OT: We The People...

Rich wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
... snip
>>
>> Statist has been a term adopted by the right to delineate the policies
>> and
>> philosophy of those on the left who believe that more government is not
>> only
>> good government but also a good idea. They seem to get bent out of shape
>> by being called "liberal", "progressive", "socialist" or "communist", so
>> the better description that cannot be disputed is "statist" -- one who
>> believes that the state (government) is better able to direct lives and
>> people than
>> the individuals making decisions for themselves. Kind of hard for those
>> pushing government control to argue with that definition and it avoids
>> all of the silliness you get from the "you don't know what socialism is",
>> "or have you really read Marx?' crowd.
>>
>> Simply puts, statist works well as a descriptive.
>>
> Great Video on this subject. Friend just put this together
>
>
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNfbqg_pEqAQ&h=faecf
>
>
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaICkRgCsXbU%26feature%3Drelated&h=faecf

As someone put it, "They say they intend to rule benevolently, but make no
mistake about it, they intend to rule!"


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

In news:[email protected],
Larry Jaques <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:07:33 -0500, "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote the
> following:
>
>>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Dave in Texas <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the
>>>>> hospitals? This is rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
>>>> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while
>>>> screaming about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in
>>>> videos of their meetings :-).
>>>
>>> The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled
>>> healthcare . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"
>>>
>>> Dave in Houston
>>
>> Yea, the same ones that know how screwed they are getting now with
>> Medicare(which *they* paid for), know how *screwed* that are going
>> to get on obamacare.
>> If obama was concerned about the uninsured,
>
> He isn't.
>
>
>> why didn't he just start by
>> taking care of them and let the people that are happy and satisfied
>> with what they currently have alone. Best of both worlds, but that
>> leaves people with *choice*, something this administration doesn't
>> like you to have.
>
> Because you don't get total domination over hundreds of billions of
> dollars that way. His (sleeper Muslim/Socialist) way, the gov't takes
> over.

follow the money<g>

On Jul 23, 12:55=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:7d0f4f8f-625f-4b4=
d-
> [email protected]:
>
> >Han wrote i.a.:
> >> And what is statism? =FFAs a naturalized citizen I pride myself on my
> >> knowledge of English, but that one escapes me.
>
> > Your knowledge is clearly lacking.
>
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
> >http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
> >http://www.search.com/reference/Statism
> >http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm
>
> > - or - An antonym of "individualism".
>
> Thank you for the education. =A0I'm not for statism, then. =A0Nor for
> anarchism. =A0Individualism is fine, as long as there is more compassion =
and
> responsibility than greed.

Except that you *are* a statist. You demand that government do more,
not less.

Neil Brooks wrote:

> On Jul 22, 11:45 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?
>
>
> Thanks for another case in point.
>
> Some of you ... apparently ... can't HELP but spew this shit out.
>
> HAVE you stopped beating this "Juanita" person yet, Mark ???
>
> Find a course in Logic 101, at a college (yes: a place FULL of pointy-
> headed liberals) near you.
>

The only one needing a course in logic 101 is yourself. Responding to a
post that is advocating expanded federal control of, or oversight of
something is an example of statism. By definition, when the government
gains more control and power, the individual must necessarily surrender some
control and accompanying freedom. Not a hard concept to grasp really, But
then, when you can't respond with logic or intelligence, always fall back to
the liberal playbook and standard response mechanism:

> Bring Jack Stein.
>
> In fact, rent a fucking bus and haul all your friends to the course,
> with you.
>

ad hominem

> :rolleyes:

and snark. The only response a statist is capable of providing

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Dave in Texas wrote:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit
>>>
>>
>> So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?
>
> Come on, Mark, list for us your freedoms that have been stifled?
> How's your Medicare working for you, BTW?
>

1) Starting in the near future, I will lose the right to choose the type of
health insurance I buy, or even whether I want to buy insurance. If I don't
buy the government approved version, I will be fined. Seems like a loss of
freedom to me, how about you? You OK with the government ordering you to
buy a product by force of law? Don't bother with the automobile insurance
analogy -- that dog don't hunt. If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy
auto insurance. If a person has a pulse, they will be required to buy
health insurance or pay a fine -- that is, unless they are part of one of
the protected classes. Then I will get to help subsidize their purchase of
health insurance.

2) If The One's vision of Cap and Tax passes, I will lose more freedom of
mobility, comfort, and other elements of my daily life as the huge carbon
taxes will "necessarily cause my electric bills to skyrocket [his words, not
mine]", cost of transportation to skyrocket, and all other goods to increase
in cost because of these taxes.

3) Planned tax increases as the tax cuts expire and The One's minions ponder
a VAT tax and other tax increases will further decrease my ability to
exercise my economic freedom to purchase, save, or invest as more of that
which I work to earn will be taken from me by an ever-increasing government.

4) Additional regulation of the financial industry that just passed is going
to do little to protect my investments but is going to add further
restrictions upon the banks with whom I do business, credit cards companies
that I might use, and stifle my consumer choices because of exceedingly
over-arching regulations imposed on businesses that will hit small
businesses hardest, driving many of them out of business.

As far as that snarky Medicare question, I don't know, I'm not old enough
to qualify to collect benefits from the system THAT I'VE FRICKIN' PAID INTO
BY FORCE OF LAW FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, and there's no telling if there will
be anything available when I am old enough to qualify. I may be one of the
lucky ones who will have been forced to pay for the benefits of others while
congress bought votes by generously expanding benefits and who will have to
then buy my own coverage when I am old enough because the system will be
bankrupt. Thanks so much for your support of politicians who felt that
charity was using my money to buy the goodwill of others, my generation
really appreciates your support of those weasels.


> Dave in Houston

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Jul 23, 12:33=A0am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
> >> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
> >> This is rubbish.
>
> > Of course it is. =A0I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> > collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screami=
ng
> > about government spending. =A0I see a lot of gray hair in videos of the=
ir
> > meetings :-).
>
> =A0 =A0 The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled heal=
thcare
> . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"

Since they have no choice, I find your attitude a little odd.

On Jul 22, 11:57=A0pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Paul T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:45:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJVAhr4hZDJE
>
> > There is rubbish spoken in this, but there is also truth spoken.
> > I don't agree with all that was said, but "We The People" should be
> > speaking out about some of the things the government is doing. The
> > members of congress no longer think of what is good for the USA. It now=
a
> > matter of how much can I get for my state and myself. Governing the USA
> > is a thing of the past in Congress nowadays. I'll vote party line or I'=
ll
> > vote for your bill if you vote for mine. Whether the bill is good or ba=
d
> > is no longer a part of the outlook.
>
> > Paul T.
>
> The ONLY think that is part of their outlook is "What do I have to say to
> get re-elected?"

...for I'm not going to *DO* anything.

In news:[email protected],
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> "ChairMan" wrote:
>
>> Yea, the same ones that know how screwed they are getting now with
>> Medicare(which *they* paid for), know how *screwed* that are going
>> to get on obamacare.
> -----------------------------
> As someone who uses Medicare, the above is total BULLSHIT.
>
> We fought the fucking Civil War 150 years ago to put this States
> Rights Bullshit to bed once and for all.
>
> Seems like we are still fighting it.
>
> Get a life people, the South is not going to rise again.
>
> Lew

Maybe for you, but there are millions that disagree
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/us/21aging.html?_r=1&ref=health

On Jul 22, 11:45=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> =A0 So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?


Thanks for another case in point.

Some of you ... apparently ... can't HELP but spew this shit out.

HAVE you stopped beating this "Juanita" person yet, Mark ???

Find a course in Logic 101, at a college (yes: a place FULL of pointy-
headed liberals) near you.

Bring Jack Stein.

In fact, rent a fucking bus and haul all your friends to the course,
with you.

:rolleyes:

"ChairMan" wrote:

> Yea, the same ones that know how screwed they are getting now with
> Medicare(which *they* paid for), know how *screwed* that are going
> to get on obamacare.
-----------------------------
As someone who uses Medicare, the above is total BULLSHIT.

We fought the fucking Civil War 150 years ago to put this States
Rights Bullshit to bed once and for all.

Seems like we are still fighting it.

Get a life people, the South is not going to rise again.

Lew

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:23:56 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
>> This is rubbish.
>>
>
>Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
>collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screaming
>about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
>meetings :-).

They've paid in all their lives, why shouldn't they? Had the had the choice
*very* few would. I *certainly* wouldn't. Medicare also has a special place
in everyone's heart. The government has made it pretty much mandatory.

Jack Stein wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> Thank you for the education. I'm not for statism, then. Nor for
>>> anarchism. Individualism is fine, as long as there is more compassion
>>> and responsibility than greed.
>>
>> Except that you *are* a statist. You demand that government do more,
>> not less.
>
> The correct word is socialist. Why do the socialist bastards keep
> running from who they are... Oh, thats right, they fucking murdered 100
> million or so over the last 100 years. Some of it was even with
> painless gas, thanks to G.B. Shaw! I guess I'd hide from that if it
> were me as well!
>
> I'm not a socialist, I'm a Liberal!
> I'm not a socialist, I'm a progressive!
> I'm not a socialist, I'm a statist!
> I'm not red, I'm blue!
> I'm not a socialist, I'm a Communist... Ooops!
>

Statist has been a term adopted by the right to delineate the policies and
philosophy of those on the left who believe that more government is not only
good government but also a good idea. They seem to get bent out of shape by
being called "liberal", "progressive", "socialist" or "communist", so the
better description that cannot be disputed is "statist" -- one who believes
that the state (government) is better able to direct lives and people than
the individuals making decisions for themselves. Kind of hard for those
pushing government control to argue with that definition and it avoids all
of the silliness you get from the "you don't know what socialism is", "or
have you really read Marx?' crowd.

Simply puts, statist works well as a descriptive.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Jul 25, 7:33=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:41:42 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 1:38=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:57:46 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
> >> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> >> On Jul 25, 9:37 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>> But I do know what socialism is.
>
> >> >> Then you should be willing to give us a description of what *you*
> >> >> think socialism is.
>
> >> > It's an economic system where a strong, centralized government
> >> > controls the means of production. =A0What do you think it is?
>
> >> That's not totally incorrect, but it's a gross oversimplification. =A0=
A
> >> 'Steinism' so to speak.
>
> Please differentiate your comments from my post. =A0The last sentence abo=
ve
> was not mine, but yours.
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

I don't know how that posted that way. Certainly not intentional.

On Jul 23, 10:44=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote innews:TRg2o.347054$Vn1.130721@en-n=
ntp-03.am2.easynews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> >>>> =A0So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?
>
> >>> =A0 =A0Come on, Mark, list for us your freedoms that have been stifle=
d?
> >>> =A0 =A0How's your Medicare working for you, BTW?
>
> >>> Dave in Houston
>
> >> Well, if the President has his way, freedom to pass unhindered from
> >> Mexico to Arizona will be compromised.
>
> >> And Medicare is an insurance program with premiums paid and claims
> >> processed.
>
> > =A0 =A0 Yes, it is. =A0And recently it has been referred to as being li=
ke a
> > =A0 =A0 Public
> > Option.
> > Thanks, Mark.
>
> > Dave in Houston
>
> Isn't Medicare an insurance program forced on everyone with salary/wages?=
=A0
>
> And what is statism? =A0As a naturalized citizen I pride myself on my
> knowledge of English, but that one escapes me.

Your knowledge is clearly lacking.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
http://www.search.com/reference/Statism
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm

- or - An antonym of "individualism".

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:20:28 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "ChairMan" wrote:
>>
>>> Yea, the same ones that know how screwed they are getting now with
>>> Medicare(which *they* paid for), know how *screwed* that are going
>>> to get on obamacare.
>> -----------------------------
>> As someone who uses Medicare, the above is total BULLSHIT.
>>
>> We fought the fucking Civil War 150 years ago to put this States
>> Rights Bullshit to bed once and for all.
>>
>> Seems like we are still fighting it.
>>
>> Get a life people, the South is not going to rise again.
>
>So, besides the 10th amendment, what else about the US don't you like?

Only the seven articles and 26 other amendments.

On Jul 25, 9:37=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> But I do know what socialism is.
>

Then you should be willing to give us a description of what *you*
think socialism is.

On Jul 25, 11:38=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

>=A0Just like any other political/economic
> system, there is considerable diversity of views among those who call
> themselves socialists. =A0Considerably more than among those who label
> anyone a socialist who is not a far right radical.


Aaaaaaaaaa-men, Brother !

On Jul 23, 8:37=A0am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:31ecc82b-a4c2-4262-91c5-48594ed34eb5@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 12:33 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
> > >> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals=
?
> > >> This is rubbish.
>
> > > Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> > > collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while
> > > screaming
> > > about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of thei=
r
> > > meetings :-).
>
> > The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled healthcare
> > . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"
>
> Since they have no choice, I find your attitude a little odd.
>
> =A0 =A0 Excuse me? =A0Are you saying that Medicare-aged Americans are NOT=
free to
> buy private insurance like they do now for supplemental coverage?

Is there insurance available for seniors? Are companies *allowed* to
provide it? No, it is *NOT* a choice.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
>> This is rubbish.
>>
>
> Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screaming
> about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
> meetings :-).
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw



IIRC the government should not be touching SS and Medicare at all except to
pay it back to those that have paid into it. The fact that government is
stealing from the SS and Medicare to pay its other debts is exactly what's
wrong with government.

Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals? This
is rubbish.


Len

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:31ecc82b-a4c2-4262-91c5-48594ed34eb5@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 23, 12:33 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
> >> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
> >> This is rubbish.
>
> > Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> > collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while
> > screaming
> > about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
> > meetings :-).
>
> The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled healthcare
> . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"

Since they have no choice, I find your attitude a little odd.

Excuse me? Are you saying that Medicare-aged Americans are NOT free to
buy private insurance like they do now for supplemental coverage?

Dave in Houston

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
>> This is rubbish.
>>
>
> Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screaming
> about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
> meetings :-).

The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled healthcare
. . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"

Dave in Houston

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:24:34 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote the following:
>
>>
>> "ChairMan" wrote:
>>
>>> Yea, the same ones that know how screwed they are getting now with
>>> Medicare(which *they* paid for), know how *screwed* that are going
>>> to get on obamacare.
>> -----------------------------
>> As someone who uses Medicare, the above is total BULLSHIT.
>>
>> We fought the fucking Civil War 150 years ago to put this States
>> Rights Bullshit to bed once and for all.
>>
>> Seems like we are still fighting it.
>>
>> Get a life people, the South is not going to rise again.
>
> Some people are hoping that the South joins with the North in rising
> up again, against mounting tyranny, in a second American revolution.

There already was a Second American Revolution (I prefer to call it "Our
Recent Unplesantness").

Regrettably, for some, it did not succeed.

ChairMan wrote:

> If obama was concerned about the uninsured, why didn't he just start
> by taking care of them and let the people that are happy and
> satisfied with what they currently have alone. Best of both worlds,
> but that leaves people with *choice*, something this administration
> doesn't like you to have.

The president has said over and over "If you like your current plan, you can
keep it."

I can't tell you how relieved I am that the government, in its infinite
benevolence, will allow me to keep my present insurance. After all, they
could have put me in jail if I wanted to make my own choice, but, instead,
in a spirit of freedom, are allowing me to do what I think best for myself.

Some would call that arrogance; The president hopes we'll recognize it as an
act of kindness and a generous gift.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>
>>> So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?
>>
>> Come on, Mark, list for us your freedoms that have been stifled?
>> How's your Medicare working for you, BTW?
>>
>> Dave in Houston
>
> Well, if the President has his way, freedom to pass unhindered from Mexico
> to Arizona will be compromised.
>
> And Medicare is an insurance program with premiums paid and claims
> processed.

Yes, it is. And recently it has been referred to as being like a Public
Option.
Thanks, Mark.

Dave in Houston

On 7/22/2010 6:23 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
>> This is rubbish.
>>
>
> Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screaming
> about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
> meetings :-).

??

IOW, if you made the _mandatory_ contributions to these programs during
your working years you should somehow be ashamed of collecting benefits
because of "government spending"?

What a non liberal concept ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave in Texas wrote:
>
>> I think that's called "the Public Option" with emphasis on "OPTION."
>
> No, thats called BULLSHIT!
>
>> To my way of thinking it means one can opt out and continue with their
>> private insurance; choice(s).
>> Win-win deal.
>
> Yeah, win-win. When's the last time you tried competing with something
> that controls you, and owns the printing presses?

Huh?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:13:37 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that's called "the Public Option" with emphasis on "OPTION."
>>>
>>> No, thats called BULLSHIT!
>>>
>>>> To my way of thinking it means one can opt out and continue with their
>>>> private insurance; choice(s).
>>>> Win-win deal.
>>>
>>> Yeah, win-win. When's the last time you tried competing with something
>>> that controls you, and owns the printing presses?
>>
>>Huh?
>
> You really are that clueless?

Oh-h-h! You mean the way the private-for-profit-above-all insurance
companies have control of our healthcare the way it is now! SURE, I get
that.
I just can't figure out wtf Jackenstein is referring to unless he means the
way the insurance lobby has robbed us all of an affordable,
competitively-priced healthcare option so insurance company executives can
keep their multi-million dollar bonuses and get the taxpayer to pay for an
additional 30 million plus new clients.
Why is you like to keep pouring money into these leeches' pockets? I
don't know about you but $20k plus a year for catastrophic health coverage
(no pre-existing) to get a yearly physical stifles my fucking freedoms.

Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
>
>

Bullshit

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?
>>>
>>> Come on, Mark, list for us your freedoms that have been stifled?
>>> How's your Medicare working for you, BTW?
>>>
>>> Dave in Houston
>>
>> Well, if the President has his way, freedom to pass unhindered from
>> Mexico to Arizona will be compromised.
>>
>> And Medicare is an insurance program with premiums paid and claims
>> processed.
>
> Yes, it is. And recently it has been referred to as being like a
> Public
> Option.
> Thanks, Mark.
>
> Dave in Houston

Isn't Medicare an insurance program forced on everyone with salary/wages?

And what is statism? As a naturalized citizen I pride myself on my
knowledge of English, but that one escapes me.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:7d0f4f8f-625f-4b4d-
[email protected]:
>Han wrote i.a.:
>> And what is statism? ÿAs a naturalized citizen I pride myself on my
>> knowledge of English, but that one escapes me.
>
> Your knowledge is clearly lacking.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
> http://www.search.com/reference/Statism
> http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm
>
> - or - An antonym of "individualism".

Thank you for the education. I'm not for statism, then. Nor for
anarchism. Individualism is fine, as long as there is more compassion and
responsibility than greed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:7d0f4f8f-625f-4b4d-
>> [email protected]:
>>> Han wrote i.a.:
>>>> And what is statism? ÿAs a naturalized citizen I pride myself on my
>>>> knowledge of English, but that one escapes me.
>>>
>>> Your knowledge is clearly lacking.
>>>
>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
>>> http://www.search.com/reference/Statism
>>> http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm
>>>
>>> - or - An antonym of "individualism".
>>
>> Thank you for the education. I'm not for statism, then. Nor for
>> anarchism. Individualism is fine, as long as there is more
>> compassion and responsibility than greed.
>
> Greed is good.
>
> As one ancient worthy said, "If not for greed, no man would marry,
> build a home, or father a child."
>
> Greed compared to altruism is like comparing dynamite with a bowling
> ball. It is very difficult to cause substantial harm with a bowling
> ball. It *IS* easier to cause great harm with dynamite, but, when used
> properly, much good can result.
>
> In other words, the problem is with the outcome, not the motivation.
>
> As for "compassion," consider Jonas Salk peering through his
> microscope during those long nights of search and discovery. He no
> doubt had many incentives for his dedication, but I'll bet at least
> once the thought "If I can whip this, then the money will roll in and
> I can do the kind of research I want without having to suck up to all
> those bureaucrats and grant applications!" crossed his mind.
>
> So, to some degree, greed helped eliminate Polio during my lifetime.

To Heybub and Keith:

I may be some kind of statist to you, but I'm all for individual
initiative, daring and some greed as well. I am also for a context
wherein personal advantage doesn't come at the cost of kicking everyone
else down under the mud. If that doesn't come voluntarily, then there is
a need for "regulation". Perhaps that's why we have laws, rather than
anarchy.

I know at least 1 contemporary to Salk (he hopes) who does indeed work
not only because doing good and increasing knowledge is fulfilling him,
but also because of what you say about grant applications. In fact
Charlie told me he buys lottery tickets just for that. He is now a big
professor at Harvard. I am proud to know Charles N. Serhan personally!


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> By definition, when the government
> gains more control and power, the individual must necessarily
> surrender some control and accompanying freedom. Not a hard concept
> to grasp really

Only respondng to this portion ...

If we go back in time, we'd still live in the era of monopolies and robber
barons. Individualism, initiative, even greed CAN coexist with sensible
regulation. Now on to what is sensible <grin>.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the education. I'm not for statism, then. Nor for
>> anarchism. Individualism is fine, as long as there is more
>> compassion and responsibility than greed.
>
> By "greed" do you mean mans natural desire to succeed, to improve
> one's lot in life, or real greed, as in excessive desire for power and
> wealth, as in Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot and other left wing,
> socialist murdering bastards?

The first, Jack. That should be clear to anyone who has seen more than 1
post of my political views. To reiterate, I am for individual
responsibility, for compassion for those who have been not so fortunate
as I, and for punishment (legally) for those who abuse the system. Hehe,
that's subject to interpretation, I know.

NY Times article about foreclosed homes in Florida this past week (look
it up). Most homes were either part of the inventory of flipping
artists, or purchased by someone who clearly didn't have the means to
properly remodel or maintain it. At least that's my gut feeling from the
article. Now aren't the purchasers of these homes liable? And what
about the banks who provided the financing? The realtors? If there is
no selfregulation (and the Bush bailout prevented that in a capitalist
society), there is to be some other kind of regulation. Please consider
that I am in favor of the bailouts, since without them I dn't know what
would have happened.

Anyway, I'll be retiring soon.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
september.org:

> Bush didn't really bail them out, but he got the ball rolling. What
> should have happened is whatever banks, realtor's and flippers went in
> the dumper, should have went in the dumper. For example, I lost LARGE
> dollars when a mortgage company I owned went south. NO FUCKING PERSON
> ON EARTH bailed me out. I lost almost that much again when OBAMA stole
> General Motors. I would have been OK (not happy) if they would have
> gone south but when Big Brother steals my property, I'm really pissed.

I wasn't happy when Lehman went belly up. Guessed wrong that "they"
wouldn't let it go under. Indeed many of my investments lost oodles.
TIAA-CREF is now much better than Magellan ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In news:[email protected],
Dave in Texas <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Dave in Texas <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the
>>>>> hospitals? This is rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
>>>> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while
>>>> screaming about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in
>>>> videos of their meetings :-).
>>>
>>> The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled
>>> healthcare . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"
>>>
>>> Dave in Houston
>>
>> Yea, the same ones that know how screwed they are getting now with
>> Medicare(which *they* paid for), know how *screwed* that are going
>> to get on obamacare.
>> If obama was concerned about the uninsured, why didn't he just start
>> by taking care of them and let the people that are happy and
>> satisfied with what they currently have alone. Best of both worlds,
>> but that leaves people with *choice*, something this administration
>> doesn't like you to have.
>
> I think that's called "the Public Option" with emphasis on
> "OPTION." To my way of thinking it means one can opt out and
> continue with their private insurance; choice(s).
> Win-win deal.
>
> Dave in Houston

what option? the option that you pay or be fined?
Or the fact that contrary to what *they* told you of having more options,
you'll have less
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18choice.html?ref=health

Or the fact that *they* now admit that its a tax
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?ref=health

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama
refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by
financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health
insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last
September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC
News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary
definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

He seems to reject a lot of things that is reality to others

And the stupidest part of the whole plan is that if your too poor to afford
it, you'll be exempt.

Fuckin' DUH, so if your too poor to afford it , you'll still be without it,
yeah that's the ticket.

Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:7d0f4f8f-625f-4b4d-
> [email protected]:
>> Han wrote i.a.:
>>> And what is statism? ÿAs a naturalized citizen I pride myself on my
>>> knowledge of English, but that one escapes me.
>>
>> Your knowledge is clearly lacking.
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
>> http://www.search.com/reference/Statism
>> http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm
>>
>> - or - An antonym of "individualism".
>
> Thank you for the education. I'm not for statism, then. Nor for
> anarchism. Individualism is fine, as long as there is more
> compassion and responsibility than greed.

Greed is good.

As one ancient worthy said, "If not for greed, no man would marry, build a
home, or father a child."

Greed compared to altruism is like comparing dynamite with a bowling ball.
It is very difficult to cause substantial harm with a bowling ball. It *IS*
easier to cause great harm with dynamite, but, when used properly, much good
can result.

In other words, the problem is with the outcome, not the motivation.

As for "compassion," consider Jonas Salk peering through his microscope
during those long nights of search and discovery. He no doubt had many
incentives for his dedication, but I'll bet at least once the thought "If I
can whip this, then the money will roll in and I can do the kind of research
I want without having to suck up to all those bureaucrats and grant
applications!" crossed his mind.

So, to some degree, greed helped eliminate Polio during my lifetime.

On Jul 25, 11:57=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 9:37 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> But I do know what socialism is.
> > Then you should be willing to give us a description of what *you*
> > think socialism is.
>
> It's an economic system where a strong, centralized government controls
> the means of production. =A0What do you think it is?
>

I suggest you go do your homework.

On Jul 23, 12:00=A0am, "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
> >>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
> >>> This is rubbish.
>
> >> Of course it is. =A0I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> >> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while scream=
ing
> >> about government spending. =A0I see a lot of gray hair in videos of th=
eir
> >> meetings :-).
>
> >> --
> >> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> > IIRC the government should not be touching SS and Medicare at all excep=
t
> > to pay it back to those that have paid into it. =A0The fact that govern=
ment
> > is stealing from the SS and Medicare to pay its other debts is exactly
> > what's wrong with government.
>
> They already borrowed the money they are now not wanting to pay it back.
> they took all the cash (the crash) and gave us there debt (the bailout). =
We
> need more tax cuts for the wealthy , oh please trickle down please ,else =
I'm
> going to have to eat talking points, taste like chicken.

There are many problems with your analysis. "They" have no money to
"pay it back with". SS money wasn't "borrowed", no matter what the
cooked books say. I was simply a tax. Now that it's in the hole it's
no longer useful to the lefties.

BTW, the "Bush tax cuts" were *not* "tax cuts for the wealthy" (who
pays almost all taxes, anyway). They were tax cuts for everyone who
paid taxes which, unfortunately, is only half the population.

On Jul 25, 1:38=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:57:46 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> On Jul 25, 9:37 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> But I do know what socialism is.
>
> >> Then you should be willing to give us a description of what *you* thin=
k
> >> socialism is.
>
> > It's an economic system where a strong, centralized government controls
> > the means of production. =A0What do you think it is?
>
> That's not totally incorrect, but it's a gross oversimplification. =A0A '=
Steinism' so to speak.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:43:16 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:97acad3e-af62-44f7-bb2a-341593f6f8db@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>On Jul 23, 8:37 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:31ecc82b-a4c2-4262-91c5-48594ed34eb5@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 23, 12:33 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>>
>> > >> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
>> > >> This is rubbish.
>>
>> > > Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
>> > > collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while
>> > > screaming
>> > > about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
>> > > meetings :-).
>>
>> > The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled healthcare
>> > . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"
>>
>> Since they have no choice, I find your attitude a little odd.
>>
>> Excuse me? Are you saying that Medicare-aged Americans are NOT free to
>> buy private insurance like they do now for supplemental coverage?
>
>Is there insurance available for seniors? Are companies *allowed* to
>provide it? No, it is *NOT* a choice.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Yes, insurance Is available for seniors. Yes, companies are allowed to
>provide it. Yes, there are choices. They may not be choices you personally
>approve, but there are choices. When pointing out the flaws in policy and
>government, sticking to Real Issues is better than going after myths.

You're wrong.

http://forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/MandatoryEnrollment.html

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Han wrote:
>
>> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit
>>
>
> So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?

Come on, Mark, list for us your freedoms that have been stifled?
How's your Medicare working for you, BTW?

Dave in Houston

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>>
>>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
>>> This is rubbish.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
>> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screaming
>> about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
>> meetings :-).
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
>
>
> IIRC the government should not be touching SS and Medicare at all except
> to pay it back to those that have paid into it. The fact that government
> is stealing from the SS and Medicare to pay its other debts is exactly
> what's wrong with government.
>
They already borrowed the money they are now not wanting to pay it back.
they took all the cash (the crash) and gave us there debt (the bailout). We
need more tax cuts for the wealthy , oh please trickle down please ,else I'm
going to have to eat talking points, taste like chicken.

Han wrote:

> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
>>
>>
>
> Bullshit
>

So you are in favor of expanding statism stifling freedom?

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:

> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
> This is rubbish.
>

Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screaming
about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
meetings :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7/22/2010 6:23 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>>
>>> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
>>> This is rubbish.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
>> collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while screaming
>> about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
>> meetings :-).
>
> ??
>
> IOW, if you made the _mandatory_ contributions to these programs during
> your working years you should somehow be ashamed of collecting benefits
> because of "government spending"?
>
> What a non liberal concept ...

Not only that, you forfeit your rights as a citizen!

"Paul T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:45:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
>
> There is rubbish spoken in this, but there is also truth spoken.
> I don't agree with all that was said, but "We The People" should be
> speaking out about some of the things the government is doing. The
> members of congress no longer think of what is good for the USA. It now a
> matter of how much can I get for my state and myself. Governing the USA
> is a thing of the past in Congress nowadays. I'll vote party line or I'll
> vote for your bill if you vote for mine. Whether the bill is good or bad
> is no longer a part of the outlook.
>
> Paul T.


The ONLY think that is part of their outlook is "What do I have to say to
get re-elected?"

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:57:55 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:

> The ONLY think that is part of their outlook is "What do I have to say
> to get re-elected?"

Now *that* we can all agree with!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:97acad3e-af62-44f7-bb2a-341593f6f8db@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 23, 8:37 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:31ecc82b-a4c2-4262-91c5-48594ed34eb5@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 12:33 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>
> > >> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the hospitals?
> > >> This is rubbish.
>
> > > Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
> > > collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while
> > > screaming
> > > about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of their
> > > meetings :-).
>
> > The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled healthcare
> > . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"
>
> Since they have no choice, I find your attitude a little odd.
>
> Excuse me? Are you saying that Medicare-aged Americans are NOT free to
> buy private insurance like they do now for supplemental coverage?

Is there insurance available for seniors? Are companies *allowed* to
provide it? No, it is *NOT* a choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, insurance Is available for seniors. Yes, companies are allowed to
provide it. Yes, there are choices. They may not be choices you personally
approve, but there are choices. When pointing out the flaws in policy and
government, sticking to Real Issues is better than going after myths.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 22, 11:57 pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Paul T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:45:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
>
> > There is rubbish spoken in this, but there is also truth spoken.
> > I don't agree with all that was said, but "We The People" should be
> > speaking out about some of the things the government is doing. The
> > members of congress no longer think of what is good for the USA. It now
> > a
> > matter of how much can I get for my state and myself. Governing the USA
> > is a thing of the past in Congress nowadays. I'll vote party line or
> > I'll
> > vote for your bill if you vote for mine. Whether the bill is good or bad
> > is no longer a part of the outlook.
>
> > Paul T.
>
> The ONLY think that is part of their outlook is "What do I have to say to
> get re-elected?"

...for I'm not going to *DO* anything.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly nothing that anyone with a brain will be happy with.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:43:16 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:97acad3e-af62-44f7-bb2a-341593f6f8db@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jul 23, 8:37 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:31ecc82b-a4c2-4262-91c5-48594ed34eb5@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jul 23, 12:33 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:00:24 -0400, lennn99 wrote:
>>>
>>> > >> Did they let out all the brain damaged patients out of the
>>> > >> hospitals?
>>> > >> This is rubbish.
>>>
>>> > > Of course it is. I have to wonder how many of the tea partiers are
>>> > > collecting Social Security benefits and Medicare services while
>>> > > screaming
>>> > > about government spending. I see a lot of gray hair in videos of
>>> > > their
>>> > > meetings :-).
>>>
>>> > The same ones that are screaming about government-controlled
>>> > healthcare
>>> > . . . "BUT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!"
>>>
>>> Since they have no choice, I find your attitude a little odd.
>>>
>>> Excuse me? Are you saying that Medicare-aged Americans are NOT free to
>>> buy private insurance like they do now for supplemental coverage?
>>
>>Is there insurance available for seniors? Are companies *allowed* to
>>provide it? No, it is *NOT* a choice.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Yes, insurance Is available for seniors. Yes, companies are allowed to
>>provide it. Yes, there are choices. They may not be choices you personally
>>approve, but there are choices. When pointing out the flaws in policy and
>>government, sticking to Real Issues is better than going after myths.
>
> You're wrong.
>
> http://forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/MandatoryEnrollment.html


Yeah, so what? It costs Zero. If you have private insurance, that insurance
pays first.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "ChairMan" wrote:
>
>> Yea, the same ones that know how screwed they are getting now with
>> Medicare(which *they* paid for), know how *screwed* that are going
>> to get on obamacare.
> -----------------------------
> As someone who uses Medicare, the above is total BULLSHIT.
>
> We fought the fucking Civil War 150 years ago to put this States
> Rights Bullshit to bed once and for all.
>
> Seems like we are still fighting it.
>
> Get a life people, the South is not going to rise again.

So, besides the 10th amendment, what else about the US don't you like?

--
Jack
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
http://jbstein.com

Dave in Texas wrote:

> I think that's called "the Public Option" with emphasis on "OPTION."

No, thats called BULLSHIT!

> To my way of thinking it means one can opt out and continue with their
> private insurance; choice(s).
> Win-win deal.

Yeah, win-win. When's the last time you tried competing with something
that controls you, and owns the printing presses?

--
Jack
Obama Care: Efficiency of the DMV, compassion of the IRS!
http://jbstein.com

Han wrote:

> Thank you for the education. I'm not for statism, then. Nor for
> anarchism. Individualism is fine, as long as there is more compassion and
> responsibility than greed.

By "greed" do you mean mans natural desire to succeed, to improve one's
lot in life, or real greed, as in excessive desire for power and wealth,
as in Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot and other left wing, socialist
murdering bastards?

--
Jack
Living is like licking honey off a thorn!
http://jbstein.com

Larry Blanchard wrote:

>Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

You still insist on quoting that murderous socialist bastard that wanted
to gas anyone deemed not "worthy" of living. Thats rather disturbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBRjU9P5eo&NR=1

Well, Hitler thought it was OK...

--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud! Less Freedom!
http://jbstein.com

[email protected] wrote:

>> Thank you for the education. I'm not for statism, then. Nor for
>> anarchism. Individualism is fine, as long as there is more compassion and
>> responsibility than greed.
>
> Except that you *are* a statist. You demand that government do more,
> not less.

The correct word is socialist. Why do the socialist bastards keep
running from who they are... Oh, thats right, they fucking murdered 100
million or so over the last 100 years. Some of it was even with
painless gas, thanks to G.B. Shaw! I guess I'd hide from that if it
were me as well!

I'm not a socialist, I'm a Liberal!
I'm not a socialist, I'm a progressive!
I'm not a socialist, I'm a statist!
I'm not red, I'm blue!
I'm not a socialist, I'm a Communist... Ooops!

--
Jack
When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away
http://jbstein.com