HeyBub wrote:
> 1. I don't post with my real name because I change it often.
That must get expensive!
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
On Sep 23, 8:04=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped stuff]
I'd rather take a verbal "fuck off" in the face, than a knife in my
back Right-Wing-Stein style..
"DGDevin" wrote:
> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with
> insurance company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the
> hospital wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the
> insurance company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so
> on, it all requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand
> miles away. I've also had a medication a doctor wanted to prescribe
> for me disallowed by the insurance company in favor of a less
> expensive generic--so I didn't get what the doctor thinks is the
> best drug, but the one the insurance company is willing to pay for.
> And that's nothing compared to what some folks have to go through,
> like having an insurance company cancel coverage in the middle of
> chemo-therapy for breast cancer on the flimsy excuse that the woman
> under-reported her weight on her original application with the
> insurance company. For a start that sort of crap should be flat-out
> illegal.
A friend of mine has health insurance provided by the employer as part
of the compensation package.
Absolutely every doctor's appointment, lab test, etc, must have prior
approval from the insurance company before it can even be scheduled.
This almost always costs several days/weeks delay before service is
received.
Such is NOT the case with those on Medicare.
Sounds like maybe the government getting involved in a major issue
like health care might just be a good thing.
Lew
On Sep 18, 10:46=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 7:30 pm, "Perry Aynum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
> >> predictable as it is.
>
> >> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
> >> rigidity in your though process.
>
> > Oh fur chrissakes don't get him fomenting....
>
> I love you man ...
>
L'shana tova, tikatevu
On Sep 23, 3:45=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You feel free to question my integrity by calling me evil and a thief sol=
ely
> based on the fact that I benefit from country wide universal health care.=
I
> know it's all you have.
I just want it on the record that I am quite happy that Upscale can
benefit from the taxes I pay to support universal health care, and
that I actually would not mind all that much to pay more if it
improved my fellow citizen's access to health care.
He is in no way stealing from me, no more than anyone who benefits
from a program that we the people, in our wisdom or lack thereof, have
voted in favour of through our duly elected representatives.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 1:32 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
>>> No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...
>>>
>> Go on then...stop dragging your ass in here...
>>
>
> Aw how cute, you and your life partner Upscale missed me ...
Isn't in interesting how some, who are offended by remarks, simply want the
speaker to shut up? Or go away? Or want his wife to feed him lots of pork
chops so he'll die of a heart attack?
In history, exile, shunning, ostracism, and the like were often employed for
those who violated the norms of society or arrayed themselves against the
political order.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:53:26 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>> Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much,
>>> much more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may
>>> not be able to afford it (note that the current figure for the
>>> average family employer plan is $13k per year between the employer
>>> and employee for premiums).
>>
>> There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
>> package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
>> benefit plan he won't have employees.
>
> There IS a parallel universe! One where theory works out in practice.
>
> Some of us may be in a trade or profession that allows changing jobs
> at will, but most folks don't have that choice. Especially in a
> market where there's 100 applicants for every job opening.
>
> I was one of the lucky ones until I retired. But even then I found
> that it became more and more difficult as I got older. After 50 it
> was almost impossible.
>
> As an example, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 50 year old
> retail sales clerk whose employer has just cut benefits. You inquire
> about openings at other stores and get responses like "you're
> overqualified" or "we're looking for a trainee". You check into
> buying your own insurance for yourself and family and find it would
> cost more than your housing and food. Are you "free"?
Uh, yeah...
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Defending the borders benefits everyone more-or-less equally. Stealing
>> from some citizens to give to others harms freedom. Your kind of
>> "freedom" only exists because you are diminishing another person's
>> freedom.
>
> The kind of freedom I'm talking about is much more involved and costly than
> your trivial reference to it as border control. It consists of the society
> you live in that permits fools like you to spout your crap. That freedom
> costs money. It's the money for police forces that let you walk the streets
> without being attacked. It's also the money involved in hiring the people to
> legislate the laws that tolerate people like you. It's even the
> infrastructure that takes your garbage away and paves the streets you drive
> on.
>
> As usual, you're such a useless twit, that I keep finding myself drawn into
> your rhetoric. One day perhaps, you might find yourself somewhere that you
> can make a real contribution. But, it's certainly not rec.woodworking where
> you've contributed absolutely nothing in several years of showing everybody
> what an selfish, whining, little ass you are.
>
>
At least when I "Contribute" it is not enabled by first stealing what
my neighbor has worked for. You're drawn in to these conversations
because you are desparate to defend your marauding and theft ... but
there is none...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Wrong. I have happily contributed to people that absolutely hate my
> worldview.
>
> Right! Sounds entirely believable to me. Internally, you whine and groan and
> hate giving anything to anybody without recompense and spend most of your
> waking moments verbalizing it here where you make zero contribution. But,
> outside when dealing with the general public, you give put on a different
> face and give of yourself monetarily and enjoy doing it.
>
> The explanation is obvious. You suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder
> at the simplest level and schizophrenia and the worst level. I vote for the
> schizophrenia. You're too fucked up to be anything else.
>
>
>
>
If you like, I'll be happy to send you a photo of myself so you can
actually see the individual that occupies most of your waking thoughts
and dreams.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 22, 8:58=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I could be wrong. We never really heard about the hippies that wandered
> off
> > in another direction. I guess they were hit by cars or fell into the oc=
ean
> > or died of the munchies.
>
> I suspect that most of them are actively living out their lives as our
> current crop of politicians.
One Americanadian (Ignatieff) is trying to become PM.
I'm no Harper fan, but IggyPop is no alternative.
In article <[email protected]>, charlieb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> When I was an obnoxious teen, bitching about how screwed up
> things were, the adults would ask "And your proposed solution
> for correcting the problem is . . .?"
Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
battle.
So my proposed solution is that every post about anything to do with
your fucked-up country's political and financial system that is causing
so much grief world-wide that isn't directly related to woodworking be
labeled with [USA-POLITICAL-CRAP] in the subject line so that those of
us who are outside the US and/or just wanting to see mostly wooddorking
posts here (yeah, I know... good luck!) can filter this bullshit with
some ease.
Of course this proposal is futile, so don't even bother responding...
Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> You think that is easy?
>> I dunno - I never tried it. But thousands of hippies managed it back
> during
>> the Vietnam war and I just figured if a flea-bitten hippie could find
> north,
>> most anybody else could too.
>
> Sure, we're a friendly county and will take most people. ~ Even assholes
> like Daneliuk who have nothing good to say about the Canadian healthcare
> system, but I wonder where he'd head first if his own healthcare system
> screwed him?
The same place Canadians do when their healthcare system fails them
(as it regularly does) - one of the 10s of thousands of doctors in
the US.
Your love of your system springs from the fact that you are remotely
acquainted with the economics of healthcare. (No real surprise given
your demonstrated addiction to Other People's Money.) If Comrade Obama
is successful in his quest to socialize U.S. healthacare, watch your
costs go UP. Why? Today's pharma is predominantly researched and
developed in the U.S. Canada and the rest of the world artificially
peg the price to some magic "fair" price. This means that the real
market price for pharma + the difference you all are not paying is
borne by the U.S. healthcare consumer and the rest of you effectively
are getting a free (subsidized) ride. If the current Marxist-In-Chief
and his bunch have their way, they too will force a "fair" price
scheme down the throats of the pharma companies. One of two things
will then happen. Either there will be less R&D on drugs performed
(probable) and/or the pharma costs will have to be more fully borne by
the rest of you and not just the U.S. consumers (possible). While I
hate the idea of Comrade O messing up our system of care, the idea
that moochers around the world will have to pony up more of the real
costs of delivering their magically 'free' care delights me to no end.
Otherwise, you'll have to get your drug R&D from Tripoli, Tehran,
Kabul, & Karachi (also a delightful thought).
>
> And to Doug Miller who said that there's nothing more important than
> freedom. He should try experiencing a serious disability and find out what
> it's like to have that freedom but not be able to do anything with it
> because he was confined to a body that mostly doesn't work anymore.
>
> Freedom is only good Doug if you can take advantage of it.
And your "disability" does not entitle you to rape everyone else's
freedom. You continue to live in this ideological sewer that says
you're entitled to whatever you need even if it harms other people.
This is the mindset of an emotionally undeveloped five year old,
not of an adult. Your needs are legitimate - like 10s of millions
of other people. But they are not a get-out-of-jail-free card to
pillage your neighbors. A gentleman asks for help politely and
is grateful when it is given. A spoiled child demands what they
want and curses their benefactor. I'd say your predominant disability
isn't physical, it's moral.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> 1. Hypocrisy is not intrinsically bad; 95% of the nation's
>> gynecologists are men.
>
> I've seen that statement before, but for the life of me, I don't see
> how it relates to being a hypocrite. With some things, I'm
> extraordinarily dumb. Guess this is one of them.
Point is, it's okay to admonish someone about what they should do even
though you, yourself, can't or won't do it. Like teachers.
On Sep 24, 10:01=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0I applaud your willingness
> to help your fellow man. =A0I share that with you. =A0What I do not share=
is
> a willingness to have some malignant politician decide for me just who sh=
ould
> get what I've worked for and how much.
wait for it.....
>=A0I want to make that kind of call for myself...
I would think it safe to assume that the only people who might benefit
from that help would be those who have the same fucked up outlook as
he does.... after you kiss his ring.
Jack Stein wrote:
> If you didn't have your head so far up your ass, you would have noted
> there was no "pot-kettle-black nature" to the post, and about the only
> irony would be you crying I "missed one" and then posting a bunch of
> gobbledygook with my name on it, when the FIRST name on my list was my
> own...
Well sonofabitch, so it is. Heh, mea culpa, I actually looked for "Jack
Stein" and "JBStein" didn't click.
BTW, the "gobbledygook" was the headers from your post.
On Sep 22, 7:02=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
a lot of weak shit.
That's it? A 'mirror' line is fighting fire with fire?
But I do hear "click, click"
On Sep 22, 12:40=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > Haven't you heard. =A0In the new lexicon of a good many folks here,
> > you are *entitled* to whatever you need, not matter who else gets
> > raided to provide it. =A0What you are suggesting above, sir, would
> > require personal integrity and responsibility and we simply cannot
> > have that. =A0So go back to work - too many people that don't are
> > depending on you ...
>
> Do you ever address what people actually post, or only fabricate position=
s
> they didn't express and attack those instead? =A0You must have a straw-ma=
n
> assembly line set up based on how often you indulge in this sophomoric
> stunt.
Do you ever read what was posted before you reply? Tim did respond to
my post, with agreement.
> How does requiring insurance companies to play fair qualify as a raid on
> your pocketbook? =A0How does setting up a pool where individuals can buy
> insurance at group rates take money from your bank account? =A0And so on,=
but
> nooooooooo, you have to leap to some bizarre depiction of citizens forced=
to
> line up outside a clinic in a state-run gulag with whip-wielding commissa=
rs
> flailing the moaning masses. =A0Your vivid imagination and libertarian
> paranoia are at least amusing (in a pathetic sort of way)--but frankly it=
's
> the only value you bring to the conversation.
How does this have anything to do with the issues of the
day? ..either here in RW or on the national political stage? Seems
you're the one holding up the strawman.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
> Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
> his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
> wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
> they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
> treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.
>
> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
> want.
>
Some observations:
1. I don't post with my real name because I change it often. The email
address is, however, real. If you send a polite request, I'll be pleased to
provide the name I'm using this week.
2. "Old Repubs" favor business being able to contract with a willing seller
of labor and conditions of work for an agreed on wage.
3. I agree that Dems favor freedom of individuals to do CERTAIN things
(smoke dope, marry the same sex, burn the flag, etc.) but they are, by no
means, libertarians. For example, most liberals favor a woman using a name
other than her real one (which is okay by me inasmuch as she's taking the
name of TWO men instead of the traditional one). Oops.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a
> house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.
For just one minute, why don't you try substituting "FREEDOM" in place of
your continual healthcare attacks?
Because in all honesty, many people who face serious difficulties with their
healthcare view it NO DIFFERENTLY than a direct limitation of their freedom.
I KNOW this to be fact. And, it has the exact same effect. Unfortunately,
you don't have the imagination or intelligence to realize that. You take
advantage of your right to freedom by continually whining how much it costs
you. I wonder how you'd deal with it if that part of your freedom was
removed?
Pathetic little wimp. Can you sink any further?
"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> (and others) loudly assume that "everyone" shares your view when they in
fact haven't said a
> word, well frankly it just pisses me off.
Sure, you're right that respect. I'm putting words in your mouth when you
haven't said anything. For that I'll apologize.
Let me rephrase. A significant amount of people in involved in the thread
appear to support much of my mindset.
I hope that meets with your approval. :)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not interested
>> in. There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue with
>> those who are interested enjoying themselves. I enjoy hearing what my
>> fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
>> woodwork.
>
> Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlation
> between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engagement
> in non-woodworking discussions.
>
> I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broadened
> my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
> difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
> important problems.
>
> I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(s)
> when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
> reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight in
> progress. :)
>
Based on what I've read this week, I am going to start filtering myself ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> At least when I "Contribute" it is not enabled by first stealing what
> my neighbor has worked for. You're drawn in to these conversations
> because you are desparate to defend your marauding and theft ... but
> there is none...
Glad you framed Contribute in apostrophes, because you don't contribute
shit. Unless of course, you count the whining you do as an art form. And as
to defending myself, there's 30 million other Canadians that defend our
healthcare, or most of them anyway. You? For a defence, you've got people
like Miller who is a confirmed liar and kiss ass. The two of you should run
off together and form your own country where whining and brown nosing
actually pay something. Then at least you might obtain that wealth you claim
is being stolen from you every day.
On Sep 20, 3:27=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Morris Dovey wrote:
> >>> Jack Stein wrote:
> >>>> My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not interested
> >>>> in. =A0There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue with
> >>>> those who are interested enjoying themselves. =A0I enjoy hearing wha=
t my
> >>>> fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
> >>>> woodwork.
> >>> Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlati=
on
> >>> between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engageme=
nt
> >>> in non-woodworking discussions.
> >>> I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broade=
ned
> >>> my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
> >>> difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
> >>> important problems.
> >>> I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(=
s)
> >>> when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
> >>> reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight=
in
> >>> progress. :)
> >> Based on what I've read this week, I am going to start filtering mysel=
f ...
>
> > Brilliant idea and long overdue.
>
> I'm sorry I cannot see the post to which you're responding ...
>
Self filtration, in excess, can lead to blindness.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 4:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hopefully, you'll find more value in this post: At the very least I hope
>>> you learned how to better read with comprehension.
>>>
>> Can't you EVER talk to people without insults and talking 'down' to
>> people?
>>
>>
>
> Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
> get back to me on just who was mean here first.
>
> I have decided to fight fire with fire. This means you and the rest of
> pottymouths better hunker down - I have a way more interesting vocabulary
> than you do. Oh ... while it is never intended, a person of reason is
> always "talking down" to people that express themselves irrationally...
>
/me gets out the popcorn, this is going to be good
--
Froz...
On Sep 22, 11:54=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped more of Tim's demonic soul-less banter]
Discussing ANYthing with you impossible as you have no ability to see
anything through anyone else's eyes.
Tim's view is the only view. Period.
You are a very disturbed creature, Tim.
You can bend, twist, and flap in any direction you want, tossing up
straw-men by the truckload, but for you to accuse anybody of
misdirection is the best laugh I had all day.
Your arguments cannot follow a straight line. You have to keep taking
detours to your stock-piles of hurtful vitriol in order to feel like
you are making a case for yourself. Your venomous words are way more
disgusting than a simple 'fuck you' would ever be. You get all
offended by people using language THEIR way...yet you continue to
skewer people with YOUR vile disgusting language. Do you honestly
think you have advantage by not using curse words? Is that all you can
hide behind?.."oh nooooo Rob cussed at meeeeeee...MOMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY"
Grow the fuck up, asshole. And stop trying to baffle people with your
bullshit, straw-men and out-right lies.
There... that is English...now go whine somewhere else,
Now apologize to Upscale or I'll ride your ass like a new bride.
:-)
r
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> No. To disagree by throwing personal shots is irrational ... and
>> a sign that there is no real discussion is possible.
>
> Bullshit! You throw personal insults all the time and try to hide them under
> the protection of a 'no profanity' cloud.
>
> As time goes on you sink deeper and deeper into a lying, deceptive shroud in
> a feeble attempt to hide your deficiencies.
>
>
QED
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 23, 4:48=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > As your application of the 'bullshit baffles brains' method is well
> > known now, it cannot be dealt with by a rational person.
> > Your elementary school debate tactics are as painfully transparent as
> > Stein's pissed-through panties. He forgets to take them down before he
> > sits down to pee.
> > Seeing that you have nothing else to offer, either in constructive or
> > creative manner, I will now concentrate on getting Stein in a lather.
> > He's a lot of fun. Not stale like you, Tim.
>
> I feel left out. Sniff.
Call it special consideration. Two friends of mine are/were cops. One
made it to Deputy Chief here in Sarnia. Photographed Angela's and my
wedding, after all he had shot some crime scenes before... He's
retired now. The other works financial crimes for the OPP. Very
interesting thing he's got there.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > You think that is easy?
>
> I dunno - I never tried it. But thousands of hippies managed it back
during
> the Vietnam war and I just figured if a flea-bitten hippie could find
north,
> most anybody else could too.
Sure, we're a friendly county and will take most people. ~ Even assholes
like Daneliuk who have nothing good to say about the Canadian healthcare
system, but I wonder where he'd head first if his own healthcare system
screwed him?
And to Doug Miller who said that there's nothing more important than
freedom. He should try experiencing a serious disability and find out what
it's like to have that freedom but not be able to do anything with it
because he was confined to a body that mostly doesn't work anymore.
Freedom is only good Doug if you can take advantage of it.
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Haven't you heard. In the new lexicon of a good many folks here,
>> you are *entitled* to whatever you need, not matter who else gets
>> raided to provide it. What you are suggesting above, sir, would
>> require personal integrity and responsibility and we simply cannot
>> have that. So go back to work - too many people that don't are
>> depending on you ...
>
> Do you ever address what people actually post, or only fabricate positions
> they didn't express and attack those instead? You must have a straw-man
> assembly line set up based on how often you indulge in this sophomoric
> stunt.
>
Uh, I not only read the post, I agreed with it. I'm not sure why you find
this hard to follow.
> How does requiring insurance companies to play fair qualify as a raid on
> your pocketbook? How does setting up a pool where individuals can buy
That's not was is going on here - you're smoking Hopeium. "Fairness" is
in the eye of the beholder and having the government enforce it inevitably
leads to the use of tax dollars at some point. Obamanation is counting on it.
> insurance at group rates take money from your bank account? And so on, but
Because this "pool" you're so fond of will become a government run program -
it may even start out as one. This means private insurers will not be able to
compete because they cannot possibly match the government's infinite ability
to print money and keep things "fair" and "cheap". Go see how many private
insurers are left in the flood insurance business as one example. In any
case, there is absolutely no need for it. You and a thousand of your closest
friends are free to get together privately and voluntarily and either start your
own insurance company or use your buying power to negotiate better group rates.
> nooooooooo, you have to leap to some bizarre depiction of citizens forced to
> line up outside a clinic in a state-run gulag with whip-wielding commissars
> flailing the moaning masses. Your vivid imagination and libertarian
It won't be that vivid, but it will be effectively that. Again, see if you
can find any private insurance companies that offer flood or earthquake insurance.
Then go do a teeny bit of investigation and see what the pre- and post-tax
profits of insurance products are. You may find you learn something shocking.
This "blame the insurance companies" schtick is just more Obamanation demagoguery.
He needs a villain so he can be the white knight riding in to save the day.
It's a joke.
> paranoia are at least amusing (in a pathetic sort of way)--but frankly it's
> the only value you bring to the conversation.
Hopefully, you'll find more value in this post: At the very least I hope
you learned how to better read with comprehension.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
>>> rigidity in your though process.
>> By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
>> hating, socialist bastards that attempt to debate him, right?
>
> No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
> his posts for him :-).
My views are certainly consistent, but I disagree that anyone could
write my posts. A number of commonly seen posters here run out
of words once they exit the domain of profanity ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.
>
> Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.
>
> Must be a good bill.
>
Last count, Baucus has one vote for his bill.
Right now, with the Kennedy seat vacant, the Democrats can't break a
filibuster (they still need 60 votes and there are only 59 Democrats).
Interestingly, if another Democrat dies - leaving them with 58 - they'll
only need 58 votes to invoke cloture.
Pray for the continued breathing of Robert Byrd.
When I was an obnoxious teen, bitching about how screwed up
things were, the adults would ask "And your proposed solution
for correcting the problem is . . .?"
Opposing something is very easy.
Fixing something you think isn't working - well that takes a lot
more time and effort.
When opposing a change one must always consider the price
of doing nothing. The uninsured get medical treatment when
it's an emergency. And emergency room costs are multiples
of the cost of doctor visits before things get critical - and
really expensive.
The other thing to be aware of is which industries and which
lobbyists are opposing the change, what ever the proposed
change is, and examine their reason(s) for that opposition. I'm
willing put money on the it's not for altruistic reasons.
And if you've ever had a "problem" with your health insurance
company, especially if it's a life threatening thing, be aware that
it's in THEIR best interest for you to die - before they have to
expend any money on you. At least with the government you
CAN try and get your elected congress person and senator
to look into your problem. With an insurance company - your
screwed - AFTER you probably have spent months on the phone
talking to someone in a Call Center - in Pakistan or the Philipines
or Honduras - who may or may not speak english.
Buck Turgidson wrote:
>> People who paid into the existing system have a reasonable right to
>> expect they will get back what they put in. But the system today
>> pays out far, far more than the recipients every put in. The system
>> is iniquitous and should never have been implemented in the first place -
>> it is a ponzi scheme the like of which Madoff would only have dreamed.
>> The way you get out of it is by diminishing benefits 4% per year for the
>> next 25 years until it is gone entirely. Retire today, get full benefits
>> for life. Retire next year, get 96% benefits, and so on.
>>
>> This is bad logic: The government screwed up social services for the last
>> 60
>> years - let's have them do more of it.
>>
>
> If it never should have been implemented, then urge your mother to swear it
> off, and you pay for her healthcare out-of-pocket.
You seem unclear on the concept. People have a legitimate right to
those things to which they have contributed, even if they were forced
to do it. The problem is that the political swine have been handing
out more and more "benefits" without taxing to pay for them. So, the
system does not work. It is mathematically impossible. Social
entitlements now consume 1/2 of the U.S. Federal budget in their
current form and they are destroying the economic future of the next
several generations. Adding government healthcare for everyone to the
mix would add another *$1 Trillion* approximately to the debt. At
current rates - WITHOUT healthcare added - the debt is already slated
to be equal to the entire GDP of the US by around 2015 or so This is
not a controversial view, it is simply a matter of fact.
The problem is that the "I need something, therefore I am entitled to
it" crowd lack the brains and integrity to do even a minor examination
of the financial reality that the progressive piglets created over the
last 60 years. Picking people pockets is bad enough, but now we're
proposing to pick the pockets of people yet to be born. Why? So the
revolting 60s generation that is now retiring - that has the largest
aggregate savings of any generation in U.S. history - can retire,
spend their money as they wish, and have everyone else pay for their
healthcare. Don't ever kid yourself, this whole government healthcare
business hasn't got that much to do with the poor un/under-insured. It
has everything to do with the retirees wanting what they never paid
for or saved for theselves. This IS a class war - beetween my future
grandchildren and the smelly hippies that are now dropping out of the
workforce.
>
> Put your money where you mouth is.
>
>
I do - on a regular basis. I just don't fund moochers, whiners, or thieves
voluntarily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 24, 10:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I applaud your willingness
>> to help your fellow man. I share that with you. What I do not share is
>> a willingness to have some malignant politician decide for me just who should
>> get what I've worked for and how much.
>
> wait for it.....
>
>> I want to make that kind of call for myself...
>
> I would think it safe to assume that the only people who might benefit
> from that help would be those who have the same fucked up outlook as
> he does.... after you kiss his ring.
Wrong. I have happily contributed to people that absolutely hate my worldview.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
>> rigidity in your though process.
>
> By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
> hating, socialist bastards that attempt to debate him, right?
No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
his posts for him :-).
But I may be unfair to Tim - he may have changed - I haven't read his
posts in a long time.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 4:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hopefully, you'll find more value in this post: At the very least I hope
>> you learned how to better read with comprehension.
>>
>
> Can't you EVER talk to people without insults and talking 'down' to
> people?
>
>
Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
get back to me on just who was mean here first.
I have decided to fight fire with fire. This means you and the rest of
pottymouths better hunker down - I have a way more interesting vocabulary
than you do. Oh ... while it is never intended, a person of reason is
always "talking down" to people that express themselves irrationally...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 9:22 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> At least when I "Contribute" it is not enabled by first stealing what
>>>> my neighbor has worked for. You're drawn in to these conversations
>>>> because you are desparate to defend your marauding and theft ... but
>>>> there is none...
>>> Glad you framed Contribute in apostrophes, because you don't contribute
>>> shit. Unless of course, you count the whining you do as an art form. And as
>> I contribute a regular reminder that you and people like you are not
>> noble, kind, honorable or decent. You are purveyors of theft and fraud.
>> And it's important to keep that spotlight brightly lit so you can
>> never delude yourself into thinking anything else.
>>
>>> to defending myself, there's 30 million other Canadians that defend our
>>> healthcare, or most of them anyway. You? For a defence, you've got people
>> Not the ones in my own family that actually work in the healthcare
>> system.
>
> That sounds like they are unionized squabblers.
>
No, they are first responders entrenched in the system for decades.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 12:34 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comments
>>> ~
>>>>> in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we
>>> were
>>>>> discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' was
>>> said,
>>>>> you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
>>>>> accepting universal health care.
>>> (all the bullshit snipped)
>>> As usual, you don't bother to reply to the question at hand and launch into
>>> some unrelated rhetoric. Just between you and me, did you or did you not
>>> start with the accusations and recriminations.
>>> Answer the question dweeb.
>> Your question has a lie as a premise - it cannot be answered by a rational
>> person.
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> As your application of the 'bullshit baffles brains' method is well
> known now, it cannot be dealt with by a rational person.
> Your elementary school debate tactics are as painfully transparent as
> Stein's pissed-through panties. He forgets to take them down before he
> sits down to pee.
> Seeing that you have nothing else to offer, either in constructive or
> creative manner, I will now concentrate on getting Stein in a lather.
> He's a lot of fun. Not stale like you, Tim.
>
> Toodles!!
I guess not being able to enrage me diminishes your energy considerably.
Good! BTW, I found you some help:
http://imgur.com/8Jur5.png
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
> is a short list to get him started:
Only problem is that most everybody gets drawn into some completely off
topic political or gun or medical or other non woodworking topic. Yet, it
only seems to be you with your extremely limited intelligence that suggests
filtering everybody. I wonder why that is?
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> No. To disagree by throwing personal shots is irrational ... and
> a sign that there is no real discussion is possible.
Bullshit! You throw personal insults all the time and try to hide them under
the protection of a 'no profanity' cloud.
As time goes on you sink deeper and deeper into a lying, deceptive shroud in
a feeble attempt to hide your deficiencies.
On Sep 22, 12:13=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Go back and
> reread just this thread and get back to be about who ought to be
> apologizing to whom.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
Did anybody expect anything else from him?
I know I didn't.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
BULLSHIT! Freedom costs money. It costs more money that it would ever cost
for a national healthcare service. It costs citizen's money. And, freedom
costs lives. Armed forces who fight overseas to preserve the American way of
life. Local police forces, National Guard. Where EXACTLY do you think the
money comes from to pay for those services?
Are you really so self absorbed that you can't see that?
> Your "freedom" is not such thing. It's at the expense of another citizen.
> Your "free" healthcare means someone else has less money for their own
> family's needs. My worldview is not built on stealing, yours is. My
> worldview isn't dependent on impoverishing other people. Your's is.
> I don't ask third parties in government to do my stealing. You do.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> exasperated: "David, David," he said, "You don't understand! Saul want you
> to KILL the Phillistines, not CONVERT them! Saul doesn't care if you bring
> back the whole prick!"
Har! Now that's funny!
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 9:36 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is the mindset of an emotionally undeveloped five year old,
> not of an adult. Your needs are legitimate - like 10s of millions
> of other people. But they are not a get-out-of-jail-free card to
> pillage your neighbors. A gentleman asks for help politely and
> is grateful when it is given. A spoiled child demands what they
> want and curses their benefactor. I'd say your predominant
> disability
> isn't physical, it's moral.
>
> =========================================
>
> Wow! You have turned your ugliness inside-out for all to see.
I see that (once again) you have no meaningful counterpoint.
> Do you kill children for not picking up their socks?
No. But I insist that they be responsible in cleaning up
after themselves. They don't get to say, "Because my socks
are dirty, it's Bobby's responsibility next door to pick them up."
Don't you think it's a tad condescending on your part to equate
the disabled with children? I equated the *behavior* of
"Gimme, gimme, gimme" of Upscale and his ilk as that of
a spoiled child - which it is. I would never stoop so low as you
and declare the disabled as children prima facia ... and you're
going to lecture me on manner .. astonishing.
> What deep-rooted hatred you live with, day after day.
I live with deep-rooted reason. I hate no one. I love a few.
I don't trust the masses or the government. I will be no one's
willing slave. I am happy to help those genuinely in need as I
am able.
> I have been reading your commentaries for some time, and frankly I
> have been amused by them.
You're attempt at amused condescension fails because in all that
time, you've yet to make a case for your defense of theft.
> This last little diatribe is not funny. It is deep-down ugly.
It is indeed ugly - because it is sadly so true. Need does not
constitute a moral claim on other people. You, Upscale, and the
rest of the defenders of theft can tapdance, play your personal
attack misdirection game, and generally behave noxiously, but it
does not change the aforementioned truth. Your need, no matter how
real, does not mean you suddenly haver permission to steal from
everyone around you. Worse still, you defend such theft on the
one hand, and then curse the very victims of your predation. So
along with stealing, you also are ungrateful with really bad manners.
> You'll be in my prayers, Tim, because somebody has to help you out of
> that pit you're in.
Does your 'prayer' involve sacrificing helpless animals, I wonder ...
> Such a soiled black soul is sad to see.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
>
No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 18, 6:38=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> On Sep 18, 1:32 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>> Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
> >>> No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...
>
> >> Go on then...stop dragging your ass in here...
>
> > Aw how cute, you and your life partner Upscale missed me ...
>
> Isn't in interesting how some, who are offended by remarks, simply want t=
he
> speaker to shut up? Or go away? Or want his wife to feed him lots of pork
> chops so he'll die of a heart attack?
>
> In history, exile, shunning, ostracism, and the like were often employed =
for
> those who violated the norms of society or arrayed themselves against the
> political order.
Like Guantanamo?
Buck Turgidson wrote:
> To extend the Madoff analogy, as long as you're sure you'd get YOUR money
> back (with 11% interest of course), it's ok to invest with him, even if you
> knew he was a phony?
No because I'd be voluntarily supporting fraud. But in the case of
government-run Ponzi schemes, I don't have the choice to make it
voluntary. I am compelled to do so if I earn income (and earning income
is necessary for survival - unless you're an ACORN client, welfare
queen, or other inter-generational moocher).
>
> I doubt you or your mother will ever put into Medicare what you'll take out.
> So isn't it hypocritical to participate in the program?
As I said, the problem is that I don't have the choice. Participating
in the system as it is while simultaneously working to repeal it
is about the best you can do. The alternative is to be forced to pay
into a system and get NOTHING back, which just adds insult to injury.
I get that retired folk want what they believe they've paid for. I am
merely pointing out that the system has now become a runaway freightrain
that is flatly unsustainable. Only college students or foolish ideologues
refuse to live in the world as it is.
>
> Are you funding your own healthcare needs for your retirement?
To the best of my ability yes. But considering that my net tax burden
(state, local, federal, excise, sin taxes, etc.) on a middle
class income is approaching 50%, it's hard to save a lot and live - and
I do not live excessively by pretty much any reasonable definition.
But, I have been saving for retirement since I was 28 and continue to
do so now, if that's your question. If that's not enough when the time
comes, I don't think it morally entitles me to pick your pocket. I'll
have to (politely) ask for voluntary charity. If that fails, I'll
become fertilizer a bit earlier than I'd like.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 21, 7:14=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>
> > What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
> > bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
> > to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
> > company bureaucrats. =A0I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
> > wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
> > company. =A0Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
> > requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>
> [...]
>
> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
> treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
> free to change insurance companies!
>
> What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care syste=
m
> treats you?
>
> I guess you could move to Canada...
You think that is easy?
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Wrong. I have happily contributed to people that absolutely hate my
worldview.
Right! Sounds entirely believable to me. Internally, you whine and groan and
hate giving anything to anybody without recompense and spend most of your
waking moments verbalizing it here where you make zero contribution. But,
outside when dealing with the general public, you give put on a different
face and give of yourself monetarily and enjoy doing it.
The explanation is obvious. You suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder
at the simplest level and schizophrenia and the worst level. I vote for the
schizophrenia. You're too fucked up to be anything else.
On Sep 29, 8:35=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or
> >> owning a flatscreen TV.
>
> > You overlook:
>
> > * The Community Redevelopment Act which made it easy for anyone, even t=
hose
> > without a job, to own a home.
> > * The "Cash for Clunkers" program to help some to buy a car.
>
> > I understand "A TV in Every Pot Act" is being drafted.
>
> > Your government at work.
>
> I'm waiting for a Granite Countertop in every Kitchen Act. =A0And the rip
> off prices they charge and obscene profits they make for this rock today
> is pure greed. =A0I'm thinking no more than $5 a square foot would be mor=
e
> reasonable than the $100+ the greedy capitalist pigs charge now.
Don't forget to add Granite installers to Tim Geitner's list of
government controlled incomes.
And naturally, they get to count the communist, Liberian and so forth as
Democrats... all non-Republican.
Martin
HeyBub wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.
>>
>> Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.
>>
>> Must be a good bill.
>>
>
> Last count, Baucus has one vote for his bill.
>
> Right now, with the Kennedy seat vacant, the Democrats can't break a
> filibuster (they still need 60 votes and there are only 59 Democrats).
> Interestingly, if another Democrat dies - leaving them with 58 - they'll
> only need 58 votes to invoke cloture.
>
> Pray for the continued breathing of Robert Byrd.
>
>
On Sep 20, 4:16=A0pm, Ella Norton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:27=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 2:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Morris Dovey wrote:
> > >>> Jack Stein wrote:
> > >>>> My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not interest=
ed
> > >>>> in. =A0There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue wi=
th
> > >>>> those who are interested enjoying themselves. =A0I enjoy hearing w=
hat my
> > >>>> fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
> > >>>> woodwork.
> > >>> Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correla=
tion
> > >>> between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engage=
ment
> > >>> in non-woodworking discussions.
> > >>> I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broa=
dened
> > >>> my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities a=
nd
> > >>> difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think ar=
e)
> > >>> important problems.
> > >>> I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-threa=
d(s)
> > >>> when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the sam=
e
> > >>> reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfig=
ht in
> > >>> progress. :)
> > >> Based on what I've read this week, I am going to start filtering mys=
elf ...
>
> > > Brilliant idea and long overdue.
>
> > I'm sorry I cannot see the post to which you're responding ...
>
> Self filtration, in excess, can lead to blindness.
Tim will keep filtering till he needs glasses.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 1. Hypocrisy is not intrinsically bad; 95% of the nation's gynecologists
are
> men.
I've seen that statement before, but for the life of me, I don't see how it
relates to being a hypocrite. With some things, I'm extraordinarily dumb.
Guess this is one of them.
-MIKE- wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> If you like, I'll be happy to send you a photo of myself so you can
>> actually see the individual that occupies most of your waking thoughts
>> and dreams.
>>
>
> They do enough jerking off to your writing, don't give them a picture to
> go along with it.
>
>
That's a Reeeeeeealllly horrible mental picture. Thanks a lot ... ;)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Jack Stein wrote:
> Perry Aynum wrote:
>> Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
>> predictable as it is.
>>
>> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
>> rigidity in your though process.
>
> By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
> hating, socialist bastards that attempt to debate him, right?
Excuse me, but socialists are not "bottom feeding" - they are blood sucking.
Please get your imprecations right ;)
>
> I guess thats better than simply calling him a "useless twit", or a
> "misguided douche-nozzle"...
>
> Well, different words anyway...
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 18, 1:32=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
>
> No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...
>
Go on then...stop dragging your ass in here...
charlieb wrote:
> When I was an obnoxious teen, bitching about how screwed up
> things were, the adults would ask "And your proposed solution
> for correcting the problem is . . .?"
>
> Opposing something is very easy.
> Fixing something you think isn't working - well that takes a lot
> more time and effort.
>
> When opposing a change one must always consider the price
> of doing nothing. The uninsured get medical treatment when
> it's an emergency. And emergency room costs are multiples
> of the cost of doctor visits before things get critical - and
> really expensive.
>
> The other thing to be aware of is which industries and which
> lobbyists are opposing the change, what ever the proposed
> change is, and examine their reason(s) for that opposition. I'm
> willing put money on the it's not for altruistic reasons.
>
> And if you've ever had a "problem" with your health insurance
> company, especially if it's a life threatening thing, be aware that
> it's in THEIR best interest for you to die - before they have to
> expend any money on you. At least with the government you
> CAN try and get your elected congress person and senator
> to look into your problem. With an insurance company - your
> screwed - AFTER you probably have spent months on the phone
> talking to someone in a Call Center - in Pakistan or the Philipines
> or Honduras - who may or may not speak english.
And this naturally leads to the conclusions that having the *government*
run things is a better choice? Seriously? An institution rife with
corruption, graft, payoffs, virtually no limits on power, almost no
meaningful redress (try calling your Senator, and the Honduran call
center will seem like a well oiled machine)? An institution with almost
no meaningful feedback when it fails insofar as its programs, once
instantiated, are outside the election/unelection process?
It seems that the pro-government healthcare bunch have adopted a
breathtaking piece of logic: The government that has run Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA into fiscal and operational
ruin should be asked to do more of the same. "Since they've already
screwed things up beyond belief, lets have them do even more of it."
Astonishing and profoundly stupid.
The real answer is remove bureaucratic impediments to interstate
competition among private healthcare providers, put a feedback
loop in place to punish the ambulance chasers that manufacture
insane legal claims, and inch the government *out* of healthcare
entirely in the next 25 years or so.
You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a
house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comments
~
> > in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we
were
> > discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' was
said,
> > you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
> > accepting universal health care.
(all the bullshit snipped)
As usual, you don't bother to reply to the question at hand and launch into
some unrelated rhetoric. Just between you and me, did you or did you not
start with the accusations and recriminations.
Answer the question dweeb.
On Sep 22, 11:54=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Don't you think it's a tad condescending on your part to equate
> the disabled with children? =A0
No, ..YOU just made that leap.
>
> You're attempt at amused condescension fails because in all that
> time, you've yet to make a case for your defense of theft.
>
I do not defend theft as there is no theft..all there is your hollow
bladder full of hot air.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 11:54 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you think it's a tad condescending on your part to equate
>>> the disabled with children?
>
> You're the one that used children as an analogy for the disabled,
> not me.
>
>> No, ..YOU just made that leap.
>>> You're attempt at amused condescension fails because in all that
>>> time, you've yet to make a case for your defense of theft.
>>>
>> I do not defend theft as there is no theft..all there is your hollow
>> bladder full of hot air.
>>
>
> Actually, it is a conspiracy to commit theft wherein the moochers higher
> the government thugs to do their stealing for them. I stand corrected.
>
Err, make that "hire"
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I suspect that most of them are actively living out their lives as our
> > current crop of politicians.
> One Americanadian (Ignatieff) is trying to become PM.
> I'm no Harper fan, but IggyPop is no alternative.
I agree. I've never be remotely interest in the Conservatives, but the
'leaders' of the Liberals for the past several years have been lacking in
everything I'd consider necessary to be a leader of our country.
On Sep 20, 2:43=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> > Jack Stein wrote:
>
> >> My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not interested
> >> in. =A0There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue with
> >> those who are interested enjoying themselves. =A0I enjoy hearing what =
my
> >> fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
> >> woodwork.
>
> > Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlation
> > between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engagement
> > in non-woodworking discussions.
>
> > I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broadene=
d
> > my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
> > difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
> > important problems.
>
> > I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(s)
> > when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
> > reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight i=
n
> > progress. :)
>
> Based on what I've read this week, I am going to start filtering myself .=
..
>
Brilliant idea and long overdue.
On Sep 23, 1:33=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I guess not being able to enrage me diminishes your energy considerably.
> Good! =A0BTW, I found you some help:
>
> =A0 =A0http://imgur.com/8Jur5.png
>
Thanks for the link. I'll waste no time clicking on it.
I suppose there is a possibility that it is funny, as you have
demonstrated in the past that somehere, deep-down, amongst the rubble
of misguided insanity, there lies a sense of humour.
On Sep 18, 10:02=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> opinions backed by furious googling
That just cracked me up....
On Sep 23, 3:22=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > I suspect that most of them are actively living out their lives as ou=
r
> > > current crop of politicians.
> > One Americanadian (Ignatieff) is trying to become PM.
> > I'm no Harper fan, but IggyPop is no alternative.
>
> I agree. I've never be remotely interest in the Conservatives, but the
> 'leaders' of the Liberals for the past several years have been lacking in
> everything I'd consider necessary to be a leader of our country.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/on-many-vital-issues-the-ndp-h=
ave-been-on-the-mark/article1299104/
;-)
HeyBub wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>>
>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>
> [...]
>
> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
words, shit out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
when in that situation, any easy slogans?
> What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care
> system treats you?
>
> I guess you could move to Canada...
Where a major illness doesn't raise the specter of bankruptcy, yeah,
wouldn't that be terrible.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>DGDevin wrote:
>>
>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>
>[...]
>
>Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
>treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
>free to change insurance companies!
No, you're not.
First, many employers only offer one choice.
Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).
scott
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:49 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
> treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
> free to change insurance companies!
You've got to be kidding! Or trolling. Most people get their insurance
through their employer. Unless that employer gets complaints from a lot
of employees, he's not going to change. If an employee tries to get
other insurance on his own, he'll soon find out he can't afford it.
Try living in the real world.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:12:34 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
> Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
> is a short list to get him started:
>
At least I sometimes add "OT" to a post :-).
But I'm intrigued by your list of names. It's interesting that most of
us on the list, whether right or left, are using our correct names. A
refreshing change from a lot of newsgroups where posters hide behind fake
handles and hurl insults and profanities.
My conclusion is that we're not so bad after all.
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:34:07 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> Well, yeah. Morality is absolute and there are only so many ways to
> describe it.
Funny, I thought the Christians, the Muslims, and the Buddhists had at
least 3 different takes on that "absolute" you claim :-).
The ayatollahs believe in an "absolute" morality too. It's just
different than yours.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped stuff]
>
>
> I'd rather take a verbal "fuck off" in the face, than a knife in my
> back Right-Wing-Stein style..
But you won't get a "fuck off" from a right-winger. There are two reasons
why this won't happen:
1. We don't often use profanity, and
2. As you correctly point out, we have no inhibition against killing our
enemies.
When Saul told David to bring back the foreskins of a hundred Phillistines
as a bride-price, David got all excited and started figuring how many men he
would need to subdue each Phillistine (because he wasn't counting on
voluntary compliance) and how long it would take, considering he would have
to sharpen his knife between events, and so on, Saul's emissary got all
exasperated: "David, David," he said, "You don't understand! Saul want you
to KILL the Phillistines, not CONVERT them! Saul doesn't care if you bring
back the whole prick!"
We have ways of detecting modern-day Phillistines: Usually it involves the
spontaneous declaration of "fuck off."
Upscale wrote:
>
> This is the internet. It's all online, even what was said years
> before. Tell me I'm wrong Tim. Show me where you were attacked first.
> Tell me you're not a hypocrite of the highest degree.
>
> Castigate me as much as you want, but despite the difficulties I have
> physically, my memory is excellent.
Two observations:
1. Hypocrisy is not intrinsically bad; 95% of the nation's gynecologists are
men.
2. You can't really criticize a progressive for profanity - it's what they
do. A recent study of mainstream blogs found that the comments section of
liberal blogs contained eighteen times the number of naughty words compared
to conservative sites. For example, "Lucianne.com" has virtually zero
profanity whereas "dailykos.com" contains a high percentage of "the seven
forbidden words."
I suspect, but can't prove, the latter is because liberals argue from an
emotional, child-like, ego state rather than a dispassionate, adult
position. An emotional argument often involves an anecdotal example whereas
an adult discourse usually involves aggregates of a population ("one child
becomes Autistic due to measles vaccine" vs. "thousands don't die because
they don't contract the disease").
Jack Stein wrote:
>> You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.
>
> Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
> is a short list to get him started:
>
> JBStein
> Robotoy
> Upscale
> Lew Hodgett
> Larry Blanchard
> Andrew Barss
> Han
> J.Clark
> Tom Watson
> DGDevin
> Charlieb
> Morris Dovey
> Perry Aynum
> Scott Lurndal
> Buck Turgidson
> Douglas Johnson
> Chris Friesen
> Tom Veatch
> Tim Daneliuk
> Phisherman
> Mark & Juanita
> HeyBub
> Ed Pawlowski
> CW
>
> I may of missed a few that haven't posted in the last 2 weeks, and I
> may have skipped a couple that do post political on occasion but not
> enough to bother with, or just not in last 2 weeks. I didn't include
> those that only post off topic about non-political things like food,
> recipes and so on. Everyone listed has participated in an off topic
> politcal thread in the last 2 weeks. Anyone I excluded or included
> that doesn't like it... try harder.
You seem to have missed one:
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!not-for-mail
From: Jack Stein <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Subject: Re: Fired Up, Ready To Go
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
U2FsdGVkX18URy5mWIWahnyCD5NZhTIfHMZLS4C+beXY2inXMfBRpeTWeNWREuQck+4yAM+kSZZMQjM8gmRjDrrDN1l/TqA04LNMCBGzdSJKUIRuaAlSDs09FURLR7iV0qE9jzz9EQU=
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19otYPfG44zu3bupGiTxxQz
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VszJUmhY16DYWzDh0WMBb6HX9Ds=
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
Bytes: 1940
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.woodworking:1415691
No argument with that, other than "many of their constituents recognize
as rampaging socialism." "Rampaging socialism" is easy to recognize, no
need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what it is...
Robatoy wrote:
>> Isn't in interesting how some, who are offended by remarks, simply
>> want the speaker to shut up? Or go away? Or want his wife to feed
>> him lots of pork chops so he'll die of a heart attack?
>>
>> In history, exile, shunning, ostracism, and the like were often
>> employed for those who violated the norms of society or arrayed
>> themselves against the political order.
>
> Like Guantanamo?
Pretty much, except there are those who advocate integrating the Gitmo
Guests into Mr Rogers neighborhood.
In my view, that's carrying the anti-exile mindset a bit too far.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or
> owning a flatscreen TV.
You overlook:
* The Community Redevelopment Act which made it easy for anyone, even those
without a job, to own a home.
* The "Cash for Clunkers" program to help some to buy a car.
I understand "A TV in Every Pot Act" is being drafted.
Your government at work.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:30:48 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
>> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
>> want.
>
> It's worse than that. The Republicans rate saving the environemnt,
> increasing workplace safety, providing a living wage, etc., below
> making money. "You can't do ......, it'll cut my profits." What do
> they care, they'll be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
In my view, it's pitiful that an employer has to pay $56/hour to a worker
AND put up signs that say "Do not put finger in the saw."
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:12:34 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but
>> here is a short list to get him started:
>>
>
> At least I sometimes add "OT" to a post :-).
>
> But I'm intrigued by your list of names. It's interesting that most
> of us on the list, whether right or left, are using our correct
> names. A refreshing change from a lot of newsgroups where posters
> hide behind fake handles and hurl insults and profanities.
>
> My conclusion is that we're not so bad after all.
>
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
There is also the pot-kettle-black nature of someone who himself
participates in off-topic threads posting a list of off-topic posters with
the recommendation they be kill-filed. Or is there an Irony Contest going I
hadn't heard about?
Jack Stein wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> 2. You can't really criticize a progressive for profanity - it's
>> what they do.
>
> Fuck all socialists! Where did this "progressive" shit come from
> anyway? "Progressive" implies moving forward, making things better.
> This is like 180° opposite of the people being described. Socialist
> is the correct word, and "progressive" doesn't come close to
> describing power hungry, anti-individual, anti-freedom, left wing,
> socialists...
>> A recent study of mainstream blogs found that the comments section of
>> liberal blogs contained eighteen times the number of naughty words
>> compared to conservative sites. For example, "Lucianne.com" has
>> virtually zero profanity whereas "dailykos.com" contains a high
>> percentage of "the seven forbidden words."
>>
>> I suspect, but can't prove, the latter is because liberals argue
>> from an emotional, child-like, ego state rather than a
>> dispassionate, adult position.
>
> I use expletives to keep in touch with my feminine side and to
> increase the likelihood those left wing, socialist bastards will
> comprehend whats being said...
Well, there's that. To teach, you have to speak in a language that the child
understands.
That's why the liberals are going nuts over the "You lie!" shout-out and the
Tea Party crowds and the "Help me set up a child-prostitution bordello so I
can run for Congress" methodologies. These, they understand.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>>>> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a
>>>> certain rigidity in your though process.
>>>
>>> By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding,
>>> freedom hating, socialist bastards that attempt to debate him, right?
>>
>> No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
>> his posts for him :-).
>>
>
>
> Well, yeah. Morality is absolute and there are only so many ways to
> describe it. Liberalism is, however, situational and there are millions of
> ways to fashion the explanation. It's the difference between:
>
> 1. Thou shalt not murder, and
> 2. Killing someone should be avoided execpt in the following cases:
> a. When the subject is an abusive spouse,
> b. When the subject is a potentially abusive spouse
> c. When the subject is someone the potentially abusive spouse knew
> d. When the subject is the sexual partner of a spouse
> e. When the subject is the potential sexual partner of a spouse
> f. When the subject is a fetus,
> g. When the subject is a potential fetus,
> h. When the subject is a child molester (but not by the state),
> i. When the subject might be a child molester (but not by the state)
> j. When there is no difference between the subject and the aggrieved
> (race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, ability to speak
> Lithuanian, etc.)
I guess Dickey Cheney is more liberal than I thought. He's fashioned
one or two explanations to suit his situation(s).
Dave in Houston
charlieb wrote:
> The other thing to be aware of is which industries and which
> lobbyists are opposing the change, what ever the proposed
> change is, and examine their reason(s) for that opposition. I'm
> willing put money on the it's not for altruistic reasons.
I read an article recently on some of the folks funding opposition to health
care reform and was absolutely gobsmacked to discover how many of them are
owners or CEOs etc. of health care companies making nice fat profits with
things just as they are. No, really, guys getting multi-million-dollar
bonus checks at insurance companies and so on are opposed to the system
being changed--who knew?
> And if you've ever had a "problem" with your health insurance
> company, especially if it's a life threatening thing, be aware that
> it's in THEIR best interest for you to die - before they have to
> expend any money on you. At least with the government you
> CAN try and get your elected congress person and senator
> to look into your problem. With an insurance company - your
> screwed - AFTER you probably have spent months on the phone
> talking to someone in a Call Center - in Pakistan or the Philipines
> or Honduras - who may or may not speak english.
What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt. bureaucrat
telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed to have as if the
same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance company bureaucrats. I
had an MRI awhile back and the hospital wouldn't give me an appointment
until they'd heard from the insurance company. Ditto with appointments with
specialists and so on, it all requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a
thousand miles away. I've also had a medication a doctor wanted to
prescribe for me disallowed by the insurance company in favor of a less
expensive generic--so I didn't get what the doctor thinks is the best drug,
but the one the insurance company is willing to pay for. And that's nothing
compared to what some folks have to go through, like having an insurance
company cancel coverage in the middle of chemo-therapy for breast cancer on
the flimsy excuse that the woman under-reported her weight on her original
application with the insurance company. For a start that sort of crap
should be flat-out illegal.
On Sep 22, 6:25=A0pm, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:52:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
> >get back to me on just who was mean here first.
>
> >I have decided to fight fire with fire. =A0This means you and the rest o=
f
> >pottymouths better hunker down - I have a way more interesting vocabular=
y
> >than you do. =A0Oh ... while it is never intended, a person of reason is
> >always "talking down" to people that express themselves irrationally...
>
> If you listen closely, you can hear the soft clicking of the steel
> balls as he rolls them over and over again in his hand...
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
I need to watch that movie again. There might be some tips.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:52:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
>get back to me on just who was mean here first.
>
>I have decided to fight fire with fire. This means you and the rest of
>pottymouths better hunker down - I have a way more interesting vocabulary
>than you do. Oh ... while it is never intended, a person of reason is
>always "talking down" to people that express themselves irrationally...
If you listen closely, you can hear the soft clicking of the steel
balls as he rolls them over and over again in his hand...
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Jack Stein wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but
>>> here is a short list to get him started:
>>
>> Only problem is that most everybody gets drawn into some completely
>> off topic political or gun or medical or other non woodworking
>> topic. Yet, it only seems to be you with your extremely limited
>> intelligence that suggests filtering everybody. I wonder why that is?
>
> I never suggested any such thing. I merely provided a short list of
> folks that post off topic when someone else suggested filtering names
> rather than subjects. I may have correctly noted that filtering names
> would be much easier than filtering subjects.
Then your list may need some tuning. I have NEVER started an off-topic
conversation (except maybe a humorous one or two and so labeled). On the
other hand, I don't let some things go unchallenged either.
"Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> And naturally, they get to count the communist, Liberian and so forth
> as Democrats... all non-Republican.
>
Since when do Liberians get to vote here?
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Robatoy wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>>>
>>> What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care
>>> system treats you?
>>>
>>> I guess you could move to Canada...
>>
>> You think that is easy?
>
> I dunno - I never tried it. But thousands of hippies managed it back
> during the Vietnam war and I just figured if a flea-bitten hippie
> could find north, most anybody else could too.
>
> I could be wrong. We never really heard about the hippies that
> wandered off in another direction. I guess they were hit by cars or
> fell into the ocean or died of the munchies.
>
> Like I say, I don't know.
But, somehow, that doesn't keep you from posting.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> No, they are first responders entrenched in the system for decades.
Riiiggghhht!!!! Notice when it comes to you giving examples in your life of
how you contribute, you always come up with extreme examples of what your
relatives are or do.
When called about being negative about blacks, you claim to not only have a
black relative, but one that was blacker than most.
When questioned on charity, you claimed to make many charitable
contributions ~ anonymously, the epitome of giving.
When it's suggested that your relatives are union trouble makers in the
medical industry, you respond with the thought that they're first responders
~ emergency responders.
Do you see how all that sounds? It tells us that you're full of bullshit
because you continually counter with the best in humanity (your relatives)
while you contribute nothing and exist solely to whine and complain all day
without giving a shred of consideration to anybody.
Daneliuk, you are full of shit. I know it, everybody else knows it. I
suspect (although I could be wrong) even Doug Miller knows it, but he
supports you just to hassle me.
You feel free to question my integrity by calling me evil and a thief solely
based on the fact that I benefit from country wide universal health care. I
know it's all you have. And, if that's the best form of attack you can
muster with your screwed up logic, then you stick with that. But, we both
know what's really true. I don't have to conjure up extreme examples of
contributions by relatives to defend myself. Compared to me, there's nothing
you can offer to bolster yourself.
On Sep 18, 12:17=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
> get back to me on just who was mean here first.
In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comments ~
in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we were
discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' was said,
you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
accepting universal health care.
This is the internet. It's all online, even what was said years before. Tell
me I'm wrong Tim. Show me where you were attacked first. Tell me you're not
a hypocrite of the highest degree.
Castigate me as much as you want, but despite the difficulties I have
physically, my memory is excellent.
On Sep 22, 9:36=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is the mindset of an emotionally undeveloped five year old,
not of an adult. Your needs are legitimate - like 10s of millions
of other people. But they are not a get-out-of-jail-free card to
pillage your neighbors. A gentleman asks for help politely and
is grateful when it is given. A spoiled child demands what they
want and curses their benefactor. I'd say your predominant
disability
isn't physical, it's moral.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Wow! You have turned your ugliness inside-out for all to see.
Do you kill children for not picking up their socks?
What deep-rooted hatred you live with, day after day.
I have been reading your commentaries for some time, and frankly I
have been amused by them.
This last little diatribe is not funny. It is deep-down ugly.
You'll be in my prayers, Tim, because somebody has to help you out of
that pit you're in.
Such a soiled black soul is sad to see.
On Sep 18, 7:30=A0pm, "Perry Aynum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
> predictable as it is.
>
> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
> rigidity in your though process.
Oh fur chrissakes don't get him fomenting....
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Defending the borders benefits everyone more-or-less equally. Stealing
> from some citizens to give to others harms freedom. Your kind of
> "freedom" only exists because you are diminishing another person's
> freedom.
The kind of freedom I'm talking about is much more involved and costly than
your trivial reference to it as border control. It consists of the society
you live in that permits fools like you to spout your crap. That freedom
costs money. It's the money for police forces that let you walk the streets
without being attacked. It's also the money involved in hiring the people to
legislate the laws that tolerate people like you. It's even the
infrastructure that takes your garbage away and paves the streets you drive
on.
As usual, you're such a useless twit, that I keep finding myself drawn into
your rhetoric. One day perhaps, you might find yourself somewhere that you
can make a real contribution. But, it's certainly not rec.woodworking where
you've contributed absolutely nothing in several years of showing everybody
what an selfish, whining, little ass you are.
On Sep 23, 10:29=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comme=
nts
> ~
> > > in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we
> were
> > > discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' wa=
s
> said,
> > > you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
> > > accepting universal health care.
>
> (all the bullshit snipped)
>
> As usual, you don't bother to reply to the question at hand and launch in=
to
> some unrelated rhetoric. Just between you and me, did you or did you not
> start with the accusations and recriminations.
>
> Answer the question dweeb.
So ... the basic problem with keeping "OT:" in the subject line ...
was ... what, again?
Thanks.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> have to (politely) ask for voluntary charity. If that fails, I'll
> become fertilizer a bit earlier than I'd like.
Do us all a favour and move that time line up substantially, will you? With
all the bullshit you spew you're likely to exfoliate everybody else in
rec.woodworking long before you manage to do the same to yourself.
On Sep 22, 4:43=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hopefully, you'll find more value in this post: At the very least I hope
> you learned how to better read with comprehension.
>
Can't you EVER talk to people without insults and talking 'down' to
people?
On Sep 23, 12:34=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comme=
nts
> > ~
> >>> in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we
> > were
> >>> discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' wa=
s
> > said,
> >>> you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
> >>> accepting universal health care.
>
> > (all the bullshit snipped)
>
> > As usual, you don't bother to reply to the question at hand and launch =
into
> > some unrelated rhetoric. Just between you and me, did you or did you no=
t
> > start with the accusations and recriminations.
>
> > Answer the question dweeb.
>
> Your question has a lie as a premise - it cannot be answered by a rationa=
l
> person.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
As your application of the 'bullshit baffles brains' method is well
known now, it cannot be dealt with by a rational person.
Your elementary school debate tactics are as painfully transparent as
Stein's pissed-through panties. He forgets to take them down before he
sits down to pee.
Seeing that you have nothing else to offer, either in constructive or
creative manner, I will now concentrate on getting Stein in a lather.
He's a lot of fun. Not stale like you, Tim.
Toodles!!
On Sep 23, 12:05=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 11:15 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> You seem to see what you want to see!
> > THIS is why I keep coming back for more. The purest of hilarities.
> > You are funny, Jack. WAY funnier than you know.
>
> I wasn't talking to you, you misguided douche-nozzle!
>
> > And not very bright.
>
> Obviously, else I wouldn't be so amused by your ineptness!
>
> --
> Jack
> Using FREE News Server:http://www.eternal-september.org/http://jbstein.co=
m
That label 'douche nozzle' is really bothering you isn't?
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I could be wrong. We never really heard about the hippies that wandered
off
> in another direction. I guess they were hit by cars or fell into the ocean
> or died of the munchies.
I suspect that most of them are actively living out their lives as our
current crop of politicians.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> writes:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>> Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
>> that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
>> words, shit out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
>> mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
>> outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
>> when in that situation, any easy slogans?
>
> In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
> Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
> his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
> wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
> they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
> treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.
>
> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
> want.
>
> scott
Nooooow I understand: The rest of us should pay for the kind of healthcare you
want so you can work in a place that you like and be free of "resentment".
What a marvelous worldview...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>>>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>>>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>>>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>>>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>>>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>>>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>>>>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>>>>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>>>> Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
>>>> that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
>>>> words, shit out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
>>>> mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
>>>> outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
>>>> when in that situation, any easy slogans?
>>> In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
>>> Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
>>> his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
>>> wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
>>> they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
>>> treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.
>>>
>>> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
>>> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
>>> want.
>>>
>>> scott
>> Nooooow I understand: The rest of us should pay for the kind of healthcare you
>> want so you can work in a place that you like and be free of "resentment".
>> What a marvelous worldview...
>>
>
> what a remarkable strawman. I'm really struggling to see how you
> can translate what I said into what you said.
I read what you wrote, no more. You opined that people don't like being slotted becayse
it makes them resentful - this in the context of a nationalized healthcare debate.
What I said is the logical conclusion of all the above...
Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or owning a flatscreen
TV. Insisting that your neighbors pay for it is no different than forcing them to
pay your mortgage. In this case "neighbors" mostly means younger people picking up
the tab for older people. The young people mostly don't need insurance but will
be forced to do so under any government mandated plan - it's the only way to pickup
the tab for the elders that don't want to spend their own money on healthcare. There
simply are not enough wealthy people to fleece to pay for it all. Sadly, almost every
liberal I know - including the relatively smart ones - cannot or will not do math and
thus believes you can legislate magic into existence in the face of all economic
reality. Wait until you see every 18 year old having to both sign up for the draft
AND buy insurance they don't need. You'll see a level of "resentment" that will
curl your hair ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 11:54 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped more of Tim's demonic soul-less banter]
>
> Discussing ANYthing with you impossible as you have no ability to see
> anything through anyone else's eyes.
> Tim's view is the only view. Period.
> You are a very disturbed creature, Tim.
>
> You can bend, twist, and flap in any direction you want, tossing up
> straw-men by the truckload, but for you to accuse anybody of
> misdirection is the best laugh I had all day.
>
> Your arguments cannot follow a straight line. You have to keep taking
> detours to your stock-piles of hurtful vitriol in order to feel like
> you are making a case for yourself. Your venomous words are way more
> disgusting than a simple 'fuck you' would ever be. You get all
> offended by people using language THEIR way...yet you continue to
> skewer people with YOUR vile disgusting language. Do you honestly
> think you have advantage by not using curse words? Is that all you can
> hide behind?.."oh nooooo Rob cussed at meeeeeee...MOMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY"
>
> Grow the fuck up, asshole. And stop trying to baffle people with your
> bullshit, straw-men and out-right lies.
>
> There... that is English...now go whine somewhere else,
> Now apologize to Upscale or I'll ride your ass like a new bride.
>
>
> :-)
>
> r
>
I keep telling you that I am not interested even slightly in your
homo-erotic fantasies.
I also have nothing whatsoever to apologize for.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 22, 9:22=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> At least when I "Contribute" it is not enabled by first stealing what
> >> my neighbor has worked for. =A0You're drawn in to these conversations
> >> because you are desparate to defend your marauding and theft ... but
> >> there is none...
>
> > Glad you framed Contribute in apostrophes, because you don't contribute
> > shit. Unless of course, you count the whining you do as an art form. An=
d as
>
> I contribute a regular reminder that you and people like you are not
> noble, kind, honorable or decent. =A0You are purveyors of theft and fraud=
.
> And it's important to keep that spotlight brightly lit so you can
> never delude yourself into thinking anything else.
>
> > to defending myself, there's 30 million other Canadians that defend our
> > healthcare, or most of them anyway. You? For a defence, you've got peop=
le
>
> Not the ones in my own family that actually work in the healthcare
> system.
That sounds like they are unionized squabblers.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You certainly have an active imagination. I'm not going to allow you to
drag
> me into this argument, though.
Maybe, but it makes life interesting. However, if you want to go on record
as being a supporter of Daneliuk, don't let me stand in your way.
Personally, I don't like trying to make my way through the traffic on an
eight lane highway.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> writes:
>HeyBub wrote:
>
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>
>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>
>Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
>that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
>words, shit out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
>mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
>outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
>when in that situation, any easy slogans?
In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.
It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.
scott
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:30:48 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
>> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
>> want.
>
> It's worse than that. The Republicans rate saving the environemnt,
> increasing workplace safety, providing a living wage, etc., below making
> money. "You can't do ......, it'll cut my profits." What do they care,
> they'll be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.
>
There is a big leap of faith here in your statement that is baldly
wrong. The proposals of the left do not "save the environment",
"increase workplace safety", "provide a living wage", or any such
other thing. They are nothing more than cheap political theatrics
to buy votes from the sub-literate moochers exemplified by ACORN
and its minions. The honest way to accomplish this is to reform
tort laws to do two things:
1) Make silly law suits punishingly expensive for the attorneys
bringing.
2) Make it easier for the average person to bring suit when there
is a legitimate claim for things like poor workplace safety.
These two things are very difficult to get right simultaneously,
but at least it is remotely possible. There is NO hope of using
law to legislate these charming little experiments in social engineering
fairly. Every single one of the things you cite benefits some people to
the detriment of other, except in principle, environmental laws. The problem
with those is that the government always gets them wrong - go look at what's
happening in the San Joachin valley today for an example of what happens
when the lunatic left pantheists are put in charge of the EPA.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 22, 11:21=A0am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > Whatthehell??
>
> > I haven't even participated in this thread.
>
> Can't say that anymore, can you?
> ;-)
> --
> Froz...
Sortakinda like 'the oldest man in Canada dies'... can't really
happen, can it?
DGDevin wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has
>> broadened my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the
>> complexities and difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to
>> (what I think are) important problems.
>
> Yup, some people just like to screech, but some can back up their views with
> something other than raw noise.
>
>> I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring
>> sub-thread(s) when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive -
>> for the same reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where
>> there's a barfight in progress. :)
>
> What if it's happy hour and it's only a small fight?
>
>
Quoting you: "Try harder" :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 18, 12:07=A0am, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
> people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
> battle.
Sorry, Dave. As you have noticed, this is primarily a coffee clatch
of experts that get together and exchange their expert opinions on
politics and economics.
Few are woodworkers, and it is pretty much the same guys every time
that adamantly expressed their opinions backed by furious googling to
make sure they get it right. They rail out at an unjust world that
doesn't understand how things should be (according to them, anyway).
You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.
Robert
On Sep 22, 5:52=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
> get back to me on just who was mean here first.
Call me Buttercup all you want. But No. You are NOT getting into my
pants.
He was....ermmm..'MEAN.? Oh nooo, the Thieving Meanies are out to get
Tim.
>
> I have decided to fight fire with fire.
Oh really? *as I look over the top of my glasses at an idiot who has
NO clue what the opposition looks like..*
> This means you and the rest of
> pottymouths better hunker down - I have a way more interesting vocabulary
> than you do. =A0
No you fucking well don't. YOU think you have a more interesting
vocabulary...doesn't make it so. The same old rehash as always, Tim.
Not an original thought.
Glad to see you sunk down to my level though. It is about time we had
a friendly man-to-pussy chat.
"Here kitty, kitty..."
"Yes..I'm one of the meanie potty
mouths........................okay...I need a break.. can't see the
keyboard from the tears, I'm laughing so hard....
> Oh ... while it is never intended, a person of reason is
> always "talking down" to people that express themselves irrationally...
Lessee here..'never intended'..... so..wait... aka unintentional...
mmmmm
Okay. Let's take inventory here.
To disagree with Tim =3D irrational. Check.
Meanies not allowed. Check.
Pottymouths are bad. Check.
No throwing sand while in the sandbox... unless you dig up a cat-turd,
then fling it at Tim. Check.
Stop digging up cat turds because Tim LIKES them. Check.
So, Timbo... start assembling some original thoughts. We have all seen
the fomenting smelly hippy hopium lines already... something fresh.
Like douche-nozzle.
Oh.. got to go..food's on...
On Sep 21, 6:28=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 7:14=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > DGDevin wrote:
>
> > > What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
> > > bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
> > > to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
> > > company bureaucrats. =A0I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
> > > wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
> > > company. =A0Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it al=
l
> > > requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
Find another employer. I've never had any issues anywhere close to
that. In-plan or out-of-plan, certainly, but that's my choice.
> > Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
> > treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you'r=
e
> > free to change insurance companies!
>
> > What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care sys=
tem
> > treats you?
>
> > I guess you could move to Canada...
>
> You think that is easy?
Moving to Canuckistan? No. Changing insurance companies, yes even if
it means changing employers.
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Sep 23, 3:45 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You feel free to question my integrity by calling me evil and a thief solely
>> based on the fact that I benefit from country wide universal health care. I
>> know it's all you have.
>
> I just want it on the record that I am quite happy that Upscale can
> benefit from the taxes I pay to support universal health care, and
> that I actually would not mind all that much to pay more if it
> improved my fellow citizen's access to health care.
>
> He is in no way stealing from me, no more than anyone who benefits
> from a program that we the people, in our wisdom or lack thereof, have
> voted in favour of through our duly elected representatives.
>
How about the likely millions of your fellow citizens that do not share
your eleemosynary spirit? It's one thing to volunteer to help - most
all of us have done that in one way or another in our lives. It's
quite another to be forced to do so by law.
Thought Experiment: Assume there was no national healthcare in your
nation. Would you willingly send part of your paycheck to people you
do not know, are not in your circle of family and/or friends, and otherwise
strangers? I say the answer based on the charitable giving in the US
and Canuckistan is a resounding *YES*. People DO like caring for others.
Upscale and others that share his worldview act as if in the absence of
government force there would no help available at all. It's utterly
false. In actual fact, when people have more money in their pocket, they
give more to charity. The real reason that charity-at-the-point-of-a-gun
is so popular is twofold:
- There bulk of the citizenry gets more out of social mooching programs than
they put in. They've been taught that taking something that is not yours
is wrong unless they take from people that are rich. Since there are way
more poor- and middle-class people than wealthy ones, mooching almost always
manages to pass. The current US debate on healthcare is not a mooching vs.
no-mooching debate. It is a debate about *what kind* of mooching and whether
or not the existing moochers will win or lose in the proposed changes.
- The political creatures love mooching programs because they can: A) Buy
votes with them and B) Attempt social engineering that suits them.
All in all, social programs are an unholy mess. I applaud your willingness
to help your fellow man. I share that with you. What I do not share is
a willingness to have some malignant politician decide for me just who should
get what I've worked for and how much. I want to make that kind of call
for myself...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 22, 11:15=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You seem to see what you want to see!
>
>
> Jack
THIS is why I keep coming back for more. The purest of hilarities.
You are funny, Jack. WAY funnier than you know.
And not very bright.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a
>> house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.
>
> For just one minute, why don't you try substituting "FREEDOM" in place of
> your continual healthcare attacks?
>
> Because in all honesty, many people who face serious difficulties with their
> healthcare view it NO DIFFERENTLY than a direct limitation of their freedom.
> I KNOW this to be fact. And, it has the exact same effect. Unfortunately,
> you don't have the imagination or intelligence to realize that. You take
> advantage of your right to freedom by continually whining how much it costs
> you. I wonder how you'd deal with it if that part of your freedom was
> removed?
>
> Pathetic little wimp. Can you sink any further?
>
>
>
Your "freedom" is not such thing. It's at the expense of another citizen.
Your "free" healthcare means someone else has less money for their own
family's needs. My worldview is not built on stealing, yours is. My
worldview isn't dependent on impoverishing other people. Your's is.
I don't ask third parties in government to do my stealing. You do.
Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>>
>> What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care
>> system treats you?
>>
>> I guess you could move to Canada...
>
> You think that is easy?
I dunno - I never tried it. But thousands of hippies managed it back during
the Vietnam war and I just figured if a flea-bitten hippie could find north,
most anybody else could too.
I could be wrong. We never really heard about the hippies that wandered off
in another direction. I guess they were hit by cars or fell into the ocean
or died of the munchies.
Like I say, I don't know.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 11:54 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't you think it's a tad condescending on your part to equate
>> the disabled with children?
You're the one that used children as an analogy for the disabled,
not me.
>
> No, ..YOU just made that leap.
>> You're attempt at amused condescension fails because in all that
>> time, you've yet to make a case for your defense of theft.
>>
> I do not defend theft as there is no theft..all there is your hollow
> bladder full of hot air.
>
Actually, it is a conspiracy to commit theft wherein the moochers higher
the government thugs to do their stealing for them. I stand corrected.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 18, 7:30 pm, "Perry Aynum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
>> predictable as it is.
>>
>> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
>> rigidity in your though process.
>
> Oh fur chrissakes don't get him fomenting....
I love you man ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comments
> ~
>>> in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we
> were
>>> discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' was
> said,
>>> you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
>>> accepting universal health care.
>
> (all the bullshit snipped)
>
> As usual, you don't bother to reply to the question at hand and launch into
> some unrelated rhetoric. Just between you and me, did you or did you not
> start with the accusations and recriminations.
>
> Answer the question dweeb.
>
>
Your question has a lie as a premise - it cannot be answered by a rational
person.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Haven't you heard. In the new lexicon of a good many folks here,
> you are *entitled* to whatever you need, not matter who else gets
> raided to provide it. What you are suggesting above, sir, would
> require personal integrity and responsibility and we simply cannot
> have that. So go back to work - too many people that don't are
> depending on you ...
Do you ever address what people actually post, or only fabricate positions
they didn't express and attack those instead? You must have a straw-man
assembly line set up based on how often you indulge in this sophomoric
stunt.
How does requiring insurance companies to play fair qualify as a raid on
your pocketbook? How does setting up a pool where individuals can buy
insurance at group rates take money from your bank account? And so on, but
nooooooooo, you have to leap to some bizarre depiction of citizens forced to
line up outside a clinic in a state-run gulag with whip-wielding commissars
flailing the moaning masses. Your vivid imagination and libertarian
paranoia are at least amusing (in a pathetic sort of way)--but frankly it's
the only value you bring to the conversation.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:12:34 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.
>
A good start would be to filter everyone who posts in alt.home.repair.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
The real answer is remove bureaucratic impediments to interstate
> competition among private healthcare providers, put a feedback
> loop in place to punish the ambulance chasers that manufacture
> insane legal claims, and inch the government *out* of healthcare
> entirely in the next 25 years or so.
>
Jeffrey Skilling may be looking for work, once he is paroled.
> People who paid into the existing system have a reasonable right to
> expect they will get back what they put in. But the system today
> pays out far, far more than the recipients every put in. The system
> is iniquitous and should never have been implemented in the first place -
> it is a ponzi scheme the like of which Madoff would only have dreamed.
> The way you get out of it is by diminishing benefits 4% per year for the
> next 25 years until it is gone entirely. Retire today, get full benefits
> for life. Retire next year, get 96% benefits, and so on.
>
> This is bad logic: The government screwed up social services for the last
> 60
> years - let's have them do more of it.
>
If it never should have been implemented, then urge your mother to swear it
off, and you pay for her healthcare out-of-pocket.
Put your money where you mouth is.
To extend the Madoff analogy, as long as you're sure you'd get YOUR money
back (with 11% interest of course), it's ok to invest with him, even if you
knew he was a phony?
I doubt you or your mother will ever put into Medicare what you'll take out.
So isn't it hypocritical to participate in the program?
Are you funding your own healthcare needs for your retirement?
Perry Aynum wrote:
> Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
> predictable as it is.
>
> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
> rigidity in your though process.
By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
hating, socialist bastards that attempt to debate him, right?
I guess thats better than simply calling him a "useless twit", or a
"misguided douche-nozzle"...
Well, different words anyway...
--
Jack
Got Change: USA =====> USSA!
http://jbstein.com
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 18, 12:07 am, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
>> people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
>> battle.
> You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.
Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
is a short list to get him started:
JBStein
Robotoy
Upscale
Lew Hodgett
Larry Blanchard
Andrew Barss
Han
J.Clark
Tom Watson
DGDevin
Charlieb
Morris Dovey
Perry Aynum
Scott Lurndal
Buck Turgidson
Douglas Johnson
Chris Friesen
Tom Veatch
Tim Daneliuk
Phisherman
Mark & Juanita
HeyBub
Ed Pawlowski
CW
I may of missed a few that haven't posted in the last 2 weeks, and I may
have skipped a couple that do post political on occasion but not enough
to bother with, or just not in last 2 weeks. I didn't include those that
only post off topic about non-political things like food, recipes and so
on. Everyone listed has participated in an off topic politcal thread in
the last 2 weeks. Anyone I excluded or included that doesn't like it...
try harder.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
> people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
> battle.
>
> So my proposed solution is that every post about anything to do with
> your fucked-up country's political and financial system that is causing
> so much grief world-wide that isn't directly related to woodworking be
> labeled with [USA-POLITICAL-CRAP] in the subject line so that those of
> us who are outside the US and/or just wanting to see mostly wooddorking
> posts here (yeah, I know... good luck!) can filter this bullshit with
> some ease.
>
> Of course this proposal is futile, so don't even bother responding...
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
You're welcome. :)
You have my sympathies - if not my active support. I've wondered from
time to time whether we (the entire group) talk about politics too much
or not enough.
Less would lower traffic, but probably not have much effect on the
number of woodworking posts - and more might lead to improved consensus
on issues that affect us all. (Yeah, it'd be appropriate to use a
different forum, but I don't think that's likely to happen.)
I suppose we could also tag posts as to METRIC/IMPERIAL and
NEANDER/NORM/CNC content as well...
:-T
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
>>> rigidity in your though process.
>> By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
>> hating, socialist bastards that attempt to debate him, right?
>
> No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
> his posts for him :-).
Yeah, Tim and everyone else. Who has an opinion that changes to the
point of being unpredictable?
> But I may be unfair to Tim - he may have changed - I haven't read his
> posts in a long time.
Fairness has little to do with it. Opinions do not change with the
wind, unless you're an air head.
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
>> people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
>> battle.
> You have my sympathies - if not my active support. I've wondered from
> time to time whether we (the entire group) talk about politics too much
> or not enough.
> Less would lower traffic, but probably not have much effect on the
> number of woodworking posts - and more might lead to improved consensus
> on issues that affect us all. (Yeah, it'd be appropriate to use a
> different forum, but I don't think that's likely to happen.)
Nope, not going to happen. The best thing to do is filter everyone that
posts off topic questions if you insist on eliminating all off topic
messages. You will not have to spend much time reading though, as most
contributors, not all, but most contribute on all sorts of off topic
stuff. My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not
interested in. There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue
with those who are interested enjoying themselves. I enjoy hearing what
my fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
woodwork.
> I suppose we could also tag posts as to METRIC/IMPERIAL and
> NEANDER/NORM/CNC content as well...
Every message has a subject, not much trouble to skip the subjects you
find not interesting. Pretty sure thats a prime reason for having a
subject, an ability to sort by subject, and a mouse.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein wrote:
> My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not
> interested in. There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue
> with those who are interested enjoying themselves. I enjoy hearing what
> my fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
> woodwork.
Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlation
between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engagement
in non-woodworking discussions.
I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broadened
my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
important problems.
I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(s)
when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight in
progress. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
DGDevin wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has
>> broadened my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the
>> complexities and difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to
>> (what I think are) important problems.
>
> Yup, some people just like to screech, but some can back up their views with
> something other than raw noise.
>
>> I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring
>> sub-thread(s) when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive -
>> for the same reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where
>> there's a barfight in progress. :)
>
> What if it's happy hour and it's only a small fight?
Just as a young whipper-snapper shouldn't ever pick a fight with an old
man, an old man should be responsible enough to not let it happen.
There are pretty barmaids everywhere. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
HeyBub wrote:
> I could be wrong. We never really heard about the hippies that wandered off
> in another direction. I guess they were hit by cars or fell into the ocean
> or died of the munchies.
Heh, "died of the munchies" - that's a good one. :-)
--
Repeat after me:
"I am we Todd it. I am sofa king we Todd it."
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
HeyBub wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>>>
>>> What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care
>>> system treats you?
>>>
>>> I guess you could move to Canada...
>>
>> You think that is easy?
>
> I dunno - I never tried it. But thousands of hippies managed it back
> during the Vietnam war and I just figured if a flea-bitten hippie
> could find north, most anybody else could too.
>
> I could be wrong. We never really heard about the hippies that
> wandered off in another direction. I guess they were hit by cars or
> fell into the ocean or died of the munchies.
>
> Like I say, I don't know.
Finding north is easy. Obtaining permanent residency is harder--the draft
dodgers applied for political asylum but since there's no draft anymore that
approach doesn't work.
DGDevin wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>> You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.
>> Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
>> is a short list to get him started:
>>
>> JBStein
>> Robotoy
>> Upscale
>> Lew Hodgett
>> Larry Blanchard
>> Andrew Barss
>> Han
>> J.Clark
>> Tom Watson
>> DGDevin
>> Charlieb
>> Morris Dovey
>> Perry Aynum
>> Scott Lurndal
>> Buck Turgidson
>> Douglas Johnson
>> Chris Friesen
>> Tom Veatch
>> Tim Daneliuk
>> Phisherman
>> Mark & Juanita
>> HeyBub
>> Ed Pawlowski
>> CW
>
> You seem to have missed one:
Who might that be?
You seem to see what you want to see!
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com
>
> Path:
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!not-for-mail
> From: Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
> Subject: Re: Fired Up, Ready To Go
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0500
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 15
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
> U2FsdGVkX18URy5mWIWahnyCD5NZhTIfHMZLS4C+beXY2inXMfBRpeTWeNWREuQck+4yAM+kSZZMQjM8gmRjDrrDN1l/TqA04LNMCBGzdSJKUIRuaAlSDs09FURLR7iV0qE9jzz9EQU=
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:48:36 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19otYPfG44zu3bupGiTxxQz
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:VszJUmhY16DYWzDh0WMBb6HX9Ds=
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
> Bytes: 1940
> Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.woodworking:1415691
>
>
> No argument with that, other than "many of their constituents recognize
> as rampaging socialism." "Rampaging socialism" is easy to recognize, no
> need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what it is...
>
>
DGDevin wrote:
> There is also the pot-kettle-black nature of someone who himself
> participates in off-topic threads posting a list of off-topic posters with
> the recommendation they be kill-filed.
If you had any sort of reading comprehension, you would know someone
else suggested filtering out off topic posters. I simply provided a
short list of those recently participating in off topic posts.
If you didn't have your head so far up your ass, you would have noted
there was no "pot-kettle-black nature" to the post, and about the only
irony would be you crying I "missed one" and then posting a bunch of
gobbledygook with my name on it, when the FIRST name on my list was my
own...
> Or is there an Irony Contest going I
> hadn't heard about?
Yeah, seems its your contest, and you won!
--
Jack
Got Change: Van Guard ====> Van Jones!
http://jbstein.com
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > You think that is easy?
>>
>> I dunno - I never tried it. But thousands of hippies managed it back
>during
>> the Vietnam war and I just figured if a flea-bitten hippie could find
>north,
>> most anybody else could too.
>
>Sure, we're a friendly county and will take most people. ~ Even assholes
>like Daneliuk who have nothing good to say about the Canadian healthcare
>system, but I wonder where he'd head first if his own healthcare system
>screwed him?
>
>And to Doug Miller who said that there's nothing more important than
>freedom. He should try experiencing a serious disability and find out what
>it's like to have that freedom but not be able to do anything with it
>because he was confined to a body that mostly doesn't work anymore.
>
>Freedom is only good Doug if you can take advantage of it.
Whatthehell??
I haven't even participated in this thread.
>
>
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>> And to Doug Miller who said that there's nothing more important than
>> freedom. He should try experiencing a serious disability and find out what
>> it's like to have that freedom but not be able to do anything with it
>> because he was confined to a body that mostly doesn't work anymore.
>>
>> Freedom is only good Doug if you can take advantage of it.
>
> And your "disability" does not entitle you to rape everyone else's
> freedom.
True, but a non sequitur.
> You continue to live in this ideological sewer that says
> you're entitled to whatever you need even if it harms other people.
This is an ugly accusation made, so far as I can determine, without
justification.
> This is the mindset of an emotionally undeveloped five year old,
> not of an adult.
This appears to be a strawman argument, where you fabricate and project
a mindset and then castigate it as if it were not your own.
> Your needs are legitimate - like 10s of millions
> of other people. But they are not a get-out-of-jail-free card to
> pillage your neighbors. A gentleman asks for help politely and
> is grateful when it is given.
Perhaps, but a person who demands a public declaration of gratitude for
a gentlemanly act is, in my opinion, unworthy of being considered a
gentleman.
> A spoiled child demands what they want and curses their benefactor.
Another non sequitur.
> I'd say your predominant disability isn't physical, it's moral.
I'd say you owe Upscale an apology.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 11:54 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped more of Tim's demonic soul-less banter]
> Discussing ANYthing with you impossible as you have no ability to see
> anything through anyone else's eyes.
Translation: Robocop is too dumb to debate the issues with Tim.
> Tim's view is the only view. Period.
Tims view is Tims view. I guess you expect him to suffer your view?
> You are a very disturbed creature, Tim.
Translation: You are too dumb to argue or shut up, so you might as well
mount a meaningless attack.
> You can bend, twist, and flap in any direction you want, tossing up
> straw-men by the truckload, but for you to accuse anybody of
> misdirection is the best laugh I had all day.
Last I heard Tim was too ridged in his beliefs. You fools can't seem to
keep your act straight.
> Your arguments cannot follow a straight line.
Agree with him or not, he is undeniably consistent in his line of
thought. You may be dumb as dirt, but surely not so dumb as all that.
> You have to keep taking
> detours to your stock-piles of hurtful vitriol in order to feel like
> you are making a case for yourself.
Blah, blah blah.
> Your venomous words are way more
> disgusting than a simple 'fuck you' would ever be. You get all
> offended by people using language THEIR way...
Wrong as usual. He doesn't seem to get offended by brainless posts
devoid of any meaningful arguments other than personal attacks and
meaningless depreciatory remarks.
> yet you continue to
> skewer people with YOUR vile disgusting language. Do you honestly
> think you have advantage by not using curse words?
Well he certainly has a much better handle on the English language than
you, or Upscale have demonstrated.
Is that all you can
> hide behind?.."oh nooooo Rob cussed at meeeeeee...MOMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY"
You're babbling yet again...
> Grow the fuck up, asshole.
Yeah, that should straighten his ass out...
And stop trying to baffle people with your
> bullshit, straw-men and out-right lies.
Lies? Lies? I love when lies are exposed. What lies specifically are
you speaking, or were you just practicing your typical meaningless,
empty attacks?
> There... that is English...now go whine somewhere else,
Hypocrite is the word jumps into my head here.... A whole fucking page
of whiny attacks and then you accuse him of whining? No, hypocrite is
too nice, ballsy might work... No, asshole, yeah, that fits quite nicely.
> Now apologize to Upscale or I'll ride your ass like a new bride.
That should scare the hell out of him... Ride cowboy Ride!
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 11:15 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You seem to see what you want to see!
> THIS is why I keep coming back for more. The purest of hilarities.
> You are funny, Jack. WAY funnier than you know.
I wasn't talking to you, you misguided douche-nozzle!
> And not very bright.
Obviously, else I wouldn't be so amused by your ineptness!
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Upscale wrote:
> Daneliuk, you are full of shit. I know it, everybody else knows it. I
> suspect (although I could be wrong) even Doug Miller knows it, but he
> supports you just to hassle me.
I'm not a liberal *or* a conservative, and I'm not taking anyone's "side" here, but I take
offense to anyone who presumes to speak for "everybody else". My guess is that the majority
of participants in this group are silent unless the discussion is on-topic. To hear you
(and others) loudly assume that "everyone" shares your view when they in fact haven't said a
word, well frankly it just pisses me off.
--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Upscale wrote:
> "Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> (and others) loudly assume that "everyone" shares your view when they in
> fact haven't said a
>> word, well frankly it just pisses me off.
>
> Sure, you're right that respect. I'm putting words in your mouth when you
> haven't said anything. For that I'll apologize.
>
> Let me rephrase. A significant amount of people in involved in the thread
> appear to support much of my mindset.
>
> I hope that meets with your approval. :)
Thank you. :-)
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Upscale wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
>> is a short list to get him started:
>
> Only problem is that most everybody gets drawn into some completely off
> topic political or gun or medical or other non woodworking topic. Yet, it
> only seems to be you with your extremely limited intelligence that suggests
> filtering everybody. I wonder why that is?
I never suggested any such thing. I merely provided a short list of
folks that post off topic when someone else suggested filtering names
rather than subjects. I may have correctly noted that filtering names
would be much easier than filtering subjects.
--
Jack
Got Change: Van Guard ======> Van Jones!
http://jbstein.com
HeyBub wrote:
> 2. You can't really criticize a progressive for profanity - it's what they
> do.
Fuck all socialists! Where did this "progressive" shit come from
anyway? "Progressive" implies moving forward, making things better.
This is like 180° opposite of the people being described. Socialist is
the correct word, and "progressive" doesn't come close to describing
power hungry, anti-individual, anti-freedom, left wing, socialists...
> A recent study of mainstream blogs found that the comments section of
> liberal blogs contained eighteen times the number of naughty words compared
> to conservative sites. For example, "Lucianne.com" has virtually zero
> profanity whereas "dailykos.com" contains a high percentage of "the seven
> forbidden words."
>
> I suspect, but can't prove, the latter is because liberals argue from an
> emotional, child-like, ego state rather than a dispassionate, adult
> position.
I use expletives to keep in touch with my feminine side and to increase
the likelihood those left wing, socialist bastards will comprehend whats
being said...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> I'd rather take a verbal "fuck off" in the face, than a knife in my
> back Right-Wing-Stein style..
Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm sure I'm not the only one sitting on
the edge of my chair wondering how you felt about that very thing...
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =====> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>>DGDevin wrote:
>>>
>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
>>treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
>>free to change insurance companies!
>
> No, you're not.
>
> First, many employers only offer one choice.
>
> Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
> more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
> to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
> plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).
>
> scott
one changes insurance companies by changing employers, if it's that
important to the person. if it's a government 'insurance' company, i would
suppose one would have to emmigrate to change.
no one said either would be easy or have drawbacks.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>> [...]
>>
>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
>> treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
>> free to change insurance companies!
>
> No, you're not.
>
> First, many employers only offer one choice.
>
> Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
> more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
> to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
> plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).
>
> scott
If the company is providing the insurance then it belongs to the company
and covers you. The same as any company policy, you live with it or
look elsewhere. If you don't like the way the company is being run
then, for many reasons, it is best if you look elsewhere. Because if
you are right and it it is being badly run, then you may be out of work
if you stay. I read some where that a recent graduate will have 6 jobs
in the next 20 years.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Daneliuk, you are full of shit. I know it, everybody else knows it. I
>suspect (although I could be wrong) even Doug Miller knows it, but he
>supports you just to hassle me.
You certainly have an active imagination. I'm not going to allow you to drag
me into this argument, though.
HeyBub wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
I merely provided a short list of
>> folks that post off topic when someone else suggested filtering names
>> rather than subjects. I may have correctly noted that filtering names
>> would be much easier than filtering subjects.
> Then your list may need some tuning. I have NEVER started an off-topic
> conversation (except maybe a humorous one or two and so labeled). On the
> other hand, I don't let some things go unchallenged either.
My list of names had nothing to do with people that START off topic
conversation. The list was of people that PARTICIPATE in off topic
conversation, and you are definitely on the list.
Filtering only the person that started an off topic thread would get him
nowhere.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
> want.
Yeah, that's OLD for sure. The absolute last way to provide individual
freedom is by empowering government. Neither todays Dems nor Repubs
have any plan on reducing government. You seem to be lost in left wing,
socialist bastard drivel that is today the domain of both Democratic AND
Republican parties.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> If you like, I'll be happy to send you a photo of myself so you can
> actually see the individual that occupies most of your waking thoughts
> and dreams.
>
They do enough jerking off to your writing, don't give them a picture to
go along with it.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
HeyBub wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or
>> owning a flatscreen TV.
>
> You overlook:
>
> * The Community Redevelopment Act which made it easy for anyone, even those
> without a job, to own a home.
> * The "Cash for Clunkers" program to help some to buy a car.
>
> I understand "A TV in Every Pot Act" is being drafted.
>
> Your government at work.
I'm waiting for a Granite Countertop in every Kitchen Act. And the rip
off prices they charge and obscene profits they make for this rock today
is pure greed. I'm thinking no more than $5 a square foot would be more
reasonable than the $100+ the greedy capitalist pigs charge now.
--
Jack
Got Change: uh uh uh =========> um um um!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:32 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
>> No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...
>>
> Go on then...stop dragging your ass in here...
>
Aw how cute, you and your life partner Upscale missed me ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:12:58 -0500, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:53:26 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
>>>more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
>>>to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family
>>>employer plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for
>>>premiums).
>>
>> There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
>> package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
>> benefit plan he won't have employees.
>
>There IS a parallel universe! One where theory works out in practice.
In this case, theory and practice are the same.
>Some of us may be in a trade or profession that allows changing jobs at
>will, but most folks don't have that choice. Especially in a market
>where there's 100 applicants for every job opening.
Find another. No one is owed a living, or anything else.
>I was one of the lucky ones until I retired. But even then I found that
>it became more and more difficult as I got older. After 50 it was almost
>impossible.
Crap. I'm 57 and just started a new job a year ago, after retiring
once.
>As an example, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 50 year old retail
>sales clerk whose employer has just cut benefits. You inquire about
>openings at other stores and get responses like "you're overqualified" or
>"we're looking for a trainee". You check into buying your own insurance
>for yourself and family and find it would cost more than your housing and
>food. Are you "free"?
Any more strawmen you'd like to enlist in your dreams?
Gee, I thought Bob died a few years ago. He must be 90+?
HeyBub wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.
>>
>> Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.
>>
>> Must be a good bill.
>>
>
> Last count, Baucus has one vote for his bill.
>
> Right now, with the Kennedy seat vacant, the Democrats can't break a
> filibuster (they still need 60 votes and there are only 59 Democrats).
> Interestingly, if another Democrat dies - leaving them with 58 - they'll
> only need 58 votes to invoke cloture.
>
> Pray for the continued breathing of Robert Byrd.
>
>
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>>>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>>>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>>> Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
>>> that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
>>> words, shit out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
>>> mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
>>> outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
>>> when in that situation, any easy slogans?
>>
>> In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
>> Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
>> his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
>> wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
>> they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
>> treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.
>>
>> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
>> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
>> want.
>>
>> scott
>
>Nooooow I understand: The rest of us should pay for the kind of healthcare you
>want so you can work in a place that you like and be free of "resentment".
>What a marvelous worldview...
>
what a remarkable strawman. I'm really struggling to see how you
can translate what I said into what you said.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:53:26 -0500, krw wrote:
>>Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
>>more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
>>to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family
>>employer plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for
>>premiums).
>
> There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
> package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
> benefit plan he won't have employees.
There IS a parallel universe! One where theory works out in practice.
Some of us may be in a trade or profession that allows changing jobs at
will, but most folks don't have that choice. Especially in a market
where there's 100 applicants for every job opening.
I was one of the lucky ones until I retired. But even then I found that
it became more and more difficult as I got older. After 50 it was almost
impossible.
As an example, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 50 year old retail
sales clerk whose employer has just cut benefits. You inquire about
openings at other stores and get responses like "you're overqualified" or
"we're looking for a trainee". You check into buying your own insurance
for yourself and family and find it would cost more than your housing and
food. Are you "free"?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:30:48 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
> want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
> want.
It's worse than that. The Republicans rate saving the environemnt,
increasing workplace safety, providing a living wage, etc., below making
money. "You can't do ......, it'll cut my profits." What do they care,
they'll be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
>> get back to me on just who was mean here first.
>
> In actuality, it's always you who has made the first derogatory comments ~
> in every discussion whatever the nature. Right from the first time we were
> discussing universal health care some years before anything 'mean' was said,
> you decided to come out with the fact that I was evil and a thief for
> accepting universal health care.
You are either profoundly dumb or lying, I can't tell which. I've
repeated explained in small words and simple sentences - that
accepting that which you are forced to pay for is no moral foul. Your
thievery derives from something different - from the fact that you
*support* such a system actively. Somewhere in your country today
someone has less money to care for *their* family so that you can
refuse to be responsible for yourself and find legitimate ways to care
for your own needs. You are the classic moocher that thinks they are
more important and deserving of things that don't even belong to you
*because your need somehow constitutes a claim on other people*.
Rest well knowing that your self-importance is costing other people
something tangible and real: The ability to care for their own.
>
> This is the internet. It's all online, even what was said years before. Tell
> me I'm wrong Tim. Show me where you were attacked first. Tell me you're not
> a hypocrite of the highest degree.
People with immoral worldviews always call shining light on those
ideas an "attack" and you're no different. But it's not an attack, it
is a simple observation: When you support a system that takes what
belongs to other people, you are a thief- or at least you are enabling
a system of theft. All of us need help from time to time. Decent people
*ask* politely, express gratitude, and - when and if they are able -
do the same for others. They do not hire thugs to stick guns in the
ears of their neighbors and demand what they want.
>
> Castigate me as much as you want, but despite the difficulties I have
> physically, my memory is excellent.
>
>
>
I have already said that your primary infirmity demonstrated here is moral
not physical. I stand by that. I have no question that your needs are
real. I've no problem with you using the system you're compelled to be
part of. But you'll recall that all this started because I do not want
*my* nation to be subjected to healthcare thuggery and that's when you
got your panties in a wad. Moochers love other moochers and the bunch
of you won't be happy until everyone lives with the same lowest common
denominator that you defend so ardently.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 23 Sep 2009 21:20:34 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>>DGDevin wrote:
>>>
>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
>>treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
>>free to change insurance companies!
>
>No, you're not.
>
>First, many employers only offer one choice.
Thre is more than one employer.
>Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
>more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
>to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family employer
>plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for premiums).
There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
benefit plan he won't have employees.
Perry Aynum wrote:
> Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
> predictable as it is.
>
> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
> rigidity in your though process.
>
>
I prefer to stick with rational thought as opposed to the "agility"
that passes for commentary these days.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> At least when I "Contribute" it is not enabled by first stealing what
>> my neighbor has worked for. You're drawn in to these conversations
>> because you are desparate to defend your marauding and theft ... but
>> there is none...
>
> Glad you framed Contribute in apostrophes, because you don't contribute
> shit. Unless of course, you count the whining you do as an art form. And as
I contribute a regular reminder that you and people like you are not
noble, kind, honorable or decent. You are purveyors of theft and fraud.
And it's important to keep that spotlight brightly lit so you can
never delude yourself into thinking anything else.
> to defending myself, there's 30 million other Canadians that defend our
> healthcare, or most of them anyway. You? For a defence, you've got people
Not the ones in my own family that actually work in the healthcare
system.
> like Miller who is a confirmed liar and kiss ass. The two of you should run
> off together and form your own country where whining and brown nosing
> actually pay something. Then at least you might obtain that wealth you claim
> is being stolen from you every day.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>> My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not interested
>>>> in. There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue with
>>>> those who are interested enjoying themselves. I enjoy hearing what my
>>>> fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
>>>> woodwork.
>>> Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlation
>>> between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engagement
>>> in non-woodworking discussions.
>>> I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broadened
>>> my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
>>> difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
>>> important problems.
>>> I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(s)
>>> when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
>>> reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight in
>>> progress. :)
>> Based on what I've read this week, I am going to start filtering myself ...
>>
> Brilliant idea and long overdue.
>
I'm sorry I cannot see the post to which you're responding ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> BULLSHIT! Freedom costs money. It costs more money that it would ever cost
> for a national healthcare service. It costs citizen's money. And, freedom
> costs lives. Armed forces who fight overseas to preserve the American way of
> life. Local police forces, National Guard. Where EXACTLY do you think the
> money comes from to pay for those services?
>
> Are you really so self absorbed that you can't see that?
Defending the borders benefits everyone more-or-less equally. Stealing
from some citizens to give to others harms freedom. Your kind of
"freedom" only exists because you are diminishing another person's
freedom.
>
>> Your "freedom" is not such thing. It's at the expense of another citizen.
>> Your "free" healthcare means someone else has less money for their own
>> family's needs. My worldview is not built on stealing, yours is. My
>> worldview isn't dependent on impoverishing other people. Your's is.
>> I don't ask third parties in government to do my stealing. You do.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:58 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I'm glad you think so much of Tim's article to repost it. The part
> you added is most refreshing.
'Certainly one of the most coherent and thoughtful of his postings ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 26, 3:58=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 1:36=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > On Sep 25, 6:12 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> eleemosynary
> > >> You are a selfish bastard.
>
> > >> Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
> > >> forced to contribute to the common good.
>
> > >> If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.
>
> > >> Regards,
>
> > >> Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
>
> > > Uh-oh.. Tom said 'ass'. My be some kinda fukkin librul....
>
> > Hey, did you ever try that cure I suggested? =A0It would really
> > help you ...
>
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---- -
> > Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> > PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
I'm glad you think so much of Tim's article to repost it. The part
you added is most refreshing.
Tom Watson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> eleemosynary
>
>
> You are a selfish bastard.
I am neither.
>
> Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
> forced to contribute to the common good.
As all good mobs with pitchforks do ...
>
> If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.
They wouldn't have me - I'm not from there.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:12 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> eleemosynary
>> You are a selfish bastard.
>>
>> Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
>> forced to contribute to the common good.
>>
>> If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
>
> Uh-oh.. Tom said 'ass'. My be some kinda fukkin librul....
Hey, did you ever try that cure I suggested? It would really
help you ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 25, 6:12=A0am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > eleemosynary
>
> You are a selfish bastard.
>
> Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
> forced to contribute to the common good.
>
> If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Uh-oh.. Tom said 'ass'. My be some kinda fukkin librul....
On Sep 25, 1:36=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 6:12 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> eleemosynary
> >> You are a selfish bastard.
>
> >> Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
> >> forced to contribute to the common good.
>
> >> If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
>
> > Uh-oh.. Tom said 'ass'. My be some kinda fukkin librul....
>
> Hey, did you ever try that cure I suggested? =A0It would really
> help you ...
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
> eleemosynary
You are a selfish bastard.
Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
forced to contribute to the common good.
If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 21, 6:28 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 7:14 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
>>>> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
>>>> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
>>>> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
>>>> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
>>>> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
>>>> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
>
> Find another employer. I've never had any issues anywhere close to
> that. In-plan or out-of-plan, certainly, but that's my choice.
>
>>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
>>> treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
>>> free to change insurance companies!
>>> What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care system
>>> treats you?
>>> I guess you could move to Canada...
>> You think that is easy?
>
> Moving to Canuckistan? No. Changing insurance companies, yes even if
> it means changing employers.
Haven't you heard. In the new lexicon of a good many folks here,
you are *entitled* to whatever you need, not matter who else gets raided
to provide it. What you are suggesting above, sir, would require personal
integrity and responsibility and we simply cannot have that. So go back
to work - too many people that don't are depending on you ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Buck Turgidson wrote:
>> You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a
>> house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.
>>
>> --
>
>
> Tim, how old is your mother? Is she on Medicare? Why is she entitled to
> it?
>
>
People who paid into the existing system have a reasonable right to
expect they will get back what they put in. But the system today
pays out far, far more than the recipients every put in. The system
is iniquitous and should never have been implemented in the first place -
it is a ponzi scheme the like of which Madoff would only have dreamed.
The way you get out of it is by diminishing benefits 4% per year for the
next 25 years until it is gone entirely. Retire today, get full benefits
for life. Retire next year, get 96% benefits, and so on.
This is bad logic: The government screwed up social services for the last 60
years - let's have them do more of it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>
>>> And to Doug Miller who said that there's nothing more important than
>>> freedom. He should try experiencing a serious disability and find out
>>> what
>>> it's like to have that freedom but not be able to do anything with it
>>> because he was confined to a body that mostly doesn't work anymore.
>>>
>>> Freedom is only good Doug if you can take advantage of it.
>>
>> And your "disability" does not entitle you to rape everyone else's
>> freedom.
>
> True, but a non sequitur.
It is quite to the point. Upscale and his fellow travelers have
repeatedly defended a system that takes from some to give to others.
They've also consistently held that a person's genuine need - say,
for example, a physical disability - morally justifies such wealth
redistribution. Such redistributive schemes do indeed benefit some
people, but they always to so to the *detriment* of others, thereby
undermining one of their core freedoms - the freedom to dispose
of their legitimately acquired property as THEY see fit.
>
>> You continue to live in this ideological sewer that says
>> you're entitled to whatever you need even if it harms other people.
>
> This is an ugly accusation made, so far as I can determine, without
> justification.
Go back and read the last year of just Upscale's foaming vitrol
alone. Filter out the neverending ad hominem stuff and the profanity -
which will leave about 5% of the text. What you see is a regular
and reoccurring defense of "If I need it, I'm (morally) entitled
to support my government taking it from other citizens."
I have said repeatedly that making use of a system you're forced
to participate in is no foul. But intentionally supporting such
a system of theft is a moral foul.
>
>> This is the mindset of an emotionally undeveloped five year old,
>> not of an adult.
>
> This appears to be a strawman argument, where you fabricate and project
> a mindset and then castigate it as if it were not your own.
>
Again, I encourage you to go back and read some of the nonsense that
spews for from this individual. Beyond the personal vitriol, bad manners,
foul language, and lack of argumentative clarity, there is a clear
unceasing drumbeat of "I need it, so I'm entitled to it."
>> Your needs are legitimate - like 10s of millions
>> of other people. But they are not a get-out-of-jail-free card to
>> pillage your neighbors. A gentleman asks for help politely and
>> is grateful when it is given.
>
> Perhaps, but a person who demands a public declaration of gratitude for
> a gentlemanly act is, in my opinion, unworthy of being considered a
> gentleman.
I agree. Demanding such a declaration would be bad and I was thus
not doing so. I was defining the word for someone that has among
the worst personal manners and disposition in these debates and apparently
is unacquainted with the concept of gentlemanly behavior.
>
>> A spoiled child demands what they want and curses their benefactor.
>
> Another non sequitur.
Hardly.
>
>> I'd say your predominant disability isn't physical, it's moral.
>
> I'd say you owe Upscale an apology.
>
I'd say you've not being paying attention. A physical disability is no
one's fault (ordinarily). A moral one is. I have been regularly
personally cursed for not supporting his thieving worldview. He
celebrates a kind of moral malignancy and I finally decided to call it
what it was. Notice that I attacked not the man as an individual, but
his bad *ideas* (because they are immoral), and defending such *is* a
moral "disability." I did not swear at him, tell him he was useless,
or otherwise impugn him as a person. I attacked an observable set of
ideas that he clings to and defends. He, by contrast, is unable to
express himself except in personal attack and profanity. This is
because his *ideas* are indefensible and he knows it. Go back and
reread just this thread and get back to be about who ought to be
apologizing to whom.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 22, 5:52 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hey Buttercup, go read the first paragraph of his response to me and
>> get back to me on just who was mean here first.
>
> Call me Buttercup all you want. But No. You are NOT getting into my
> pants.
>
You're the one that keeps offering and I keep declining.
> He was....ermmm..'MEAN.? Oh nooo, the Thieving Meanies are out to get
> Tim.
>
>> I have decided to fight fire with fire.
>
> Oh really? *as I look over the top of my glasses at an idiot who has
> NO clue what the opposition looks like..*
TURN AWAY FROM THE MIRROR
>
>> This means you and the rest of
>> pottymouths better hunker down - I have a way more interesting vocabulary
>> than you do.
>
> No you fucking well don't. YOU think you have a more interesting
> vocabulary...doesn't make it so. The same old rehash as always, Tim.
> Not an original thought.
> Glad to see you sunk down to my level though. It is about time we had
> a friendly man-to-pussy chat.
> "Here kitty, kitty..."
> "Yes..I'm one of the meanie potty
> mouths........................okay...I need a break.. can't see the
> keyboard from the tears, I'm laughing so hard....
>> Oh ... while it is never intended, a person of reason is
>> always "talking down" to people that express themselves irrationally...
> Lessee here..'never intended'..... so..wait... aka unintentional...
> mmmmm
>
> Okay. Let's take inventory here.
> To disagree with Tim = irrational. Check.
No. To disagree by throwing personal shots is irrational ... and
a sign that there is no real discussion is possible.
> Meanies not allowed. Check.
If that were true you and your life partner Upscale would have been
banned long ago.
> Pottymouths are bad. Check.
Not necessarily if they are at least interesting in their use of
profanity. Yours is mundane on the best of days.
> No throwing sand while in the sandbox... unless you dig up a cat-turd,
> then fling it at Tim. Check.
> Stop digging up cat turds because Tim LIKES them. Check.
>
> So, Timbo... start assembling some original thoughts. We have all seen
> the fomenting smelly hippy hopium lines already... something fresh.
> Like douche-nozzle.
Your food supply is irrelevant here.
>
> Oh.. got to go..food's on...
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>
> No, you're not.
>
> First, many employers only offer one choice.
>
> Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
> more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be
> able to afford it (note that the current figure for the average
> family employer plan is $13k per year between the employer and
> employee for premiums).
Yes you are. If you don't like the POS you're driving, you can buy another
car. The difference between a used Pinto and a new Lamborghini is one of
price, not the availability of the choice.
You can even self-insure!
Morris Dovey wrote:
> I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has
> broadened my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the
> complexities and difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to
> (what I think are) important problems.
Yup, some people just like to screech, but some can back up their views with
something other than raw noise.
> I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring
> sub-thread(s) when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive -
> for the same reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where
> there's a barfight in progress. :)
What if it's happy hour and it's only a small fight?
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>> You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a
>>> certain rigidity in your though process.
>>
>> By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding,
>> freedom hating, socialist bastards that attempt to debate him, right?
>
> No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
> his posts for him :-).
>
Well, yeah. Morality is absolute and there are only so many ways to describe
it. Liberalism is, however, situational and there are millions of ways to
fashion the explanation. It's the difference between:
1. Thou shalt not murder, and
2. Killing someone should be avoided execpt in the following cases:
a. When the subject is an abusive spouse,
b. When the subject is a potentially abusive spouse
c. When the subject is someone the potentially abusive spouse knew
d. When the subject is the sexual partner of a spouse
e. When the subject is the potential sexual partner of a spouse
f. When the subject is a fetus,
g. When the subject is a potential fetus,
h. When the subject is a child molester (but not by the state),
i. When the subject might be a child molester (but not by the state)
j. When there is no difference between the subject and the aggrieved
(race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, ability to speak Lithuanian,
etc.)
...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:49 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
>> company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
>> direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
>
> You've got to be kidding! Or trolling. Most people get their
> insurance through their employer. Unless that employer gets
> complaints from a lot of employees, he's not going to change. If an
> employee tries to get other insurance on his own, he'll soon find out
> he can't afford it.
>
> Try living in the real world.
Exactly, and anyone with the proverbial pre-existing condition is screwed if
they look for private insurance, it's either impossible to find or so
expensive as to be out of reach. Employers are feeling the pinch too, it's
one more reason to move production overseas where they aren't faced with
crippling health coverage bills. More and more citizens with less and less
coverage, but some folks figure we don't need reform--astonishing, isn't it.
DGDevin wrote:
>
> What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
> bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
> to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
> company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
> wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
> company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
> requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
[...]
Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance company
treats you - and your observation tends to imply that direction - you're
free to change insurance companies!
What do you do if you don't like the way the GOVERNMENT health-care system
treats you?
I guess you could move to Canada...
Robatoy wrote:
>
> As your application of the 'bullshit baffles brains' method is well
> known now, it cannot be dealt with by a rational person.
> Your elementary school debate tactics are as painfully transparent as
> Stein's pissed-through panties. He forgets to take them down before he
> sits down to pee.
> Seeing that you have nothing else to offer, either in constructive or
> creative manner, I will now concentrate on getting Stein in a lather.
> He's a lot of fun. Not stale like you, Tim.
>
I feel left out. Sniff.