Gore backers now: 'Thank God for the Supreme Court!'
Grinch
"The bluntest assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the
condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was
fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power,..."
New York Times, 10/20/01:
~~~
BUSH WINNING GORE BACKERS' HIGH PRAISES
Washington, Oct. 19 - As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
campaign.
Many Democrats who once dismissed Mr. Bush as too naīve and too
dependent on advisers to steer the United States through an
international crisis are now praising his and his advisers'
performance.
Some are even privately expressing satisfaction that Mr. Gore, who
tried to make his foreign affairs expertise an issue in the campaign,
did not win.
Sounding relieved that Mr. Gore is not president, Representative James
P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said: "I feel comfortable with
President Bush. I never thought I would utter those words."
Mr. Moran continued: "Even though I'm a Democrat and think the Supreme
Court selected our president, I don't think it's to our disadvantage
to have George Bush as president. Sometimes you need a certain amount
of braggadocio in your leaders."
Perhaps out of a desire to rally around Mr. Bush, not one of more than
15 prominent Gore loyalists interviewed said their candidate would
have done a better job.
The bluntest assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the
condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was
fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power, and they questioned whether Mr.
Gore would have surrounded himself with as experienced a foreign
policy team as Mr. Bush did.
Citing Mr. Gore's sometimes rambling speech in Des Moines on Sept. 29
in which he praised Mr. Bush, some Democrats also questioned whether
the former vice president would have been as nimble at communicating
to the public.
One former senator who was a staunch Gore backer said he was relieved
that Mr. Bush was president because he feared that the former vice
president would think he had all the answers. "He may know too much,"
the former senator said. "And he would have tried to micromanage
everything."
A top appointee in the Clinton administration, criticizing the
qualifications of those he expected to be Mr. Gore's foreign policy
team, said he could not imagine Mr. Gore's foreign policy advisers
"running a war against Afghanistan." ...
[M]any Democrats said they felt particularly reassured by Mr. Bush's
team, particularly Vice President Cheney; Mr. Powell, the secretary of
state; and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary.
The diminished confidence in Mr. Gore that some Democrats are
expressing is a big change from last year's campaign, when Gore
supporters argued that Mr. Gore should be elected because of his grasp
of world affairs, if for no other reason. At a rally only days before
the election, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mr. Gore's
running mate, asserted, "When I think of a solitary figure standing in
the Oval Office, weighing life and death decisions that can affect the
security of our country and the stability of our world, I see Al
Gore."
Now, not even Mr. Gore's closest aides would assert that their
candidate would have done any better...
"The Bush administration has a number of people with tremendous
experience in foreign policy and crises," said Carter Eskew, one of
Mr. Gore's top political advisers....
Whatever Mr. Gore's capabilities, others Democrats noted that members
of their party were known to be more aggressive defenders of Israel
than Republicans, which may have complicated diplomatic objectives in
the region.
"Because of the politics of the Democratic Party," Mr. Moran said, "it
may have been more difficult to work with Pakistan versus India and to
have worked with some of the Arab nations against the wishes of
Israel." ...
Roedy Green
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
wrote or quoted :
>As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
>President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
>Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
>campaign
In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
The Brits sacked Churchill on the first election after World War II.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO9Gp7+9ipV+Syz7dEQLj9ACg5JEuYX4c5YQfgHi99dYsNgVPd+YAoPTH
U8xcUIKyykW2d7gwtO+w7Cwy
=mIW6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
canadian mind products, roedy green
http://mindprod.com/terrorism.html
or http://209.139.205.39
Brian
their senses.
It's a miracle!
Brian
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://impee3.hypermart.net
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven James Forsberg
: "The bluntest assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the
: condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was
: fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power,..."
After all, the economy is tanking and if this 'war' does not
go well then Bush Jr. will be quickly following his father into one
term retirement.
I think it's far too early to start heaping praise on Bush or his
team. In a year from now if things are peachy then fine, but there are
heaps of 'landmines' for administrations that pursue war (expecially a
lengthy one). If things don't go well people will be panning the "old
dogs who couldn't learn new tricks" around Bush. If they do go well
they'll be praising their experience. History will tell.
regards,
-------------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Jeffrey Davis
Roedy Green wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
> >President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
> >Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
> >campaign
>
> In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
> Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
>
> The Brits sacked Churchill on the first election after World War II.
IIRC, Churchill didn't even make it all the way through the war.
H. McDaniel
> One former senator who was a staunch Gore backer said he was relieved
> that Mr. Bush was president because he feared that the former vice
> president would think he had all the answers. "He may know too much,"
> the former senator said. "And he would have tried to micromanage
> everything."
Why not? Gore invented the Internet, modern warfare and a couple of our latest
nuclear weapons. Ha ha.
-McDaniel
H. McDaniel
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
> >President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
> >Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
> >campaign
>
> In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
> Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
>
> The Brits sacked Churchill on the first election after World War II.
Churchill was not a village idiot. He had warned about the NAZIs for years
prior to WWII and the real idiots ignored him. Just because someone gets
"sacked" doesn't mean the people who do it are more intelligent.
-McDaniel
Bill Bonde
Not to mention a certain Space plane that was cancelled.
Jeffrey Davis
"H. McDaniel" wrote:
Ha ha.
Arthur Luxury-Yacht
Seven times. Clinton did nothing.
Twice in Saudi (Khobar Towers)
Twice in Africa (both embassies)
USS Cole in Yemen
WTC #1
Probably Flight 800 and Bin Laden arguably was involved in Somalia
after Clinton & Les Aspin refused to send M1 or M2 Bradleys to back
our guys up. The Army requested the tanks numerous times. The refusal
was due to pressure on Clinton from the Congressional Black Caucus.
Clinton then used the CIA, NSA and Echelon to spy on european
companies to benefit American companies. The U.S. firms paid campaign
kickbacks for this illegal practice. Our intelligence people could
have been tracking Bin Laden instead of lining the Clinton campaign
war chest.
Bush inherited the Clinton economy that was already sinking do to
incredible over investment in the NASDAQ/tech due to Y2K upgrades and
over-invetsment in that sector. Essentially the NASDAQ bubble burst -
one of the largest overspeculations in the history of any stock
market.
dum...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote in message news:<9qsejn$t96$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
Ian Ross
if the Democrats had won, how about that the combined hardnosed politics
of Sharon and Bush got us into this.
At least Clinton tried to come to some kind of Middle East agreement, with
Gore we would probably had a much more involved Middle East policy,
(before everything blew up.)
And frankly I don't think Bush does not know what to do short of bombing a
bombed out place some more.
Poor U.S, our life will never be the same, thanks a lot George, great
leader.
Alex W.
"Jeffrey Davis" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BD1CB7A...@verizon.net...
>
> IIRC, Churchill didn't even make it all the way through the war.
>
Sure he did.
He just didn't see the beginning of it (in office).
Alex W.
"Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:78a3tt40d40grecpv...@4ax.com...
> In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
> Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
Correct.
>
>
> The Brits sacked Churchill on the first election after World War II.
Your imputation is incorrect.
We did not sack Churchill because he was a village idiot -- he wasn't,
far from it -- but because he was the wrong man for the time. He was
a great wartime leader, which does not automatically translate into
being a great peacetime leader. He was also one of the last people to
defend the notion of Empire, which made him totally unsuitable for the
process of emancipating our colonies following WWII. Being intimately
associated with "blood, toil, tears and sweat" didn't help either when
trying to be elected by a population which wanted the just rewards for
six years of war.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qt7mj$qbmec$1...@ID-50767.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Your imputation is incorrect.
> We did not sack Churchill because he was a village idiot -- he wasn't,
> far from it -- but because he was the wrong man for the time. He was
> a great wartime leader, which does not automatically translate into
> being a great peacetime leader. He was also one of the last people to
> defend the notion of Empire, which made him totally unsuitable for the
> process of emancipating our colonies following WWII. Being intimately
> associated with "blood, toil, tears and sweat" didn't help either when
> trying to be elected by a population which wanted the just rewards for
> six years of war.
>
What are the just rewards for six years of war?
Tarver Engineering
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
> >President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
> >Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
> >campaign
>
>
> In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
> Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
Operation termite was a complete success.
John
Bill Bonde
Ian Ross wrote:
>
> I think that is a lot of baloney, how about we would not be in this mess
> if the Democrats had won, how about that the combined hardnosed politics
> of Sharon and Bush got us into this.
>
Wrongo. Sharon and Bush were not in office when the planning for THIS
was mostly being done. In fact, bin Laden didn't claim that Sharon or
Israel or Dubya were problems until after the WTC went down and people
weren't rallying for him. His original beef was with US troops in Saudi
Arabia. They were there because the past has shown that Saddam is
planning to attack every neighbouring country in a clockwise manner.
> At least Clinton tried to come to some kind of Middle East agreement, with
> Gore we would probably had a much more involved Middle East policy,
>
Arafat says that the US was quietly working behind the scenes to get the
peace process moving again and that 9/11 interrupted that work. Bush's
people know that you don't put the prestige of the president or a
Washington DC visit out as a gambit. Clinton never figured that out.
> (before everything blew up.)
> And frankly I don't think Bush does not know what to do short of bombing a
> bombed out place some more.
>
There is no such thing as a bombed out place --you mean lacking all
targets-- if it is crawling with the enemy. Much had to be destroyed
from the air to make way for Special Forces attacks.
> Poor U.S, our life will never be the same, thanks a lot George, great
> leader.
>
I hope that's true. The US will be greater than it ever was before and
ready to stand tall and protect itself from attack. No more will we
assume the great waters that separate us from most conflicts also
completely protect us.
Alex W.
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:tt49o36...@corp.supernews.com...
Jobs, houses, universal health care, that sort of thing.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Jobs, houses, universal health care, that sort of thing.
>
Do you mean you expect your government to give you those things?
Foxtrot
>I think that is a lot of baloney, how about we would not be in this mess
>if the Democrats had won, how about that the combined hardnosed politics
>of Sharon and Bush got us into this.
Planning for the 9/11 attack began years ago, before Bush
was in office.
Hardnosed Sharon was elected because Ehud Barak illustrated
how disastrous left-wing giveaway politics is.
>At least Clinton tried to come to some kind of Middle East agreement, with
>Gore we would probably had a much more involved Middle East policy,
>(before everything blew up.)
As usual, Clinton talked a lot but accomplished nothing.
>Grinch wrote:
>> New York Times, 10/20/01:
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> BUSH WINNING GORE BACKERS' HIGH PRAISES
>> Citing Mr. Gore's sometimes rambling speech in Des Moines on Sept. 29
>> in which he praised Mr. Bush, some Democrats also questioned whether
>> the former vice president would have been as nimble at communicating
>> to the public.
HAHAHA! Dems love to criticize Bush's speaking gaffes, but
they admit he's a better communicator than Gore!
Leadfoot
events have shown republicans won't support a Democratic President when this
country is attacked
Shame on you for even bringing this up
Your just helping Osama Bin-Laden and his band of scumbag terrorist divide
us again with this vitrolic tripe
I voted for Gore and I'm going to take my cue from him as he said in Iowa
recently
"Ceorge Bush is MY Commander-in Chief!"
I seriously doubt that you have the patriotism to do the same if Gore had
won the election.
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:o703ttslgbkjcud4e...@4ax.com...
Jeff Hill
because millions of Britons thought the local
labor party candidate for Parliament would get
them more goodies from the government after the war.
T. Snark
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>wrote or quoted :
>
>>As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
>>President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
>>Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
>>campaign
>
>
>In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
>Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
>
>
Well put. Let me be one of the first to say that G.W's policies suck
even though his speeches have improved. His tax policy is trashing
the country as it favors only the super rich and as a result will put
the economy into the toilet. His refusal to work with the world court
or the UN makes the USA virtually pick up the whole tab on this war.
Only now, so many people respect the office that nobody dares say
anything. However it's early in the game. The difficulties of
catching Bin-Ladin are similar to catching Ho Chi Min. We'll see how
his support is if the body bags start coming back, people are still
out of work - and Bin Ladin remains at large.
T. Snark
(Although I admire G.W's trick to make NATO look more involved. For
every plane and boat they send here from Europe, we appear to be
sending one over there to replace it.)
<snip>
Steven James Forsberg
:> In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
:> Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
:>
:> The Brits sacked Churchill on the first election after World War II.
: Churchill was not a village idiot. He had warned about the NAZIs for years
: prior to WWII and the real idiots ignored him. Just because someone gets
: "sacked" doesn't mean the people who do it are more intelligent.
Of course, Winnie warned about just about every other nation,
from the Irish to the US, so he was bound to be right once in a while.
You can predict wars with darts and a little patience. :-)
regards,
-----------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Steven James Forsberg
: "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:9qtdk0$q8754$1...@ID-50767.news.dfncis.de...
:>
:> Jobs, houses, universal health care, that sort of thing.
:>
: Do you mean you expect your government to give you those things?
Unlike the US government, which doesn't provide a danged thing.:-)
regards,
------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Bill Bonde
"T. Snark" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:45:25 GMT, Roedy Green <ro...@mindprod.com>
> wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
> >wrote or quoted :
> >
> >>As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
> >>President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
> >>Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
> >>campaign
> >
> >
> >In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
> >Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
> >
> >
> Well put. Let me be one of the first to say that G.W's policies suck
> even though his speeches have improved. His tax policy is trashing
> the country as it favors only the super rich and as a result will put
> the economy into the toilet.
>
How is he favouring the 'super rich'? Define 'super rich' first though.
> His refusal to work with the world court
> or the UN makes the USA virtually pick up the whole tab on this war.
>
We didn't pick up the entire tab on the Gulf war. Of course this is
firstly an American issue. We were attacked. We have the right of
defence.
> Only now, so many people respect the office that nobody dares say
> anything. However it's early in the game. The difficulties of
> catching Bin-Ladin are similar to catching Ho Chi Min.
>
Have you read how Bush has 'taken the gloves off' the CIA? They are
allowed to do their jobs again. No more diversity quilts.
> We'll see how
> his support is if the body bags start coming back, people are still
> out of work - and Bin Ladin remains at large.
>
We have three body bags. One from a fork lift accident and two from a
helicopter crash. They can sit right over there next to the 6500 body
bags for the civilians who were murdered in the World Trade Centre.
Gary Forbis
news:3BD230FC...@mail.com...
>
>
> Ian Ross wrote:
> >
> > I think that is a lot of baloney, how about we would not be in this mess
> > if the Democrats had won, how about that the combined hardnosed politics
> > of Sharon and Bush got us into this.
> >
> Wrongo. Sharon and Bush were not in office when the planning for THIS
> was mostly being done.
If you think about it the attacked in Afghanistan were probably planned
years before Bush took office. That's the way of military planning.
Where do you think we'd be if no advanced planning took place?
Opinicus
Subject: Memo from The Office of the President of the United States
To: Albert Gore
Dear Al: We found some more votes. You won. When do you want to take over?
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
</quote>
Jim Watt
<sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
He was certainly right about Germany, and the US did have a plan
to conduct a war against the United Kingdom at the time.
Whatever he said about the Irish was probably an understatement.
--------
Jim Watt - see the website http://www.gibnet.com
--------
WX
> firstly an American issue. We were attacked. We have the right of
> defence.
William Black
He wasn't in office at the end either, he lost the election before the end
of the war.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
housing and job security.
Of course some get it, and some don't. But look at all those soldiers you
can afford...
And see how effective they have been against anthrax...
Keith Willshaw
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9qu1kf$evj$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> Alex W. <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9qt7cu$q186k$1...@ID-50767.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Jeffrey Davis" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:3BD1CB7A...@verizon.net...
> > >
> >
> >
> > > IIRC, Churchill didn't even make it all the way through the war.
> > >
> >
> > Sure he did.
> > He just didn't see the beginning of it (in office).
>
> He wasn't in office at the end either, he lost the election before the
end
> of the war.
To clarify, the election was after the end of the European
War and before the end of the Japanese war.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
>
> Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> housing and job security.
>
No they dont.
Universal Health care - OK, though
here in the UK you inctrasingly have to pay for
dental and optical care and conditions in the public
wards of NHS hospitals are not always good
subsidised housing - Maybe for some but the
stock of public hosing has declined and we
have a higher rate of owner occupancy than
even the USA
Job Security - There aint no such thing
Keith
LShaping
>I voted for Gore and I'm going to take my cue from him as he said in Iowa
>recently
>"Ceorge Bush is MY Commander-in Chief!"
>I seriously doubt that you have the patriotism to do the same if Gore had
>won the election.
You are absolutely right! I was scared when Clinton was hurling bombs
on China's embassy while we participated in that foreign civil war. You
bet. Then again, Gore would be better than Clinton, probably.
>"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> "The bluntest assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the
>> condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was
>> fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power,..."
>>
>> New York Times, 10/20/01:
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> BUSH WINNING GORE BACKERS' HIGH PRAISES
>>
>> Washington, Oct. 19 - As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
>> President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
>> Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
>> campaign.
>>
>> Many Democrats who once dismissed Mr. Bush as too naïve and too
Steven P. McNicoll
"Steven James Forsberg" <sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote in message
news:9qtl5e$vcf$2...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
>
> Unlike the US government, which doesn't provide a danged thing.:-)
>
If only that was the case!
Steven P. McNicoll
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>
>
> Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> housing and job security.
>
Is that what defines a civilised country, having your government take things
from your countrymen and give them to you?
Steven P. McNicoll
> that Mr. Bush was president because he feared that the former vice
> president would think he had all the answers. "He may know too much,"
> the former senator said.
>
I'd like to know what makes these people thing Gore knows so much.
Leadfoot
"LShaping" <noS...@all.please> wrote in message
news:h0p4ttgberi6t9qh4...@4ax.com...
Jim Watt
The difference between the US system and the original UK NHS is that
the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
in the insurance companies. Instead of employing the bean counters,
its better to employ more health care staff and give the services away
to the people who pay one way or another.
Of course some people think that accountants are not fit to be boiled
in dogs excrement, personally I disagree.
Universal healthcare means you are surrounded by healthy
happy people, instead of diseased scum; consider it as an
environmental benefit. And drug resistant TB is out there.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
news:kjr5tt4a2bv1ejg5d...@4ax.com...
>
> The difference between the US system and the original UK NHS is that
> the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
> in the insurance companies. Instead of employing the bean counters,
> its better to employ more health care staff and give the services away
> to the people who pay one way or another.
>
How does the government acquire the services to give away?
William Black
Keith Willshaw <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1003659826.20461....@news.demon.co.uk...
I didn't say they got it, I said they expect it.
They deserve it as well...
Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> I didn't say they got it, I said they expect it.
>
> They deserve it as well...
>
Why do they deserve it?
William Black
Live with it.
Al Frey
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean you expect your government to give you those things?
> >
> Of course we do.
>
> Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> housing and job security.
>
> Of course some get it, and some don't. But look at all those soldiers
you
> can afford...
> William Black
> ------------------
Oh, groan. Please don't presume to speak for "all of us". Some of us expect
our government to provide security and opportunity. The material things we
can provide for ourselves the old fashioned way, by earning them. I neither
want or take a handout from any man.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:41:40 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> >>
> >> Of course we do.
> >>
> >> Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> >> housing and job security.
> >>
> >
> >Is that what defines a civilised country, having your government take things
> >from your countrymen and give them to you?
>
> The difference between the US system and the original UK NHS is that
> the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
Funny - I thought that the UK's system covered almost all of
its citizens, instead of the declining 53 percent or so of
Americans who can afford health insurance of some type.
- John T.
H. McDaniel
The US probably still has such plans. And a plan for every country on earth.
That's how you prepare for the unexpected. That's why (some say) the best U.S.
winter troops are based not to far souht of Toronto, Canada.
-McDaniel
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Yes.
>
> Live with it.
>
So what you're saying is that you can be civilised or free, but not both.
Is that correct?
Keith Willshaw
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" <f4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BD2FF26...@yahoo.com...
> Jim Watt wrote:
> >
> > The difference between the US system and the original UK NHS is that
> > the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
> > in the insurance companies. [...]
>
> Funny - I thought that the UK's system covered almost all of
> its citizens, instead of the declining 53 percent or so of
> Americans who can afford health insurance of some type.
>
> - John T.
>
It covers all UK residents and is free at point of use
although of course we all utlimately pay for it in the
form of taxation.
The point I suspect Jim was trying to make is that not
having to worry about allocating costs to patient A or B
reduces the bureacracy considerably
If I attend the local doctors office it is not just that
he doesnt send me a bill, he doesnt even have the
mechanism to send me bill.
The NHS is extremely popular even amongst those
like myself who are generally fiscally conservative.
Apart from anything else if one is unfortunate enough
to become seriously ill at least you dont need to
worry about the doctos bills.
Keith
Det2
That's know as contingancy planning, prior to WW2
the US had (may still) plans for war with Canada,
Mexico, Great Britan, France, and a bunch of other
nations.
Tank Fixer
Det2
<to...@excite.com> wrote:
>I think that is a lot of baloney, how about we would not be in this mess
>if the Democrats had won, how about that the combined hardnosed politics
>of Sharon and Bush got us into this.
It should be obvious to even you that OBL had been
planning this operation for years.
If anything Bush is pressuring Sharon to cool it.
>At least Clinton tried to come to some kind of Middle East agreement, with
>Gore we would probably had a much more involved Middle East policy,
>(before everything blew up.)
Tried and failed.
Do you have any suggestions on how to fix things
in the Middle East ?
>And frankly I don't think Bush does not know what to do short of bombing a
>bombed out place some more.
And CLinton's reaction to all those terrorist
attacks was ? CRUISE MISSLES.
>Poor U.S, our life will never be the same, thanks a lot George, great
>leader.
You can whine or you can make things better, your
choice...
Tank Fixer
Keith Willshaw
"Det2" <paul...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3bd2f1d5...@news.onemain.com...
Hugh Dowding , head of fighter command got a lot of
press criticism for the his waste of money in building radar
stations and fighter airfields along the English Channel coast
in the 1930's After all the French were our staunch allies, no attack
would ever come from that direction, would it ?
Keith
Gary Forbis
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:32:42 GMT, Ian Ross
> <to...@excite.com> wrote:
> >And frankly I don't think Bush does not know what to do short of bombing
a
> >bombed out place some more.
>
> And CLinton's reaction to all those terrorist
> attacks was ? CRUISE MISSLES.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans would not back their Commander
in Chief to take stronger action. Early in this process I heard (I believe
it
was) the Secretary of Defense say on Fox News "we aren't just going to
send 'Monica Missiles". If the Republicans had been better Americans
rather than politicians trying to win the White House and Congress we
wouldn't have been in this mess today.
Bush has, thankfully, had to back off of his "no nation building" pledge.
The Republicans have been slow to learn we don't and never did live
in the world where Star Wars defense makes sense. (I don't like
the "America Strikes Back" that appears on the cable news networks.
I don't want to be part of the Evil Empire.) It's too bad Bush is still
pushing it.
Look, we've so messed up we can't hope to maintain "friends" if we
pushed democracies right now. We've got to mend our ways and hope
we can get another chance. We can't cook the nation building books.
We have to let the people be free and show them we mean them no
harm (and mean it.)
Andrew Chaplin
> That's know as contingancy planning, prior to WW2
> the US had (may still) plans for war with Canada,
> Mexico, Great Britan, France, and a bunch of other
> nations.
I gather Canada has shelved Colonel J. Sutherland "Buster" Brown's
Defence Plan No. 1, that to be executed in the event of war between
the U.S. and the U.K. I think it involved an attack south into the
Ohio Valley. I believe the U.S. plan for the attack on Canada was the
"Red" plan.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jim Watt
Thats exactly it Keith, he should not need to bill, to
employ someone to bill, to collect the money and to
chase anyone who does not pay. You also eliminate
the insurance company, their need to bill their admin
etc.
More doctors, fewer bean counters !
Don't know why the Americans get so irate about the
subject, after all nobody expects the Navy to be
funded by private enterprise (sneakily inserting something
on topic) whats the difference between defence against
'the enemy' and defence against bad health ?
Indeed with the current focus on bio warfare they could
be the same.
On the other hand I still wonder if the cruise missiles sent
to Sudan were secretly sponsored by the US pharmaceutical
industry, and whether Gadaffi's plant in the dessert was what
he claimed ...
Jim Watt
wrote:
The role of Government is to provide infrastructure elements which
neither individuals or private enterprise can or care to fund
properly.
Al Frey
Robert J. Kolker
Jim Watt wrote:
>
> The role of Government is to provide infrastructure elements which
> neither individuals or private enterprise can or care to fund
> properly.
That is why the first toll roads, railroads and canals built in
the U.S. were privately funded. What happened was that
people who wanted to build these things found it easier to
steal the money in the form of tax, than raise it voluntarily
in the form of capital.
Bob Kolker
DeathBunny
H. McDaniel
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
> news:tt49o36...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:9qt7mj$qbmec$1...@ID-50767.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > Your imputation is incorrect.
> > > We did not sack Churchill because he was a village idiot -- he
> wasn't,
> > > far from it -- but because he was the wrong man for the time. He
> was
> > > a great wartime leader, which does not automatically translate
> into
> > > being a great peacetime leader. He was also one of the last
> people to
> > > defend the notion of Empire, which made him totally unsuitable for
> the
> > > process of emancipating our colonies following WWII. Being
> intimately
> > > associated with "blood, toil, tears and sweat" didn't help either
> when
> > > trying to be elected by a population which wanted the just rewards
> for
> > > six years of war.
> > >
> >
> > What are the just rewards for six years of war?
> >
>
> Jobs, houses, universal health care, that sort of thing.
Similar in the U.S. after the Cold War. Most people were talking about
slashing the military and a "peace dividend." The political sport of
"balancing the budget" seems to be on hold now.
-McDaniel
H. McDaniel
> I think that is a lot of baloney, how about we would not be in this mess
> if the Democrats had won, how about that the combined hardnosed politics
> of Sharon and Bush got us into this.
The terrorists planning had been going on for years. Use your brain to think
instead of your twat.
-McDaniel
H. McDaniel
> Look, we've so messed up we can't hope to maintain "friends" if we
> pushed democracies right now. We've got to mend our ways and hope
> we can get another chance. We can't cook the nation building books.
> We have to let the people be free and show them we mean them no
> harm (and mean it.)
A lot of those people are so brainwashed that there is no way to convince them
we're friends unless we serve all of their needs and none of our own. Just
because they're nations behave like children doesn't mean we have to.
-McDaniel
Gary Forbis
news:3BD399DF...@unlisted.unlisted...
Yeah, we're reaping what we've sown.
In the long run democracies will be best for us and them. We'll probably
have to be enemies with an understanding for awhile.
Steven P. McNicoll
"jimk2" <ji...@home.com> wrote in message
news:die7tt8nij4uu85hm...@4ax.com...
>
> "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great
> wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
> Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
>
> Show me where 10% control 90% of wealth and that nation did not have a
> revolt, (or did not become a third world nation or under dictatorial
> rule).
>
> How do you like living in a nation that 60% of the population has only
> 4.7% of the wealth. If that does not scare you, for the future stability
> of this nation, nothing will. (Bill Gates has more wealth than the
> bottom 40% U.S. population, their share 0.2%). At some point the bottom
> 80% will not be able to support a return on investment for the upper 10%
> and the economy will slide dramatically,
> (government could change dramatically to meet needs of people)
>
> Republican attitude does not give me much faith for the future that this
> will ever be address, they seem to take the opposite position and yell
> 'class warfare', (Reverse Robin Hood effect). How can republicans say
> they love this country and pass a top heavy 1.8 trillion dollar tax
> refund bill, majority going to the upper 10% which will only devalue the
> spending power of the lower 80%,
> when they could of paid down the 5.8 trillion dollar national debt,
> which would benefit everyone.
>
> Republican's are wining the 'class warfare' battle, but are going to
> lose the war in the long run. Half a percent wealth transfer a year, it
> could 'all' fall apart in 20 years.
>
> (upper 10% share of total U.S. wealth)
> 1983 68.2%
> 1992 82.8%
> 1998 80.7%
>
> http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html
>
Okay, we'll just mark you down as being opposed to freedom, liberty and
Constitutional government.
Brain Death
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>wrote or quoted :
>
>>As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
>>President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
>>Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
>>campaign
>
>
>In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
>Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
>
>
>The Brits sacked Churchill on the first election after World War II.
Are you seriously contending that Churchill was a village idiot?
BD
Grantland
He was conned by the "Zionists". - despite watching the Bolshevik
mass-murders.. Plus he sucked as a strategist - "soft underbelly"
indeed! And he knew squat about economics.
Grantland
clif...@netdoor.com
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:07:31 -0400, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>wrote or quoted :
>
>>As he leads the country in a war on terrorism,
>>President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent
>>Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential
>>campaign
>
>
>In times of war, you are obligated to pretend that your leader is a
>Great Man, even if he is the village idiot. It has always been so.
>
>
>The Brits sacked Churchill on the first election after World War II.
Churchill lost to Clement Atlee during WW2, not after.
Tarver Engineering
When your first house, summer home and your auto are excluded as wealth the
numbers come out like jimk2 claims. Funny how liars figure.
John
Mike Coburn
This is the typical "Smirk" attitude that normally trots the "envy"
pony around the ring. Republicans are divided into 3 classifications
in which there are overlaps. But the Republicans never leave the
domain of the 3 classifications and never, ever, get anywhere close
to being in a classification that is correlated with freedom, liberty,
or justice. The party is classified into 1. Seekers of
nobility (most of the wealthy people), 2. religious radicals (most of
the so called christian right), 3. and just plain stupid people who
must be led around by a pompous ass that claims to be patriotic or
religious. Although this group consists of considerably less than half
the population their utter devotion to a hierarchical caste system in
which leadership dependency is their primary means of survival make
them a formidable lot indeed. Remaining constantly fixed on the goal
of being part of a movement to save mankind from depredations of the
soul or from communism or from any of the threats to righteousness as
defined by the leaders of "the party", any consideration of personal
liberty, or freedom, or real justice is a distantly secondary thought.
And when this allegiance to authority is combined with the ubiquitous
self righteousness enforced by group therapy the Constitution and justice
are but a small annoyance.
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both." -- Mike Coburn
"Rentier: A person who has a fixed income from land,
bonds, etc." -- Webster's dictionary.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Mike Coburn" <michael....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3BD43F9E...@gte.net...
>
> This is the typical "Smirk" attitude that normally trots the "envy"
> pony around the ring. Republicans are divided into 3 classifications
> in which there are overlaps. But the Republicans never leave the
> domain of the 3 classifications and never, ever, get anywhere close
> to being in a classification that is correlated with freedom, liberty,
> or justice.
>
And the Democrats are dead set against those.
William Black
I just love it when someone decides that only their definition of free is
the right one.
We get to vote, we tend to vote for governments who do as we want, we want
a Health Service 'free at the point of need'.
It's called democracy, remember?
Freedom is freedom to change things, not freedom to impose your ghastly
system (whatever it is) on everyone else.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
Tom Billings <it...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3BD535A6...@teleport.com...
> Well, Now!! I take it you realize we have no intention of
> meeting your silly idea of what constitutes "civilized", any
> more than do the Lakota, the Chinook, or the Commanche?
> We can finally tell the 500 nations that our cousins on the other
> side of the Pond have classified us as "just another bunch
> of uncivilized american savages", right? That would make
> things simpler here. Just all one big happy,... er, sometimes,
> set of contending entities, with many of them federated
> into the United States.
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the way we like it.
> You got anything else to say to us 'savages', Willum??
> I can pass it along to some of our local councils.
I think you'll find that most of the Lakota, the Chinook, and the Comanche
would be delighted with universal health care, decent housing and job
security.
I think you'll also find they, and the other 500 nations you mention, don't
have it.
As to your being a savage or not, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to judge.
William Black
Peter Skelton
Hardly, he was the empire idiot. Fortunately he had a second
careeer as charismatic leader at just the right moment.
____
Peter Skelton
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I just love it when someone decides that only their definition of free is
> the right one.
>
> We get to vote, we tend to vote for governments who do as we want, we
want
> a Health Service 'free at the point of need'.
>
> It's called democracy, remember?
>
> Freedom is freedom to change things, not freedom to impose your ghastly
> system (whatever it is) on everyone else.
>
You're contradicting yourself.
TDodge(607)
> they love this country and pass a top heavy 1.8 trillion dollar tax
> refund bill, majority going to the upper 10% which will only devalue the
> spending power of the lower 80%,
how can you have ANY tax cut that does not benefit the rich the most?
They pay the most..of course they see the biggest cut.
I don't know what percentage the top tax rate is, but it's huge.
--
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a
terrible resolve "
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Mike Coburn
>
> "jimk2" <ji...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:die7tt8nij4uu85hm...@4ax.com...
> >
> >How can republicans say
> > they love this country and pass a top heavy 1.8 trillion dollar tax
> > refund bill, majority going to the upper 10% which will only devalue the
> > spending power of the lower 80%,
>
> how can you have ANY tax cut that does not benefit the rich the most?
You can cut or eliminate FICA taxes.
> They pay the most..of course they see the biggest cut.
So don't cut taxes. Just pay off the national debt so we can get
on with real life. Believe it or not there was a time when we
had no significant national debt. The interest didn't even appear
on the budget but under miscellaneous expense like ash trays.
> I don't know what percentage the top tax rate is, but it's huge.
It should be huger......
Det2
<abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote:
>Det2 wrote:
>
>> That's know as contingancy planning, prior to WW2
>> the US had (may still) plans for war with Canada,
>> Mexico, Great Britan, France, and a bunch of other
>> nations.
>
>I gather Canada has shelved Colonel J. Sutherland "Buster" Brown's
>Defence Plan No. 1, that to be executed in the event of war between
>the U.S. and the U.K. I think it involved an attack south into the
>Ohio Valley. I believe the U.S. plan for the attack on Canada was the
>"Red" plan.
>--
Plan colors pre-war
Australia: Scarlet
Azores Islands: Grey
Brazil: Citron
Canada: Crimson
China (internal disorders): Violet
China (international conflict): Yellow
Cuba: Tan
Dutch East Indies: Brown
Germany: Black
Great Britain: Red
France: Gold
Iceland: Indigo
India: Ruby
Ireland: Emerald (not very confusing)
Italy: Silver
Japan: Orange
Mexico: Green
New Zealand: Garnet (no shit; presumably for
reference to the country)
Portugal: Lemon
Soviet Union: Purple
Spain: Olive
United States (as belligerent): Blue (for
reference in communications)
United States (internal disorder): White
Tank Fixer
Det2
<forbi...@qwest.net> wrote:
>"Det2" <paul...@teleport.com> wrote in message
>news:3bd2ff06...@news.onemain.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:32:42 GMT, Ian Ross
>> <to...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >And frankly I don't think Bush does not know what to do short of bombing
>a
>> >bombed out place some more.
>>
>> And CLinton's reaction to all those terrorist
>> attacks was ? CRUISE MISSLES.
>
>Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans would not back their Commander
>in Chief to take stronger action. Early in this process I heard (I believe
>it
>was) the Secretary of Defense say on Fox News "we aren't just going to
>send 'Monica Missiles". If the Republicans had been better Americans
>rather than politicians trying to win the White House and Congress we
>wouldn't have been in this mess today.
>
More like if the previous administration had payed
less attention to focus groups and more to
professionals. Remember Somolia ?
IIRC BC was critizised for not taking stronger
action...
>Bush has, thankfully, had to back off of his "no nation building" pledge.
>The Republicans have been slow to learn we don't and never did live
>in the world where Star Wars defense makes sense. (I don't like
>the "America Strikes Back" that appears on the cable news networks.
>I don't want to be part of the Evil Empire.) It's too bad Bush is still
>pushing it.
>
Nation building s fine, IF the nation your trying
to help wants you there, otherwise your just
another foreign invader.
>Look, we've so messed up we can't hope to maintain "friends" if we
>pushed democracies right now. We've got to mend our ways and hope
>we can get another chance. We can't cook the nation building books.
>We have to let the people be free and show them we mean them no
>harm (and mean it.)
>
Seems most democracies are backing us, they know
all too well it could have been their national
landmark on September 11.
Tank Fixer
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> It should be huger......
>
Actually, it should be smaller.
Grantland
Actually, it should be flat.
Grantland
Steven P. McNicoll
"Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3bd58c3b...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
>
> Actually, it should be flat.
>
Flat, but at a much smaller rate.
Mike Coburn
Tis, tain't, tis, tain't, tis, tain't.
Two dittoheads argueing with ona another............
Grantland
Quite. 20% would be expectable, 15% would be radical, 10% would be
rational. To protect the borders and apply the law. Period.
Grantland
William Black
Well we all have to live with our own internal contradictions.
Aaron R. Kulkis
> >
> > "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:9qtdk0$q8754$1...@ID-50767.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > Jobs, houses, universal health care, that sort of thing.
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean you expect your government to give you those things?
> >
> Of course we do.
>
> Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "Countries where the masses are permanently stuck in
a state of psychological adolescence.
> housing and job security.
>
> Of course some get it, and some don't. But look at all those soldiers you
> can afford...
>
> And see how effective they have been against anthrax...
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. (Updated 20 July 2001)
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
spa...@spamcop.net
M: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary
common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you
automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any
real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one.
In practice, `he that is not with me is against me."
--George Orwell
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> >
> > Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> >
>
> No they dont.
>
> Universal Health care - OK, though
> here in the UK you inctrasingly have to pay for
> dental and optical care and conditions in the public
> wards of NHS hospitals are not always good
>
> subsidised housing - Maybe for some but the
> stock of public hosing has declined and we
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does that mean that the UK government isn't
hosing the populace as thoroughly as during
the socialist era?
> have a higher rate of owner occupancy than
> even the USA
>
> Job Security - There aint no such thing
>
> Keith
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Keith Willshaw <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1003659826.20461....@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare,
> subsidised
> > > housing and job security.
> > >
> >
> > No they dont.
> >
> > Universal Health care - OK, though
> > here in the UK you inctrasingly have to pay for
> > dental and optical care and conditions in the public
> > wards of NHS hospitals are not always good
> >
> > subsidised housing - Maybe for some but the
> > stock of public hosing has declined and we
> > even the USA
> >
> > Job Security - There aint no such thing
>
>
> They deserve it as well...
Only for those INDIVIDUALS who earn it.
And if you earn it...then there's no reason for government
to be the source of it...is there.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> > Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> > housing and job security.
> >
>
> take things from your countrymen and give them to you?
^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "steal"
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:41:40 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> >>
> >> Of course we do.
> >>
> >> Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> >> housing and job security.
> >>
> >
> >Is that what defines a civilised country, having your government take things
> >from your countrymen and give them to you?
>
> the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
> in the insurance companies. Instead of employing the bean counters,
> its better to employ more health care staff and give the services away
> to the people who pay one way or another.
>
> Of course some people think that accountants are not fit to be boiled
> in dogs excrement, personally I disagree.
>
> Universal healthcare means you are surrounded by healthy
> happy people, instead of diseased scum;
False dichotomy.
I would much rather have diseased scum who will soon die than
to have healthy scum fucking up society for the rest of us.
> consider it as an
> environmental benefit. And drug resistant TB is out there.
>
> --------
> Jim Watt - see the website http://www.gibnet.com
> --------
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
> news:kjr5tt4a2bv1ejg5d...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The difference between the US system and the original UK NHS is that
> > the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
> > in the insurance companies. Instead of employing the bean counters,
> > its better to employ more health care staff and give the services away
> > to the people who pay one way or another.
> >
>
Stealing from the people..
Steve, you must learn the liberal mantra
Must.......not.....ask.............embarassing..................questions.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Jim Watt wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:41:40 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > >>
> > >> Of course we do.
> > >>
> > >> Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare, subsidised
> > >> housing and job security.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Is that what defines a civilised country, having your government take things
> > >from your countrymen and give them to you?
> >
> > the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
>
> Funny - I thought that the UK's system covered almost all of
> its citizens, instead of the declining 53 percent or so of
> Americans who can afford health insurance of some type.
If you think the UK has it's population "covered", you're insane.
a 2-year wait for an operation which MUST be done within weeks
(or else the patient will die) is ***NOT**** health coverage.
That's why everyone who has money comes to the US for health care:
Because our system ACTUALY PROVIDES IT before you're fucking DEAD.
Hope that helps, you ignorant moron.
>
> - John T.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:54:43 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dweezil Dwarftosser" <f4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3BD2FF26...@yahoo.com...
> >> Jim Watt wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The difference between the US system and the original UK NHS is that
> >> > the US model requires an army of accountants in the hospital and also
> >> > in the insurance companies. [...]
> >>
> >> Funny - I thought that the UK's system covered almost all of
> >> its citizens, instead of the declining 53 percent or so of
> >> Americans who can afford health insurance of some type.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It covers all UK residents and is free at point of use
> >although of course we all utlimately pay for it in the
> >form of taxation.
> >
> >The point I suspect Jim was trying to make is that not
> >having to worry about allocating costs to patient A or B
> >reduces the bureacracy considerably
> >
> >If I attend the local doctors office it is not just that
> >he doesnt send me a bill, he doesnt even have the
> >mechanism to send me bill.
> >
> >The NHS is extremely popular even amongst those
> >like myself who are generally fiscally conservative.
> >Apart from anything else if one is unfortunate enough
> >to become seriously ill at least you dont need to
> >worry about the doctos bills.
> >
> >Keith
>
> Thats exactly it Keith, he should not need to bill, to
> employ someone to bill, to collect the money and to
> chase anyone who does not pay. You also eliminate
> the insurance company, their need to bill their admin
> etc.
>
> More doctors, fewer bean counters !
>
In that respect, it would be an improvement.
Accountants and billing people are 100% useless overhead.
> Don't know why the Americans get so irate about the
> subject, after all nobody expects the Navy to be
> funded by private enterprise (sneakily inserting something
> on topic) whats the difference between defence against
> 'the enemy' and defence against bad health ?
>
> Indeed with the current focus on bio warfare they could
> be the same.
>
> On the other hand I still wonder if the cruise missiles sent
> to Sudan were secretly sponsored by the US pharmaceutical
> industry, and whether Gadaffi's plant in the dessert was what
> he claimed ...
>
> --------
> Jim Watt - see the website http://www.gibnet.com
> --------
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
> news:tt5glas...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9qu1oj$fr0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > Of course we do.
> > >
> > > Everyone in civilised countries expects universal healthcare,
> subsidised
> > > housing and job security.
> > >
> >
> > Is that what defines a civilised country, having your government take
> things
> > from your countrymen and give them to you?
> >
So, you believe in theft.
>
> Live with it.
I'd rather KILL constitution-hating assholes like yourself.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
> news:tt62r8m...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9quu5h$g26$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Live with it.
> > >
> >
> > So what you're saying is that you can be civilised or free, but not both.
> > Is that correct?
>
> I just love it when someone decides that only their definition of free is
> the right one.
Your definition of being "free" requires that I be robbed by my neighbors.
Hope that helps, you marxist pig.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "TDodge(607)" wrote:
> >
> > "jimk2" <ji...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:die7tt8nij4uu85hm...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >How can republicans say
> > > they love this country and pass a top heavy 1.8 trillion dollar tax
> > > refund bill, majority going to the upper 10% which will only devalue the
> > > spending power of the lower 80%,
> >
> > how can you have ANY tax cut that does not benefit the rich the most?
>
> You can cut or eliminate FICA taxes.
>
> > They pay the most..of course they see the biggest cut.
>
> So don't cut taxes. Just pay off the national debt so we can get
> on with real life. Believe it or not there was a time when we
> had no significant national debt. The interest didn't even appear
> on the budget but under miscellaneous expense like ash trays.
>
> > I don't know what percentage the top tax rate is, but it's huge.
>
> It should be huger......
That's what got us into the fucked-up economy of the 1970's, you twit.
>
> --
> Mike Coburn
>
> "It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
> banking system. Well, actually, its both." -- Mike Coburn
>
> "Rentier: A person who has a fixed income from land,
> bonds, etc." -- Webster's dictionary.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > "jimk2" <ji...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:die7tt8nij4uu85hm...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
> > > Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
> > >
> > > Show me where 10% control 90% of wealth and that nation did not have a
> > > revolt, (or did not become a third world nation or under dictatorial
> > > rule).
> > >
> > > How do you like living in a nation that 60% of the population has only
> > > 4.7% of the wealth. If that does not scare you, for the future stability
> > > of this nation, nothing will. (Bill Gates has more wealth than the
> > > bottom 40% U.S. population, their share 0.2%). At some point the bottom
> > > 80% will not be able to support a return on investment for the upper 10%
> > > and the economy will slide dramatically,
> > > (government could change dramatically to meet needs of people)
> > >
> > > Republican attitude does not give me much faith for the future that this
> > > will ever be address, they seem to take the opposite position and yell
> > > 'class warfare', (Reverse Robin Hood effect). How can republicans say
> > > they love this country and pass a top heavy 1.8 trillion dollar tax
> > > refund bill, majority going to the upper 10% which will only devalue the
> > > spending power of the lower 80%,
> > > which would benefit everyone.
> > >
> > > Republican's are wining the 'class warfare' battle, but are going to
> > > lose the war in the long run. Half a percent wealth transfer a year, it
> > > could 'all' fall apart in 20 years.
> > >
> > > (upper 10% share of total U.S. wealth)
> > > 1983 68.2%
> > > 1992 82.8%
> > > 1998 80.7%
> > >
> > > http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html
> > >
> >
> > Okay, we'll just mark you down as being opposed to freedom, liberty and
> > Constitutional government.
>
> This is the typical "Smirk" attitude that normally trots the "envy"
> pony around the ring. Republicans are divided into 3 classifications
> in which there are overlaps. But the Republicans never leave the
> domain of the 3 classifications and never, ever, get anywhere close
> to being in a classification that is correlated with freedom, liberty,
> or justice. The party is classified into 1. Seekers of
> nobility (most of the wealthy people), 2. religious radicals (most of
> the so called christian right), 3. and just plain stupid people who
> must be led around by a pompous ass that claims to be patriotic or
> religious.
Group #3 differs significantly from mainline Demoncrook voters (just
plains stupid people led around by pompous asses that claim to be
"for the working man(*)" how, exactly?
(*) The demoncrooks want to help the workers by taxing us to death.
Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > >
> > > > Your imputation is incorrect.
> > > > We did not sack Churchill because he was a village idiot -- he
> > wasn't,
> > > > far from it -- but because he was the wrong man for the time. He
> > was
> > > > a great wartime leader, which does not automatically translate
> > into
> > > > being a great peacetime leader. He was also one of the last
> > people to
> > > > defend the notion of Empire, which made him totally unsuitable for
> > the
> > > > process of emancipating our colonies following WWII. Being
> > intimately
> > > > associated with "blood, toil, tears and sweat" didn't help either
> > when
> > > > trying to be elected by a population which wanted the just rewards
> > for
> > > > six years of war.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What are the just rewards for six years of war?
> > >
> >
> > Jobs, houses, universal health care, that sort of thing.
>
> slashing the military and a "peace dividend."
Goddamned stupid fucking Demoncrooks did that "peace dividend" bullshit
right after WW2, too...which resulted in the quagmire known as Korea.
> The political sport of "balancing the budget" seems to be on hold now.
>
> -McDaniel
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Det2" <paul...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:3bd2ff06...@news.onemain.com...
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:32:42 GMT, Ian Ross
> > <to...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >And frankly I don't think Bush does not know what to do short of bombing
> a
> > >bombed out place some more.
> >
> > And CLinton's reaction to all those terrorist
> > attacks was ? CRUISE MISSLES.
>
> Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans would not back their Commander
> in Chief to take stronger action. Early in this process I heard (I believe
> it
> was) the Secretary of Defense say on Fox News "we aren't just going to
> send 'Monica Missiles". If the Republicans had been better Americans
> rather than politicians trying to win the White House and Congress we
> wouldn't have been in this mess today.
Besides Monica Missiles, Klinton proposed what, exactly?????
Well???????
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Leadfoot" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >I voted for Gore and I'm going to take my cue from him as he said in Iowa
> >recently
> >"Ceorge Bush is MY Commander-in Chief!"
> >I seriously doubt that you have the patriotism to do the same if Gore had
> >won the election.
>
> You are absolutely right! I was scared when Clinton was hurling bombs
> on China's embassy while we participated in that foreign civil war. You
> bet. Then again, Gore would be better than Clinton, probably.
Correct. Gore would have been smarter than to get into a foreign
civil war....he would have provoked a DOMESTIC civil war.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Were you scared when Reagan bombed the french embassy in Libya?
Did reagan order it...or was it free-lancing by a pissed-off aircrew?
well?