI
spins it's wheels.
  #56  
Old September 24th, 2003, 06:10 PM
HealthNutz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"Lexin" wrote in message
...
....
The fact that there is *anyone* in an advanced and wealthy country like
the US claiming that they can't afford basic medical care is worrying,

I just paged through my copy of the document that outlines the charter of
the great country that I have adopted as my own. Nowhere in it did I find a
passage entitling someone to the fruits of my labors in place of theirs.
The words go something like, "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness ...", not, "... life, liberty, and equality of outcome and things
I can't be bothered to get ...".

at least to my mind. And one of those was working, but at a job which
didn't include medical insurance as a benefit and which was so low paid
she couldn't afford hit herself. Not didn't want to pay, but couldn't.

And this is somehow my fault? I didn't get to have a say in her education
or her dedication to same, to her selection of a job/career, or where she
lives. As far as I know, it's illegal in this country to force someone into
servitude at a task, in a location, and at a reward that they won't
willingly and freely accept.

Bottom line; if you're dumb enough or ignorant enough to take a job that
won't give you the kind of life you think you're entitled to, it's your
fault, not mine! I can't afford to get a home in Hilo on the north coast
either. Does that make it your problem to fix? If you want to live like a
brain surgeon, become one. If you want to live one-step up from poverty, do
that instead... But don't make it my business to attend to your
business...I have enough to do with my own...

I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
wouldn't.

Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that this
thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from heaven; is
so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking it
weren't so ignorant.

There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray that
some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out that
corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased costs
are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always laughing at
you simple but only slightly useful idiots.

No government or business service or "benefit" is provided from the goodness
of someone's heart; it's ALWAYS taken, sometimes by force and under the
threat of eminent incarceration, from someone that didn't wish to give it.

When "the government" does it for you, it ALWAYS includes the unfought
inefficiencies of any bureaucracy.

And when the service is provided by private industry it includes the
inefficiencies of private bureaucracy. Administration of medical care

You're running about 6-sandwiches shy of a deli, my friend. Private
industry is beholding to the bottom line. They do not have the seemingly
limitless pockets of the taxpayer to pick in order to make up any
differences. They have to run and work at a profit. Otherwise they'd
become just another government function. That's why they are ALWAYS
superior to a government provided service.

That some specific service or function could be better done by the
government bureaucracy it replaces, can be debated, and sometimes may be so
(military, for instance, foreign relations, etc...). But I'd submit that
it's more a function of how poor or well that original bureaucracy worked,
and how well thought out it's replacement was. Replacing our DMV with
drones as equally uninspired as the present crop, working in the same
environment, and passing out the same bumbling, red-tape, bound processes,
isn't likely to be improved by privatization. OTOH; most any bank issuing
credit cards could take over that job at a tiny fraction of the cost of our
non-functional DMV monstrosity.

ANYTIME you have a non-accountable agency doing anything, it will ALWAYS be
done with less quality and care--and at greater cost!

and insurance services is unavoidable and expensive, it makes little
difference whether it's private or public - except that when it's
private you get many more bureaucrats, because each private company has
to have their own. This even spreads as far as having their own company

See the bit about companies and their bottom line above...

lawyers. I do know that in the UK (for example) all legal services for
the whole of three government departments, one of them being health, is
provided by about the same number as can be employed by one very much
smaller private company. And legal services ain't cheap.

I can't speak to the veracity of your statement. But in the absence of
facts to the contrary, I'll accept your view on this for the moment. That
having been said, I don't see how this in any way undermines my response to
you? You've just admitted that a government bureaucracy can't do it as
well---but then again, I already knew that! It was you that didn't....

....
Just like American social security. For
each $1 that goes in the top, about $0.26 is dispensed to the

recipients.
That's ALWAYS how unaccountable bureaucracies work.


Where do you get these figures from? I wonder because social

It's easy, actually. I did this exercise some years ago, but given
bureaucratic inertia, I suspect there's little positive change. You simply
take the number of dollars put into SS each year, and subtract the number of
dollars dispensed for services to those intended for that service. The
difference is the "shrinkage" that occurs internally to support all of the
government guaranteed life-time union jobs that become part of the load on
the taxpayer.

security - in both the US usage of the term and the different European
usage - is something I happen to know a great deal about (social
security systems and how they compare across countries was the subject
of my masters degree) and I don't recall seeing those figures before.

I would submit that perhaps you seek a refund. As it seems that you weren't
taught all that much considering the time, effort and money it took to do
that. Wait! Was this "education" paid for by the taxpayers by any chance?

....
More likely it's the multiplicity of service providers in the form of
insurers which all have separate bureaucracies in the form of
administration.

Absurd on the face of it! So they each have their bureaucracy, so does any
government agency. You don't understand the real concept of redundancy
until you get into the government paper mill They still have to do it to
the bottom line, the government simply dips into my pocket when their
management gets too stupid to run things...

....
So do I, only it comes out of my wages in the form of taxes and national
insurance. Besides, how is someone very elderly supposed to pay for

Which effectively leaves one without a choice. Keep in mind as well, that
no place in England is more than 100 miles from the sea. Drive from
sea-to-shining-sea in your country, and you'll cover a plethora of towns,
villages, cities, and such. There are folks living here where a trip into
town or to see the doctor, can be several hundred miles...ONE way! With
nothing but sage brush or forests to break up the view. Having your
"designated" facility located several hundred miles away would not be a good
choice, when I want to see "my doctor" and not "your doctor"...

medical insurance? It's fine for someone young, who's working and can
take care of themselves in the way you espouse but I wonder what you'd
think if your parents were elderly and in poor health - they have

So, you're saying that "old age", a heretofore unknown outcome of living
one's life, simply snuck up on and took over their lives? Is that about
right? Whatever happened to their responsibility for taking care of
themselves? If they simply wandered blindly into old age, unprepared, why
is it *my* problem to fix their lack of thinking and planning? Or is it
that a lifetime of paying the burdens of others ignorance, poor planning, or
desire to live in a welfare state, cost them so much that there was nothing
left over for themselves?

medicaid and the like, and thus would be among those 'freeloaders' you
castigate. By the time people are elderly and in poor health and need
medical services, their insurance premiums have long gone into some
company executive's house in the country.

Or into some government bureaucrats retirement benefits. Either way, it's
gone.

For me, I'd rather take care of me, myself. I don't want you or anyone else
to have a hand in guiding my investment decisions of what was taken by force
from me. As it is, my government left me an IOU with which to fund my
retirement, and my children and grandchildren; the bill... Socialism at
it's finest!

That's not freedom for me, that's enforced, indentured servitude.


Well, yes. But they so is working for an employer as soon as you have a
mortgage or a car loan. It's life, live with it.

No, that's an existence. I don't have to have a mortgage or car. I can
think and plan intelligently when I use my own money. I've not seen a
government program that cares more about me and mine than I do.

....
And that, guilty or not, consulates attached to their home countries are
having difficulties gaining access to them and organising legal

Good! If they were so concerned about contact and access to them, they
should have dressed them in uniforms and given them dog-tags and military ID
cards. Then the Red Cross would have been first in line to see them, and
they'd be accorded all of the rights of prisoners of war. Certainly better
than the rights of American and British POW's at the hands of Saddam.

Tell me, did Saddam's minions treat your uniformed and identified POW's in
the manner you're demanding that we treat these unidentified, skulking
vermin? Did the Iranians during Carter's hostage crisis? Did the Somalis?

representation - the plight of three of the detainees who have British
citizenship made the news the other day. As far as representation is

You should feel shame that they publicly identified themselves with your
otherwise great country. Instead you feel outrage that we don't canonize
them for their religion fueled idiocy.

concerned, they're entitled to it whether guilty or not because without
that decent representation we can never know whether they're guilty or
not.

They were combatants. Unmarked (no uniforms or ID's) combatants. They have
no rights; anywhere; in any legal system. If it were up to me, they
wouldn't even get food or water. As long as they're locked up, they're not
killing yanks, brits, auzzies, each other, or flying airplanes into
buildings...

In the face of atrocity (in this case an IRA bomb which killed several
people) public hysteria and the understandable desperation of law
enforcers to have something to show for their efforts led to the
miscarriages of justice known as the "Guildford Four" and the
"Birmingham Six" - people who spent several years in prison for
something they hadn't done. In the case of the Birmingham Six, had we
had the death penalty they would have died so strong was public opinion
against them. I wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen again in my
country, and I don't want to see it happen in anyone else's.

So you're saying that because your law enforcement functions were so inept,
that ours must be as well, and that we should follow your lead? You
couldn't figure out if these guys were innocent or guilty, but you're
certain that we've captured only the innocent ones? Did I get that just
about right?

....
That's the price you pay for being the most powerful country in the
world. Like a parent, you can never be right, and it's something you
have to learn to live with.

And that's why we going to do our way. If you don't like it, you're welcome
to jump in and take a leadership roll. Any time you like. Cuz frankly, I'm
getting tired of us doing all the work, taking all the risks, paying all the
costs, just so the worlds free-loaders can bitch and moan about how we
didn't do enough for them...or that it's all about oil...


Later my misguided socialist friend,
DustyB


  #57  
Old September 25th, 2003, 10:04 AM
Barry Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race


"HealthNutz" wrote in message
I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
wouldn't.

Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that this
thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from heaven;

is
so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking it
weren't so ignorant.

There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray that
some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out

that
corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased costs
are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always laughing

at
you simple but only slightly useful idiots.


Personally, I am willing to pay higher prices if I know the producer was
bound by a higher code of ethics. Just as I am happy to pax taxes if I know
it is being used to improve society: public schools and hospitals and people
who need looking after getting what they need.


  #58  
Old September 25th, 2003, 09:15 PM
Chet Hayes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

"Barry Smith" wrote in message ...
"HealthNutz" wrote in message
I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
wouldn't.

Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that this
thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from heaven;

is
so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking it
weren't so ignorant.

There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray that
some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out

that
corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased costs
are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always laughing

at
you simple but only slightly useful idiots.


Personally, I am willing to pay higher prices if I know the producer was
bound by a higher code of ethics. Just as I am happy to pax taxes if I know
it is being used to improve society: public schools and hospitals and people
who need looking after getting what they need.



You're just the kind of person all the politicians like. Happy to
send them more money so they can try to fix all the worlds problems
with more spending.

Me, I say send them not a nickel more and let them learn how to live
with what they already get, like the rest of us. I don't know about
you, but I can't go to an employer and say, gee, you know, it would be
really worth it to put a new roof on my house, so give me a raise.
  #59  
Old September 26th, 2003, 11:05 AM
Barry Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race


"Chet Hayes" wrote in message
m...
"Barry Smith" wrote in message

...
"HealthNutz" wrote in message
I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers

should
pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
wouldn't.
Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that

this
thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from

heaven;
is
so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking

it
weren't so ignorant.

There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray

that
some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out

that
corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased

costs
are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always

laughing
at
you simple but only slightly useful idiots.


Personally, I am willing to pay higher prices if I know the producer was
bound by a higher code of ethics. Just as I am happy to pax taxes if I

know
it is being used to improve society: public schools and hospitals and

people
who need looking after getting what they need.



You're just the kind of person all the politicians like. Happy to
send them more money so they can try to fix all the worlds problems
with more spending.

Me, I say send them not a nickel more and let them learn how to live
with what they already get, like the rest of us. I don't know about
you, but I can't go to an employer and say, gee, you know, it would be
really worth it to put a new roof on my house, so give me a raise.

I agree so some extent. Just depends how willing you are to put up with
impoverished areas where crime is the main commercial activity. People will
always fall through the cracks and that helps no one.. At least if people
have enough to survive on, it keeps money circulating through the economy
and keeps local business going even during recessions.. You won't be
surprised to learn that I don't believe in the trickledown theory..


  #60  
Old September 27th, 2003, 05:21 AM
Gary Rimar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wesley clark just entered the race

you don't get it do you? The structure of the UN is about democracy and
participation of the nations of the world in making decisions that
affect everybody.


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep getting up in the morning deciding who
is going to be for breakfast.

The UN is a lopsided organization that is anti-US, and while not totally
worthless, in some respects they are even worse than worthless.

Of course, as a Jew, I'm biased. When terroists go out with the expressed
intent and kill a dozen women and children in Israel, that is considered
"regrettable." When Israel retaliates and kills a terrorist that
masterminded the deaths of hundreds of Israelis, and in the process kills a
dozen women and children which the terrorist has surrounded himself, that is
a "war crime." The Palestinians say that terror is the only way they can
fight against the Jews because they don't have the ability to conduct a war.
Well then, how come the UN is sitting on (and ignoring) a petition to make
homicide bombing a war crime? How come when the Arab nations conduct a war
and acquire land from Israel they are allowed to keep it, but if during a
defensive action against Arab aggression Israelis get back some of that land
they are expected to give it back?

You might think I'm anti-Arab as well as anti-UN. I don't have a problem
with peaceful people, and if peaceful I couldn't care less what genetic
material went into making the person. I have a problem with terrorists, and
I don't care what religion or region they call their own. I'm just getting
sick and tired of some of the garbage that is going on in the world now, and
when Colin Powell equates terrorist homocide bombings with defensive
actions, I get ****ed. When Presidential candidates think that we have to
equate terrorist attacks with defensive actions so we can be "an honest
broker," I get very ****ed.

My apologies to the group for my rant, but I just had to get that off my
chest.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What to eat before a 5k RACE? Phil M. General Discussion 4 April 26th, 2004 03:12 AM
Training for the race? estella General Discussion 23 April 19th, 2004 01:26 AM
race report 3-6-04 JMA General Discussion 20 March 9th, 2004 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.