Guest Steve Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:27:50 -0500, none@isp.com (Dersu Uzala) wrote: >In article <n1fq93hss41am32qqrvocqseukeedgaplo@4ax.com>, >stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net says... >> >>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:25 -0500, booker >><invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:48:57 -0400, Steve wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:26:44 -0500, booker <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:12:35 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:57:12 GMT, "Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:c6sn93dks4fdbn3thiv5mrkmhu9qmhe275@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>>>>>>>>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to >>>>>>>> increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security >>>>>>> >>>>>>>we just want them to pay their share, the same percentage of their >>>>>>>income that everyone else pays, >>>>>> >>>>>> ahhh, the same percentage, huh? why should one person "contribute" >>>>>> more to the social security system as somebody else when both are going >>>>>> to get the same benefit? >>>>> >>>>>Because others provided the cheap labor and paid the corporate welfare >>>>>that allowed them to make all that money in the first place? >>>> >>>> you have it upside down, of course... if t wasn't for the people >>>> investing their capital, the worker would be trying to live off the >>>> vegetables he grows in his garden >>> >>>No, you're trying to give credit to only one half the the equation. >>>Business couldn't exist without workers OR investment, yet you only want >>>to credit the investors while ignoring the workers' contributions. >> >>So I guess you recognize that both entities have the role to fill and >>neither are responsible for where the other's situation.... So now >>that we have that settled, I ask again, why should one person >>"contribute" more to the social security system as somebody else when >>both are going to get the same benefit? >> >>>>>> I suppose you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their income >>>>>> for everything they buy... It's like I said, all of you lowlife, >>>>>> welfare dregs want other people to support your irresponsible >>>>>> actions.... >>>>> >>>>>Why not? The selfish greedy conservatives have no problem making other >>>>>people pay for their wars. >>>>> >>>> Well, we know that you don't even pay enough taxes to cover the government >>>> services you receive... >>> >>>You don't have the slightest idea what I pay the IRS or what government >>>services I receive. >> >>Easy to figure it out... only low life dregs wallow around in the >>class envy slop hole where you are... > >The two richest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, disagree: > <LOL> who cares????? Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:39kq93h2ab3lef39l3sjbtiebqf26dcts7@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:27:50 -0500, none@isp.com (Dersu Uzala) wrote: > >>In article <n1fq93hss41am32qqrvocqseukeedgaplo@4ax.com>, >>stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net says... >>> >>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:25 -0500, booker >>><invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:48:57 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:26:44 -0500, booker >>>>> <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:12:35 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:57:12 GMT, "Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:c6sn93dks4fdbn3thiv5mrkmhu9qmhe275@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>>>>>>>>>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to >>>>>>>>> increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>we just want them to pay their share, the same percentage of their >>>>>>>>income that everyone else pays, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ahhh, the same percentage, huh? why should one person "contribute" >>>>>>> more to the social security system as somebody else when both are >>>>>>> going >>>>>>> to get the same benefit? >>>>>> >>>>>>Because others provided the cheap labor and paid the corporate welfare >>>>>>that allowed them to make all that money in the first place? >>>>> >>>>> you have it upside down, of course... if t wasn't for the people >>>>> investing their capital, the worker would be trying to live off the >>>>> vegetables he grows in his garden >>>> >>>>No, you're trying to give credit to only one half the the equation. >>>>Business couldn't exist without workers OR investment, yet you only want >>>>to credit the investors while ignoring the workers' contributions. >>> >>>So I guess you recognize that both entities have the role to fill and >>>neither are responsible for where the other's situation.... So now >>>that we have that settled, I ask again, why should one person >>>"contribute" more to the social security system as somebody else when >>>both are going to get the same benefit? >>> >>>>>>> I suppose you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their >>>>>>> income >>>>>>> for everything they buy... It's like I said, all of you lowlife, >>>>>>> welfare dregs want other people to support your irresponsible >>>>>>> actions.... >>>>>> >>>>>>Why not? The selfish greedy conservatives have no problem making other >>>>>>people pay for their wars. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, we know that you don't even pay enough taxes to cover the >>>>> government >>>>> services you receive... >>>> >>>>You don't have the slightest idea what I pay the IRS or what government >>>>services I receive. >>> >>>Easy to figure it out... only low life dregs wallow around in the >>>class envy slop hole where you are... >> >>The two richest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, disagree: >> > > <LOL> who cares????? You should. You pay more than they do.....they are honest and explain how that comes to be. Yet you don't care. You belong with the RRR's Quote
Guest booker Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:07:21 -0400, Steve wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:25 -0500, booker <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> > wrote: > >>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:48:57 -0400, Steve wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:26:44 -0500, booker >>> <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:12:35 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:57:12 GMT, "Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message >>>>>>news:c6sn93dks4fdbn3thiv5mrkmhu9qmhe275@4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>>>>>>>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to >>>>>>> increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security >>>>>> >>>>>>we just want them to pay their share, the same percentage of their >>>>>>income that everyone else pays, >>>>> >>>>> ahhh, the same percentage, huh? why should one person "contribute" >>>>> more to the social security system as somebody else when both are >>>>> going to get the same benefit? >>>> >>>>Because others provided the cheap labor and paid the corporate welfare >>>>that allowed them to make all that money in the first place? >>> >>> you have it upside down, of course... if t wasn't for the people >>> investing their capital, the worker would be trying to live off the >>> vegetables he grows in his garden >> >>No, you're trying to give credit to only one half the the equation. >>Business couldn't exist without workers OR investment, yet you only want >>to credit the investors while ignoring the workers' contributions. > > So I guess you recognize that both entities have the role to fill and > neither are responsible for where the other's situation.... So now > that we have that settled, I ask again, why should one person > "contribute" more to the social security system as somebody else when both > are going to get the same benefit? I already answered that: "Because others provided the cheap labor and paid the corporate welfare that allowed them to make all that money in the first place". >>>>> I suppose you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their >>>>> income for everything they buy... It's like I said, all of you >>>>> lowlife, welfare dregs want other people to support your >>>>> irresponsible actions.... >>>> >>>>Why not? The selfish greedy conservatives have no problem making other >>>>people pay for their wars. >>>> >>> Well, we know that you don't even pay enough taxes to cover the >>> government services you receive... >> >>You don't have the slightest idea what I pay the IRS or what government >>services I receive. > > Easy to figure it out... only low life dregs wallow around in the class > envy slop hole where you are... Wrong again, but thanks for further discrediting yourself. Quote
Guest Steve Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:57:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message >news:39kq93h2ab3lef39l3sjbtiebqf26dcts7@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:27:50 -0500, none@isp.com (Dersu Uzala) wrote: >> >>>In article <n1fq93hss41am32qqrvocqseukeedgaplo@4ax.com>, >>>stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net says... >>>> >>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:25 -0500, booker >>>><invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:48:57 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:26:44 -0500, booker >>>>>> <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:12:35 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:57:12 GMT, "Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:c6sn93dks4fdbn3thiv5mrkmhu9qmhe275@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>>>>>>>>>>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to >>>>>>>>>> increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>we just want them to pay their share, the same percentage of their >>>>>>>>>income that everyone else pays, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ahhh, the same percentage, huh? why should one person "contribute" >>>>>>>> more to the social security system as somebody else when both are >>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to get the same benefit? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Because others provided the cheap labor and paid the corporate welfare >>>>>>>that allowed them to make all that money in the first place? >>>>>> >>>>>> you have it upside down, of course... if t wasn't for the people >>>>>> investing their capital, the worker would be trying to live off the >>>>>> vegetables he grows in his garden >>>>> >>>>>No, you're trying to give credit to only one half the the equation. >>>>>Business couldn't exist without workers OR investment, yet you only want >>>>>to credit the investors while ignoring the workers' contributions. >>>> >>>>So I guess you recognize that both entities have the role to fill and >>>>neither are responsible for where the other's situation.... So now >>>>that we have that settled, I ask again, why should one person >>>>"contribute" more to the social security system as somebody else when >>>>both are going to get the same benefit? >>>> >>>>>>>> I suppose you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their >>>>>>>> income >>>>>>>> for everything they buy... It's like I said, all of you lowlife, >>>>>>>> welfare dregs want other people to support your irresponsible >>>>>>>> actions.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why not? The selfish greedy conservatives have no problem making other >>>>>>>people pay for their wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Well, we know that you don't even pay enough taxes to cover the >>>>>> government >>>>>> services you receive... >>>>> >>>>>You don't have the slightest idea what I pay the IRS or what government >>>>>services I receive. >>>> >>>>Easy to figure it out... only low life dregs wallow around in the >>>>class envy slop hole where you are... >>> >>>The two richest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, disagree: >>> >> >> <LOL> who cares????? > > >You should. <LOL> I couldn't possibly care less about what other people pay... >You pay more than they do.....they are honest and explain how that comes to >be. I'm real sure that they pay more than do.... >Yet you don't care. > >You belong with the RRR's > I don't belong with anyone... People like myself don't need support groups like you panty-wasted leftists... Quote
Guest Steve Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:10:06 -0500, booker <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:07:21 -0400, Steve wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:25 -0500, booker <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:48:57 -0400, Steve wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:26:44 -0500, booker >>>> <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:12:35 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:57:12 GMT, "Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:c6sn93dks4fdbn3thiv5mrkmhu9qmhe275@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>>>>>>>>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to >>>>>>>> increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security >>>>>>> >>>>>>>we just want them to pay their share, the same percentage of their >>>>>>>income that everyone else pays, >>>>>> >>>>>> ahhh, the same percentage, huh? why should one person "contribute" >>>>>> more to the social security system as somebody else when both are >>>>>> going to get the same benefit? >>>>> >>>>>Because others provided the cheap labor and paid the corporate welfare >>>>>that allowed them to make all that money in the first place? >>>> >>>> you have it upside down, of course... if t wasn't for the people >>>> investing their capital, the worker would be trying to live off the >>>> vegetables he grows in his garden >>> >>>No, you're trying to give credit to only one half the the equation. >>>Business couldn't exist without workers OR investment, yet you only want >>>to credit the investors while ignoring the workers' contributions. >> >> So I guess you recognize that both entities have the role to fill and >> neither are responsible for where the other's situation.... So now >> that we have that settled, I ask again, why should one person >> "contribute" more to the social security system as somebody else when both >> are going to get the same benefit? > >I already answered that: "Because others provided the cheap labor and paid >the corporate welfare that allowed them to make all that money in the >first place". yet you already admitted that it was only half the equation and that the other half was that the investors provided the capital... meaning that the cheap labor was not really responsible for rich people's wealth... Of course your lowlife class envy attitude over rules logic... >>>>>> I suppose you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their >>>>>> income for everything they buy... It's like I said, all of you >>>>>> lowlife, welfare dregs want other people to support your >>>>>> irresponsible actions.... >>>>> >>>>>Why not? The selfish greedy conservatives have no problem making other >>>>>people pay for their wars. >>>>> >>>> Well, we know that you don't even pay enough taxes to cover the >>>> government services you receive... >>> >>>You don't have the slightest idea what I pay the IRS or what government >>>services I receive. >> >> Easy to figure it out... only low life dregs wallow around in the class >> envy slop hole where you are... > >Wrong again, but thanks for further discrediting yourself. > No I nailed you and you know it... Quote
Guest booker Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:36:16 -0400, Steve wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:10:06 -0500, booker <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> > wrote: > >>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:07:21 -0400, Steve wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:25 -0500, booker >>> <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:48:57 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:26:44 -0500, booker >>>>> <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:12:35 -0400, Steve wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:57:12 GMT, "Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:c6sn93dks4fdbn3thiv5mrkmhu9qmhe275@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>>>>>>>>>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want >>>>>>>>> to increase the amount of money rich people pay into social >>>>>>>>> security >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>we just want them to pay their share, the same percentage of their >>>>>>>>income that everyone else pays, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ahhh, the same percentage, huh? why should one person >>>>>>> "contribute" more to the social security system as somebody else >>>>>>> when both are going to get the same benefit? >>>>>> >>>>>>Because others provided the cheap labor and paid the corporate >>>>>>welfare that allowed them to make all that money in the first place? >>>>> >>>>> you have it upside down, of course... if t wasn't for the people >>>>> investing their capital, the worker would be trying to live off the >>>>> vegetables he grows in his garden >>>> >>>>No, you're trying to give credit to only one half the the equation. >>>>Business couldn't exist without workers OR investment, yet you only >>>>want to credit the investors while ignoring the workers' contributions. >>> >>> So I guess you recognize that both entities have the role to fill and >>> neither are responsible for where the other's situation.... So now >>> that we have that settled, I ask again, why should one person >>> "contribute" more to the social security system as somebody else when >>> both are going to get the same benefit? >> >>I already answered that: "Because others provided the cheap labor and >>paid the corporate welfare that allowed them to make all that money in >>the first place". > > yet you already admitted that it was only half the equation and that the > other half was that the investors provided the capital... meaning that > the cheap labor was not really responsible for rich people's wealth... > Of course your lowlife class envy attitude over rules logic... Your logic is seriously distorted. But then, I'd expect that from someone with such a loose grip on reality that they think they know how much an anonymous stranger pays in taxes. >>>>>>> I suppose you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their >>>>>>> income for everything they buy... It's like I said, all of you >>>>>>> lowlife, welfare dregs want other people to support your >>>>>>> irresponsible actions.... >>>>>> >>>>>>Why not? The selfish greedy conservatives have no problem making >>>>>>other people pay for their wars. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, we know that you don't even pay enough taxes to cover the >>>>> government services you receive... >>>> >>>>You don't have the slightest idea what I pay the IRS or what >>>>government services I receive. >>> >>> Easy to figure it out... only low life dregs wallow around in the >>> class envy slop hole where you are... >> >>Wrong again, but thanks for further discrediting yourself. >> >> > No I nailed you and you know it... I'm quite happy to leave it to any readers to decide who got nailed. Quote
Guest Al E. Gator Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:j25q9358g6hbi2oikgo5t84o45agjd4e8f@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:04:49 -0400, "Al E. Gator" <ho.ho@yahoo.net> > wrote: >>wow gomer, your ignorant teenage ass didn't last 1 complete day before you >>were overwhelmed and had to resort >>to the typical juvenile hillbilly shit > > Irony anyone? and the next step for the typical loser, looking for allies to validate your stupidity, where are those faggots at, hertzjap,granadepussy,patriottraitor, etc. Quote
Guest Al E. Gator Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message news:0H7ni.5293$2o5.2200@trnddc03... > ali gator sez: > These people could be used to clear mine fields, check areas for IEDs, and > carry the heavy stuff for our troops in Iraq. LMAO gomer, you need to get somebody to carry their weapons for them, somebody that knows how to use them for something besides shooting women, children and babies Quote
Guest Al E. Gator Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message news:0H7ni.5293$2o5.2200@trnddc03... > ali gator sez: > > when are you going to iraq and become another victim of evolutions law of survival of the fittest and don's expect us to pay to bury your worthless ass, you can just rot where the freedom fighters drop your ass Quote
Guest Al E. Gator Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:5a5q93lrbpmclgh0s2v5mcbcmffqrk7fji@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:26:44 -0500, booker > <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: >>Why not? The selfish greedy conservatives have no problem making other >>people pay for their wars. >> > Well, we know that you don't even pay enough taxes to cover the > government services you receive... wow this retarded republicon goober sure folded quick, when they have no answer to counter the truth or logic, they resort to they typical hillbilly babble, so how do you know how much he pays in taxes goober and what type, if any, of services he gets are you psychic or what, or just the typical hillbilly loud mouth know it all, can't do anything without fucking it up hillbilly ? Quote
Guest Al E. Gator Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:n1fq93hss41am32qqrvocqseukeedgaplo@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:25 -0500, booker > <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote: > >> >>You don't have the slightest idea what I pay the IRS or what government >>services I receive. > > Easy to figure it out... only low life dregs wallow around in the > class envy slop hole where you are... what was easy to figure out was the mindless drivel you were going to respond with, shouldn't you be drinking a budweiser and watching stupid hillbillies drive cars in circles gomer Quote
Guest Al E. Gator Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:fbnq939edg6hmfqtv5njc7pu20lr3n1h8v@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:57:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > I don't belong with anyone... People like myself don't need support > groups like you panty-wasted leftists... no, people like you need a psychiatrist or a prison sentence, maybe a lobotomy, oops, I'm sorry, I see you've already had one Quote
Guest Michael Ejercito Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Jul 17, 6:02 am, Mitchell Holman <Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote: > Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1184651347.509475.140010@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > On Jul 16, 2:09 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> Michael Ejercito wrote: > >> > On Jul 16, 1:25 pm, "Lamont Cranston" > >> > <Lamont.Crans...@NeoConEvilFighter.com> wrote: > >> >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1184603686.599318.265940@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >>> On Jul 16, 6:14 am, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at > >> >>>> easehttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun > >> >>>> 22,0,5... > > >> >>>> Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker > >> >>>> Michael > >> >>>> Moore's proposals for universal healthcare. > >> >>>> By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer > >> >>>> June 22, 2007 > >> >>>> WASHINGTON - With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie > >> >>>> once again > >> >>>> is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal > >> >>>> politicians - this time comprehensive health insurance for all. > >> >>>> But unlike > >> >>>> Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an > >> >>>> equally > >> >>>> controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation > >> >>>> for the > >> >>>> leading Democratic presidential candidates. > > >> >>>> Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate > >> >>>> liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the > >> >>>> party's next standard-bearer. However, his proposal - wiping out > >> >>>> private health insurance > >> >>>> and replacing it with a massive federal program - could be > >> >>>> political poison > >> >>>> with the larger electorate. > >> >>> Somehow, the concept of a state or federal program COMPETING with > >> >>> private health insurance NEVER occurs to these people. > > >> >> Medicare has been immensely successful without having to compete > >> >> with private health insurance. > >> > So what would be wrong with making Medicare voluntary, available to > >> > all ages, and funded entirely by those who choose to participate? > > >> > Michael > > >> Do you really believe that > >> people who opt out of > >> having universal insurance > >> will not sooner or later > >> use health system resources? > > So, what is your problem with people opting out of universal > > insurance? > > When can we "opt out" of paying for the war? So you equate war with medical care? Michael Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1184775530.117028.145860@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > On Jul 17, 6:02 am, Mitchell Holman <Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote: >> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote >> innews:1184651347.509475.140010@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> > On Jul 16, 2:09 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> Michael Ejercito wrote: >> >> > On Jul 16, 1:25 pm, "Lamont Cranston" >> >> > <Lamont.Crans...@NeoConEvilFighter.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1184603686.599318.265940@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>> On Jul 16, 6:14 am, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at >> >> >>>> easehttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22 >> >> >>>> jun 22,0,5... >> >> >> >>>> Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker >> >> >>>> Michael >> >> >>>> Moore's proposals for universal healthcare. >> >> >>>> By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer >> >> >>>> June 22, 2007 >> >> >>>> WASHINGTON - With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a >> >> >>>> movie once again >> >> >>>> is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal >> >> >>>> politicians - this time comprehensive health insurance for all. >> >> >>>> But unlike >> >> >>>> Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on >> >> >>>> an equally >> >> >>>> controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation >> >> >>>> for the >> >> >>>> leading Democratic presidential candidates. >> >> >> >>>> Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate >> >> >>>> liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the >> >> >>>> party's next standard-bearer. However, his proposal - wiping >> >> >>>> out private health insurance >> >> >>>> and replacing it with a massive federal program - could be >> >> >>>> political poison >> >> >>>> with the larger electorate. >> >> >>> Somehow, the concept of a state or federal program COMPETING >> >> >>> with >> >> >>> private health insurance NEVER occurs to these people. >> >> >> >> Medicare has been immensely successful without having to compete >> >> >> with private health insurance. >> >> > So what would be wrong with making Medicare voluntary, available >> >> > to >> >> > all ages, and funded entirely by those who choose to participate? >> >> >> > Michael >> >> >> Do you really believe that >> >> people who opt out of >> >> having universal insurance >> >> will not sooner or later >> >> use health system resources? >> > So, what is your problem with people opting out of universal >> > insurance? >> >> When can we "opt out" of paying for the war? > So you equate war with medical care? Which one is optional for the taxpayers who fund it? Quote
Guest Desmond and Molly Jones Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 In article <esQmi.7986$tj6.5028@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Biscuits and Books at Cheney_did_Barney@earthlink.net says... > "booker" <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:pan.2007.07.16.19.14.02.213900@invalid.com.invalid... > > That's assuming they will treat you at all. The ER is only required to > > treat immediately life-threatening situations. A great many diseases and > > injuries can leave one too sick to work, yet not qualify under the law as > > medical emergencies. > > Let me tell you abnout these emergency rooms. > > First, they're crowded with Mexicans -- not Mexican-Americans, but raw > Mexicans -- who treat it as a way to gather and socialize. Righteeo! And pinatas and balloons. > 2nd, if you are sick, you probably will not get seen unless you speak > Spanish. This is so true. Why I was in a car crash just last week and the hospital wouldn't take me because I spoke English. > My wife went in last year with a huge lung infection. Was her other lung huge, too? > I was too > sick to go, so some friends took her. After a while they had to leave and > my wife hadn't been seen. The black bnitch at the desk said to her she > wouldn't be seen either. She came home. We all bet you wished she stayed there. > The next morning I called an ambulance and that took her back. This time > she was seen, because the EMTs told the place to look at her. She finally > got treated. To pinatas and balloons? > Then the fuckers charged us for something they didn't do on the first night. What,a tongue depressor? > They also said it wasn't an emergency so my insurance wouldn't pay for the > ambulance. Fucken right, freeloader. Take her to the hospital yourself, asshole. > It took about 8 months to get them to remove (or redate) the > procedure she didn't get and for the ambulance to be paid for, all befcause > this fucking place is a joke of a hopital. Must be the pinatas and balloons all over the emergency room, filled with Mexicans gathered to socialize. > It's not in Los Angeles, but in a nearby town. Ignoramusville, USA -- "The borders of darkness shall be won by the smugglers of light." - not quite Peter Rowan Quote
Guest Citizen Jimserac Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 16, 10:20 am, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:1yJmi.27119$3a.5287@bignews9.bellsouth.net... > > > > > July 16, 2007 > > > Op-Ed Columnist > > The Waiting Game > > By PAUL KRUGMAN > > Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I > > mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week. > > "After all, you just go to an emergency room." > > > This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House > > has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend > > health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and > > preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured > > children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance - > > they can just go to emergency rooms, right? > > > O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate > > than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: > > by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait > > of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the > > scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada. > > > The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency > > rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who > > are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care. > > > Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how > > people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the > > poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the > > British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are > > often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that > > insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify > > otherwise? > > > A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data > > and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or > > longer than patients living with universal health-care systems." > > > A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that > > America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how > > hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was > > slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world > > if you need care after hours or on a weekend. > > > We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective > > surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures - and I suspect > > that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's > > performance. > > > Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, > > delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to > > the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by > > insurance companies trying to save money. > > > This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, > > a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer > > kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only later," writes > > Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the insurance company was > > stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the > > approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher > > co-payments." > > > He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to > > death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero." > > > To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company > > risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment > > costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good > > insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their > > "medical losses" - the industry term for actually having to pay for care. > > > On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster > > than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is > > used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health > > insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip > > replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare. > > > That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two > > government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits > > than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because > > it has more lavish funding - end of story. The alleged virtues of private > > insurance have nothing to do with it. > > > The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to > > have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror > > fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health > > care here in America. > > Krugman himself perpetuates myths about healthcare. > > Myth #1: if you don't have insurance, you don't have access to healthcare. > As Bush was describing in the first paragraph of Krugman's article, anyone > can call up a doctor and pay out of pocket for an office visit. My doctor > charges $65 for one. > > Myth #2: insurance companies deny people necessary medical treatment. > Insurance companies do not provide medical treatment, they only pay for it. > So when an insurance companies denies coverage, it is only denying payment. > The patient still have the option of, horror, paying for it himself. UTTER NONSENSE #1 $65.00 eh? I know someone who had a minor bug byte treated - the bill came to $600. UTTER NONSENSE #2 - that the Insurance companies only pay for it: The exclusions of prior conditions, rationalizations, fine print, take it or leave it sucker fine print and other "terms" of the health insurance "group" (sic) plans and other plans have been carefully approved and certified and legislated by the appropriately lobbied and influenced congressional "representative" , are designed with the profitability of the health "care" company in mind and most certainly not the needs of the patient. Care is routinely denied when one of the numerous "exclusions" kicks in and then the patient is on his or her own - de facto CARE HAS BEEN DENIED. This SYSTEM is a DISGRACE as Moore correctly points out in his documentary, which examines how far lessor countries get far better health care for far less money per capital once these MIDDLEMEN exploiters are cut out. It is NOT a socialism vs. capitalism thing, this is a HUMAN thing, and American thing, and for the greatest country on earth, the United States of America, to allow its own citizens to fall prey to the depredations of such a system is intolerable and WILL BE CHANGED. Citizen Jimserac Quote
Guest Citizen Jimserac Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 On Jul 16, 6:32 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >Steve wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill > >> <jmcg...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > > >>> Sid9 wrote: > >>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they > >>>> need to pay their rent and they are living > >>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two > >>>> wage earners in the family > > >>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so > >>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest > >>> that your problems began long before you got sick. Either you have > >>> made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, > >>> this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. > > >> You don't expect the leftists to stop demanding that the responsible > >> people pay the bills for the irresponsible ones, do you? > > >Your generalization is fallacious. > >Nothing new here > > Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to > increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security Oh the "leftists" is it?????????????????? Well, when I hear of people dying on the floor of emergency rooms while several passerby try to get help and the staff is to busy to help, that tells me the SYSTEM IS BUSTED. When tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS of people have no health care coverage at all, and when people go bankrupt because of medical costs (it's the LEADING cause of bankrupcy today), then that tells me that the system is broken. When health "care" is dominated by drug companies, by insurance companies and by a single primary health care system of medicine, then something is wrong. And let me tell you it was NOT the leftists that set up this system. What is wrong with our system goes BEYOND politics, beyond the straw man leftists and rightists dichotomy whose only real use is to DISTRACT attention away from endemic and systemic issues which have corrupted, blocked or weakened our system to the point where it is now dysfunctional. It was DEALS, politics and "arrangements" that somehow got all the exclusions, rationalizations, prior condition disqualifications and other impedimentia passed so as to safeguard the bottom line of the insurance companies rather than the health of United States Citizens. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG and the FIX does not involve leftists or rightists. The FIX is a COMPLETE reform of the political system that made this DISGRACE possible - the ability of American citizens to recall a failed congress or a failed president - the removal of laws passed as amendments tacked sneakily on the backs of unrelated legislation at 3A.M. in the morning, the elimination of the electoral college, the complete removal of the I.R.S., a complete reconstruction of our foreign policy, a complete rebuild of our educational system. ALL THESE things are needed to be done simultaneously with the gutting and rebuild of our health care system. Leftists or Rightists??? Hardly. This is a HUMAN issue. Citizen Jimserac One Voice from Many. Quote
Guest Citizen Jimserac Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 On Jul 16, 10:13 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Michael Ejercito wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2:09 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> Michael Ejercito wrote: > >>> On Jul 16, 1:25 pm, "Lamont Cranston" > >>> <Lamont.Crans...@NeoConEvilFighter.com> wrote: > >>>> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>>news:1184603686.599318.265940@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > >>>>> On Jul 16, 6:14 am, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at > >>>>>> easehttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5... > > >>>>>> Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker > >>>>>> Michael > >>>>>> Moore's proposals for universal healthcare. > >>>>>> By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer > >>>>>> June 22, 2007 > >>>>>> WASHINGTON - With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie > >>>>>> once again > >>>>>> is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal > >>>>>> politicians - this time comprehensive health insurance for all. > >>>>>> But unlike > >>>>>> Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on > >>>>>> an equally > >>>>>> controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation > >>>>>> for the > >>>>>> leading Democratic presidential candidates. > > >>>>>> Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate > >>>>>> liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the > >>>>>> party's next standard-bearer. However, his proposal - wiping out > >>>>>> private health insurance > >>>>>> and replacing it with a massive federal program - could be > >>>>>> political poison > >>>>>> with the larger electorate. > >>>>> Somehow, the concept of a state or federal program COMPETING > >>>>> with private health insurance NEVER occurs to these people. > > >>>> Medicare has been immensely successful without having to compete > >>>> with private health insurance. > >>> So what would be wrong with making Medicare voluntary, available > >>> to all ages, and funded entirely by those who choose to participate? > > >>> Michael > > >> Do you really believe that > >> people who opt out of > >> having universal insurance > >> will not sooner or later > >> use health system resources? > > Of course. > > > If they were wise, those who opt out of having universal insurance > > would select a private insurer who could deliver better service. > > > If NOT.... > > >> Universal mean everyone > >> is covered. > > >> It may mean that every one > >> pays...as they do in Medicare. > > >> What does an insurance > >> company contribute? > > > So let the government (local, state, or federal) start an insurance > > company and get funding from those who choose to get insurance from > > them. > > > Michael > > It will, two ways. > > 1. From premiums (some will pay more, the poorest will pay nothing) > 2. From taxes if there's a shortfall. > > It's called a "singler payer > universal health care system" > > Many countries have variations... > we can pick the best of what > already is proven to work Damn right - but it will only work if we institute drastic political reform to KEEP THE PROFITEER EXPLOITERS out of the health care industry (and out of a lot of other things too - education, foreign policy... etc). If done fairly and honestly it WILL work. If not, then another bueaurecratic mess. The falise conservative BUSH has already exposed himself as a neo-con. The false liberal Ed Kennedy has been EXPOSED as a closet neo-con by his INSISTENCE on the guest worker provisions of the failed immigration bill. So we CANNOT rely on those who most traditionally would have been in the forefront of true reform. There ARE others and we must seek them out. Citizen Jimserac Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.