Rant ...semi on topic
Larry L
noticed it was from Edmonton Book Store and knew Santa had ordered one
of the books on fishing in Canada I asked for<G>
Santa put the notice back in the box with a specified delivery day on
it for the mailman to bring it back when we would be here to sign for
it.
It never showed up. Santa went to the post office and asked and they
couldn't find it "The carrier must have it." We asked the carrier
and he doesn't have it ... He "assumed we had picked it up at the post
office."
Thus, it appears that my .... out of print ..... X-mas gift book is
lost :-(
Bah Humbug
JR
> Thus, it appears that my .... out of print ..... X-mas gift book is
> lost :-(
Now THAT sucks. Hope it turns up.....
- JR
David LaCourse
Let's see...... The government can't deliver a simple package to your
house and you want them to handle all of our healthcare? Correct?
Hope your package comes thru. Hope you don't get sick.
Dave
John B
"David LaCourse" <dplac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2009121417041131729-dplacourse@aolcom...
Yeah but who else can ship a dehydrated heart across the country for 43
cents?
John
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Name one country that you think has a better postal service than the
USA. You cannot because we are numero uno. Not the Jerrys not the
Brits not the Japannese.
Name one company in the private sector that can deliver a letter to
your house from California or any other place in the 50 states for 44
cents. Not FedEx not Brown no one. Period.
How about when Americans do stuff right or are the best there is we
recognize it and get off the soapbox.?
Merry Christmas you old pirate.
Dave
David LaCourse
The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? It's just
like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.
>
> Merry Christmas you old pirate.
And the same to you and yours, David.
Dave
>
> Dave
Giles
Giles
Does your police department turn a profit? Your fire department?
Parks? Highway? Water treatment? Waste water treatment? County
board? State senate? Navy?
Imbecile.
Pig.
g.
MajorOz
right........because it is against federal law.......can't have
competition, donchaknow....
> How about when Americans do stuff right or are the best there is we
> recognize it and get off the soapbox.?
Agreed.............when we are, I am the first to do so.
cheers
oz, who done it right
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Last time I looked FedEx could deliver a letter for you. What law are
you talking about? Is FedEx disobeying the law? Right I get it, the
only thing that's keeping the private sector from delivering letters
for 44 cents is the law.
Jebus help us man, thimbk!
Dave
Mark Bowen
"Giles" <g_go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f468dc54-a040-4408...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
Moron.
g.
Yep, simply amazing how a quazi-governmental organiztion that handles
billions of pieces of mail a day could loose one book?
Worse yet, I bet Davie never recieved a single letter during his time with
an exclusive government organization.
Op
David LaCourse
David LaCourse
>>>> house and you want them to handle all of our healthcare? � �Correc
> t?
>>
>>>> Hope your package comes thru. �Hope you don't get sick.
>>
>>>> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Name one country that you think has a better postal service than the
>>> USA. You cannot because we are numero uno. Not the Jerrys not the
>>> Brits not the Japannese.
>>
>>> Name one company in the private sector that can deliver a letter to
>>> your house from California or any other place in the 50 states for 44
>>> cents. Not FedEx not Brown no one. Period.
>>
>>> How about when Americans do stuff right or are the best there is we
>>> recognize it and get off the soapbox.?
>>
>> The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? �It's just
>> like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.
>
> Does your police department turn a profit? Your fire department?
> Parks? Highway? Water treatment? Waste water treatment? County
> board? State senate? Navy?
>
> Imbecile.
>
> Pig.
>
> g.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
DaveS
I suggest that you describe the situation to the Post Office manager
where your carrier works and ask that he look into it and get back to
you.
Dave
Tom Littleton
> The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? It's just
> like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.
since when does 'operating at a loss' equal 'doing a bad job'? All three
examples given are tasked with responsibilities that no private corporation
would touch.
Medicare and Medicaid run at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers. The post office delivers stuff at a far lower rate
than a private carrier would charge, if anyone could even be found willing
to deliver tons of bulk mail, not to mention letters and greeting cards,
worldwide. You have no clue about what you discuss, sometimes, Louie.
Tom
David LaCourse
The only thing government does well is make war, and it has not done
that for many, many years. You think health care is expensive. Wait
until it is free, Tom. I'm on my last days. Don't have too much time
left. You and yours, as well as my children, are the ones I feel sorry
for. If revising health care is so very important, and I think it is,
why the big rush? Do it slowly, thoughtfully, carefully, and with a
majority of the PEOPLE in favor. More than 60% of the adults in the
U.S. don't want this health care bill. Don't do it this way. Don't
rush into it. "We must have a bill out of Congress by Christmas," is
plain insanity. YOU will be sorry. I won't be around when the shit
hits the fan, thank God, but you will. d;o)
You want a system like the UK and Canada? Read this: I pulled this
article from the "Investor's Business Daily." It provides some
interesting stats from a survey by the UN International Health
Organization.
�
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S.����������� 65% (two cancers for me)
England������ 46%
Canada������� 42%
�
Percentage of patients diagnosed with�diabetes�who received treatment
within six months:
U.S.������������93% (again, me)
England�������15%
Canada��������43%
�
Percentage of seniors needing�hip replacement�who received it within
six months:
U.S.����������� 90% (six months? Hell, try three weeks for a friend)
England������ 15%
Canada������� 43%
�
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S.������������77% (almost every month for me)
England�������40%
Canada��������43%
�
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S.������������71
England�������14
Canada��������18
�
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":
U.S.������������12% (hmm, wish I *could* say that)
England�������2%
Canada��������6%
�
I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"
comparable to England or Canada .
Remember old Harry Reid saying, "Edlerly Americans must learn to accept
the inconveniences of old age." Really? The inconvieniences? Fine.
Like having to piss 3 times a night? No problem. Like achy bones and
sore feet? No problem. We should ship his sorry ass to Canada or the
UK. And, btw, do you think members of Congress will have the same
benefits the rest of us do?
I may not know what the hell I am talking about half the time, but I do
know who I vote for, and I've only twice voted for a pig in a poke.
You seem to make a general practice of it.
Davey, Louie, Asshole, Pig, Imbecile, Dumbass, Idiot, (put your
favorite one here), who will be laughing in his grave when you and
yours have to pay for this giant glusterfuck! And pay you will, and
pay, and pay, and pay................
�
Giles
Giles
> On 2009-12-15 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton" <ThomasLittle...@msn.com> said:
>
>
>
> > "David LaCourse" <dplacou...@aol.com> wrote in message
Good god, you are stupid.
Well.....not for much longer! :)
g.
David LaCourse
>> rush into it. �"We must have a bill out of Congress by Christmas," �i
>> the inconveniences of old age." �Really? �The inconvieniences? �Fin
> e. �
>> Like having to piss 3 times a night? �No problem. �Like achy bones an
> d
>> sore feet? �No problem. �We should ship his sorry ass to Canada or th
> e
>> UK. �And, btw, do you think members of Congress will have the same
>> benefits the rest of us do?
>>
>> I may not know what the hell I am talking about half the time, but I do
>> know who I vote for, and I've only twice voted for a pig in a poke. �
>> You seem to make a general practice of it.
>>
>> Davey, Louie, Asshole, Pig, Imbecile, Dumbass, Idiot, (put your
>> favorite one here), who will be laughing in his grave when you and
>> yours have to pay for this giant glusterfuck! �And pay you will, and
>> pay, and pay, and pay................
>
>
> Good god, you are stupid.
>
> Well.....not for much longer! :)
>
> g.
Yep. Yuck, yuck. Dat's me, old stupid Davey. Yuck, yuck. Wid 5 mill
in them thar portfolios, duh, just think how much i wud have if'n i was
smart, or edumacated.
You are a one trick pony, Wolfgang, who's only purpose in this life is
to hurt people. Well, I'm happy to tell you that your name calling
does not hurt me. It only shows how very small you are. Your
happiness over my death, however, does hurt. And you call ME a pig.
Tsk, tsk.
Dave
Giles
Giles
Hm.....
It occurs to me that there may be a slight problem with terminology
here. Do you know what an idiot with 5 million dollars is? An idiot
with 5 million dollars is an imbecile. Do you know what a dangerously
deranged swine with 5 million dollars is? A dangerously deranged
imbecile with 5 million dollars is a pig. Do you know what a dead
idiot pig with 5 million dollars is? A good welfare pig.
g.
and, after all, what is so difficult about any of that?
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
First, in the US, comparing "the post office" to "private" carriers, ala
FedEx/UPS, whatever is comparing apples and oranges. The USPS has certain
protections (and mandates) that make comparison impossible. In fact, it is
illegal (and companies have been fined) to send "regular mail" via FedEx - a
company cannot send its "routine correspondence" via anything other than the
USPS and it is illegal for FedEx, whatever to place anything in a receptacle
marked for "mail." There are other aspects of the whole thing, but suffice to
say that there is no real basis for comparison. IAC, the USPS is not (directly)
taxpayer-funded, but it is "Federally-governed."
As to Medicaid, it is primarily 50 state-run programs, overseen by the Fed, and
some states (at least in the past - I don't keep up with every state's yearly
Medicaid program) have used private companies to administer it. IAC, your
statement that "Medicaid run(s) at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers" isn't really accurate for a number of reasons, not the
least of which is that Medicaid has never, as an entire program in all 50
states, been run by a private health insurer. Or really, it has never been run
by _any_ single entity, private or governmental. While Medicare is a national
program, it likewise has never been run by a private company, so there is no way
to say with certainty what the results would be should a competent (or
incompetent) private entity run either or both of them.
As I see it, the problem is the amount of money involved - be it
publicly-administered or privately-administered, the amount of money is gonna be
a temptation for all sorts of, um, hijinks. I saw it firsthand with FEMA and
the Katrina recovery. It had nothing whatsoever to do with who was in the WH,
what party was "in control" (or out of control...), or anything else like that.
It had to do with the amount of cold, hard cash and bureaucrats/bureaucracy in
general. And the waste and over-spending was and is nothing short of
mind-boggling. That stupid cunt in LA actually _DEMANDED_ a 100 bil blank check
for LA, whereas MS asked for around 7 bil, with controls and guidelines.
And the whole "health care debate" seems to ignore the personal choice aspects
of the situation - for example, if health care is such an important thing to
individuals, why shouldn't they have to pay a larger portion of their income to
get it than, say, a car payment. IOW, if someone chooses a new car (and its
expenses) over insurance when they can only afford one, then why should
"society" subsidize that choice. Granted, this does not address those that can
afford neither. OTOH, those that must (or chose to) depend on "society" for
health care should only be provided the basic level of such support. For
example, those on "food stamps" are allowed to shop wherever they wish, for a
fairly broad range of products (again, granted, there are various programs that
have "outlets" where those on such programs obtain product) - why aren't they
required to obtain basic products at "outlets?" Or at the very least, only
allowed to purchase (at retail) basic, healthy, non-brandname products?
Unfortunately, I foresee the possibility of really disastrous overspending when
"the Fed," even indirectly, oversees such a large segment of money in the US -
look what happened with Freddie and Fannie - and look to the budget itself.
TC,
R
Giles
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton" <ThomasLittle...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"David LaCourse" <dplacou...@aol.com> wrote in message
Moron.
g.
DaveS
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton" <ThomasLittle...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will only comment on the waste bit. The two worst areas in the
country for medicare fraud by far, are Texas and Florida. These two
states account for more of the billing "outliers" than all the other
states combined. Much of this arose during the last administration.
Hundreds of providers were authorized and I will let you guess whose
friends these folk tended to be.
And I will not speculate on why the GOP has protested the "cuts" to
programs, like Texas and Florida inhome care, which Obama
investigations have found most fraud prone. Yep, howling like stuck
pigs.
Scheeeech
Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>I will only comment on the waste bit. The two worst areas in the
>country for medicare fraud by far, are Texas and Florida.
Please cite your source and the statistics to back up this statement.
HTH,
R
DaveS
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
> >I will only comment on the waste bit. The two worst areas in the
> >country for medicare fraud by far, are Texas and Florida.
>
> Please cite your source and the statistics to back up this statement.
>
> HTH,
> R
OK I'll try.
Here is a quickie on the general scope of the problem nationwide and
the Obama shift to tackle it. Short and sweet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111502488.html
Here is a Wiki article that happens to detail the South Florida nexus,
as well as spell out some of the fraud techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_fraud
And more on the disproportionate share for Florida
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_bi_ge/us_medicare_fraud_busts
You can dig out the Texas comp on your own. Here is a start.
http://homecaremag.com/news/Medicare-fraud-Houston-DME-20090731/
Here is the Govt site to get current news of arrests etc on cheating
companies in each State. Houston is a champ. The Houston papers should
also be carrying stuff on yesterdays(?) arrests. Ditto with the Miami
Herald but that requires a subscription.
http://www.stopmedicarefraud.gov/index.html
And here if you want to argue contra dance, is a put down of my
favorite "Family" agent/whackjob's, assertion on medicare fraud, who I
happen to think is closer to the truth in this slippery realm than the
apologists. And you know what I generally think of this theocratic
puppet, vet hating pig.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/27/tom-coburn/coburn-says-20-percent-every-medicare-dollar-goes-/
For this weeks arrest sweeps you can you start with the South Florida
papers and i 'd guess the Houston media must be also carrying
something on the arrests. And FOX and CNN if that suits. For the
deeper stuff you can google up an afternoon of stuff yer ounself and
decide what it means.
The key to look at is which States and cities have the largest
proportions of patient billing "outliers" which is the best proxy for
the fraud totals. A key comparison in which Florida and Texas
fraudsters shine is for the HOMECARE PROGRAM. I am sure you understand
textbook stats are not available by surveying fraudsters and asking
"How much are you stealing from Medicare?" "BY program please?"
And then there is the NYT.
After looking at the Obama Administration's stepped up war on medicare
fraud, do you feel that just maybe the GOP is a little bit dishonest
in characterizing the money saved by cutting fraud and waste as "cuts
in health care for the elderly?" And just maybe could some of the
biggest howlers in Congress come from . . . get money from, . . . have
financial interests in . . . .? Or is it just these crazy libs who
are enemies of American Free Enterprise who are raising false issues?
Or maybe is the fraud business beyond partisanship and something that
just plain Americans can agree needs to be fixed, quick and that Obama
is on to it?
Dave
Tom Littleton
If I can borrow a 'waynoism' here: the whole Health Care Reform effort is
now, IMHO, as fucked up as a soup sandwich. The bill, currently diluted down
almost daily, is going to end up doing very little to address the
fundamental issues, and, in fact, should prove as fodder for those who wish,
in a few years, to say, "see, Reform made things Worse!".
Rick, you make a valid point a few posts back by noting that care above a
certain level ought to be a personal responsibility. I agree, and feel we
need to force people to start facing real choices between shiny baubles and
real needs in life. David illustrates the problem you address when he claims
he wishes to maintain the status quo so he can keep all the goodies, at no
further cost. Finally, Wolfgang hit a key point that has yet to be settled
in a national discourse: is health care an Industry(thus a profit center or
group of them), or a Public Service(such as Fire, Postal and Police
services)? I feel the latter to be true, but it seems that no one wants to
take that debate to the public. Why, I have no idea.
So, what we'll seemingly end up with is a huge gift to the Insurance
industry(Lieberman, Connecticut, Insurance....hmmm, anyone see a
connection?), no addressing of major cost factors, and we'll continue down
the road that will ultimately bankrupt the nation. Sad, actually, but at
this juncture, I agreed with another Dean, who is trying to rally the Dems
to kill the damned bill and start over.
Tom
Larry L
> noticed it was from Edmonton Book Store and knew Santa had ordered one
> of the books on fishing in Canada I asked for<G>
>
> Santa put the notice back in the box with a specified delivery day on
> it for the mailman to bring it back when we would be here to sign for
> it.
>
> It never showed up. Santa went to the post office and asked and they
> couldn't find it "The carrier must have it." We asked the carrier
> and he doesn't have it ... He "assumed we had picked it up at the post
> office."
>
> lost :-(
>
> Bah Humbug
They found it <G> Seems it had gotten put into the registered
mail safe. The carrier had left it in the 'ordinary' mail to be
picked up location but someone else noticed it required a signature
for delivery and, thus, moved it to the safe with registered mail.
Tom Littleton
"Larry L" <larry.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3c32d7a-7f4f-4463...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
They found it <G> Seems it had gotten put into the registered
mail safe. The carrier had left it in the 'ordinary' mail to be
picked up location but someone else noticed it required a signature
for delivery and, thus, moved it to the safe with registered mail.
Great news, Larry!
....now, look what a can of worms you opened<g>!
Tom
Larry L
> "Larry L" <larry.linthi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm often amazed at where threads I start end up going.
Giles
>
> Finally, Wolfgang hit a key point that has yet to be settled
> in a national discourse: is health care an Industry(thus a profit center or
> group of them), or a Public Service(such as Fire, Postal and Police
> services)?
If he did, it was an accident. I'm fairly certain that what he was
after was a clear distinction (or even a murky one) between postal
service and various others taken for granted by taxpayers in terms of
profitability. If memory serves, he said nothing about health
care.....and I strongly suspect that it was not on his mind while
engaged in formulating his question. That said, health care IS an
industry......as is postal service, fire and police protection, water
treatment (both "fresh" and "waste"), steel manufacturing, logging,
etc., etc., So?
> I feel the latter to be true, but it seems that no one wants to
> take that debate to the public.
Well, this looks public enough to me. And in a certain highly
restricted sense, health care IS a public service (such as Fire,
Postal and Police services). The debate (as we shall refer to it in
deference to a long history of public comedy) is about how restricted
that sense should be. But let's be real. There is no debate where it
matters. For that matter, there isn't much even where it doesn't
matter. Debate, futile and sophomoric as it naturally is, is at least
a recognisable form of communication with a long and admittedly
grossly overestimated value.....but a value nevertheless. There is no
real debate here.....nor even a reasonable facsimile. The fatuous
twittering one almost invariably encounters from both sides of the
question has a certain minimal amusement value (for those of us
blessed with low standards) but it won't amount to a small hill of
shit where such shit matters......as always.
So?
So, twitter on, by all means.
> Why, I have no idea.
No, you truly don't.
> So, what we'll seemingly end up with is a huge gift to the Insurance
> industry
No, duh!
> (Lieberman, Connecticut, Insurance....hmmm, anyone see a
> connection?), no addressing of major cost factors, and we'll continue down
> the road that will ultimately bankrupt the nation.
Not to worry. This nation went bankrupt about the same time as the
Soviet Union......some time in the 50s.
> Sad, actually, but at
> this juncture, I agreed with another Dean, who is trying to rally the Dems
> to kill the damned bill and start over.
Sure. Why not? Won't make any difference.
giles
does ANYBODY in this group (or murrica......or anywhere else, for that
matter) read?!
Giles
You should be amazed at where they start.
g.
Fred
There is no Santa
Fred
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>On Dec 16, 3:14�am, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >I will only comment on the waste bit. The two worst areas in the
>> >country for medicare fraud by far, are Texas and Florida.
>>
>> Please cite your source and the statistics to back up this statement.
>>
>> HTH,
>> R
>
>OK I'll try.
Er, OK - care to succeed? Please cite you source and the statistics to back up
your statement.
HTH,
R
DaveS
You are kidding?
Earth to Richard.
This just turned into the Phoenix whatisname/Letterman interview.
Richard parts of the story are all over the media for the last two
weeks.
Wakey wakey time
Mark Bowen
"Larry L" <larry.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3c32d7a-7f4f-4463...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
What this proves to me is that the US postal service works for better or
worse, as a competent postal worker took time and effort to protect the
valued property of a postal customer.
Though the book was misplaced for a time, it was not lost nor otherwise
pillfered, as was inferred by ROFF's own warmonger, material wealth
braggard, and hater of all things that are good and decent in life.
Chalk one up for the good guyz.
Life has meaning again!
Op
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>On Dec 16, 10:01�pm, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:20:45 -0800 (PST), DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 16, 3:14�am, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> >I will only comment on the waste bit. The two worst areas in the
>> >> >country for medicare fraud by far, are Texas and Florida.
>>
>> >> Please cite your source and the statistics to back up this statement.
>>
>> >> HTH,
>> >> R
>>
>> >OK I'll try.
>>
>> Er, OK - care to succeed? �Please cite you source and the statistics to back up
>> your statement. �
>>
>> HTH,
>> R
>
>You are kidding?
>Earth to Richard.
>This just turned into the Phoenix whatisname/Letterman interview.
Yeah, right, whatever you say there, Joachim...actually, thinking about it,
you'd make a better Farrah, what with that muumuu making your ass look so big...
>Richard parts of the story are all over the media for the last two
>weeks.
>Wakey wakey time
It's pretty simple - just cite the source and stats that back up your statement
- you made it, so you can back it up, right....? I looked at your cites and,
hell, the first one didn't even contain the name of _any_ state, two talked
about arrests in Florida, New York, and Michigan, and task forces there as well
as Texas and Louisiana, but none gave anything remotely resembling stats to back
your claim. So, put up or shut up - cite the source and stats that back your
statement.
Shit, I'll even grant you that Florida is _likely_ a state with a large amount
of Medicare fraud, given the fact it has a large population overall, much of it
concentrated into urban(ized) areas, a large population of Medicare-aged folks,
a large of population of part-time residents, a relatively high cost of living
in many areas, etc., etc., etc. But that's just an educated opinion - I cannot
say for sure where Florida ranks among all the states as to Medicare fraud. I
would guess California, Texas and New York are also up there in the rankings,
too, and North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming are probably pretty low. IAC, none
of the above factors, that would seemingly make Florida "fertile ground" for
fraud, has anything to do with politics, party or otherwise.
HTH,
R
David LaCourse
>
> Though the book was misplaced for a time, it was not lost nor otherwise
> pillfered, as was inferred by ROFF's own warmonger, material wealth
> braggard, and hater of all things that are good and decent in life.
LOL. Warmonger? Yeah, mia culpa, along with your hero Obama.
Material wealth braggard? Yeah, to show a certain bigot that if I was
edumacated (like you, hahahaha) I'd be worth at least twice what I am
now. Hater of all things that are good and decent in life? Prove it.
I pay back to society with my time, talents and treasures. What do you
do? Oh, yeah, I remember: The fat drunkard in the tutu. d;o)
>
> Chalk one up for the good guyz.
Yep, the Postal Service are the good guys. Could not agree more. But
they are government and the government never does anything right.
Freddie, Fannie, AmTrac, etc.
> Life has meaning again!
You found a bigger tutu? Great. Now your big fat ass will look like,
well, uh, well......... a big fat ass.
>
> Op
I rest my case on the little boy in Carolina.
Davey, who hopes that Santa brings the little boy a Superman Fishing
Pole for Christmas.
DaveS
Typical. Whenever you come up a piker, you spin a big turd of denial.
All indications are that South Florida and Houston, Texas are the
nexus of Medicare fraud. My cites for that offer more fact than any 20
of your posts.
And any one digging into this stuff will eventually run into the
political associations which go back 20 plus years and include Jeb
Bush's association with Miguel Recarey(associated with the Trafficante
mafia family), and considered one of the biggest Medicare fraudsters
ever, right up to the present. (I am keeping an eye on the current GOP
corruption scandals in Georgia). And then there is Senator Bill Frist
(R), companies, found guilty of extensive Medicare "overbilling"/fraud
and required to pay back hundreds of millions to the taxpayers. My
guess is you probably "overlooked" that in your extensive studies of
this issue.
Without a doubt some Demo politicians will be caught up in the Obama
Medicare Fraud crackdown. However, in Florida and in Texas, which
history and the current state of play say are the worst places in the
country for abuse of medicare, and the involvement of organized
crime, its the GOP pols. You might sniff around some of your
Mississippi "family values boys" cause the Fraud Task force will get
to Mississippi sooner or later and people WILL go to jail.
Your original post was such an embarrassing mish-mash as to defy a
serious response. Its not even clear if you understand the difference
between medicare and medicaid. I actually thought that fighting fraud
where most of it was occurring was something that rational people
agree on. Any reasonable person could learn much from the cites I
provided to back up my post. You should try to do that yourself some
day.
Dave
And by the way, your last para indicates you only scanned the cites,
poorly.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Well, you're just too good an investigator to try and hide it from you - that's
the whole reason for the existence of the GOP - so the leaders can get rich from
scooter fraud and shoe insert switcheroos...they got that and military contract
rigging and the Dems got welfare skimming and campaign donation rackets...
I'll make really simple: can you or can't you cite _any_ verifiable data
whatsoever that shows Medicare fraud by state?
You keep going, and you're gonna turn yourself inside out...but hey, at least
your muumuu won't make your ass look quite so big...
If you can't cite any good data, I'm done,
R
Giles
Idiot.
> If you can't cite any good data, I'm done,
You've been done so long you wouldn't be able to remember anything you
had to say even in the exceedingly unlikely event that you ever did.
goddamn, you are pathetic.
g.
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did already, you just don't like me laying it on the GOP. Gave you the
start on a fucking dissertation if you actually read it. The thievery
is Billions and even when GW tried to cut it back a little, its been
certain Rs who come out of the woodwork to block for the criminals who
I believe pay them. Can't deny Senator Frisk's companies' $600 million
little scams can you? Or Jeb Bush's association with Miguel Recarey.
Oh, and there IS one Demo for sure who I also suspect is tight with
the thieves. Your guess?
But the most insulting disregard of the American people in this whole
health care debate was for the GOP to knowingly pretend that Obama's
attack on medicare fraud, particularly in Florida and Texas, was a
"cut in health care for the elderly." Whatever drunk son of a bitch
traitor who came up with that idea will spend some extra time in the
devil's care, and I will try to do my share to fight these America
hating cocksuckers.
You and I should stick to art, fishing and land because we don't seem
to be able to discuss civilly anything else. Poles apart. And shitcan
that mumu stuff or I'll respond in kind and make you cry.
Dave
Tom Littleton
"DaveS" <sned...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6f0d1b6c-734a-47d8...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
But the most insulting disregard of the American people in this whole
health care debate was for the GOP to knowingly pretend that Obama's
attack on medicare fraud, particularly in Florida and Texas, was a
"cut in health care for the elderly."
wait a minute......as a Democrat(entire adult life, ward leader, etc), and
as a supporter of Obama, IMHO, they set themselves up for that. Why? Because
it was presented in an extremely poor fashion. To the VAST majority of the
public, all that was laid out was that they were going to 'reduce' Medicare
costs. Nothing about efficiency or fraud crackdowns, just 'reduce costs'. To
most elderly people(scientific sample: two parents and and Aunt, all in
their 90's, two of whom voted for Obama), this brought on a serious case of
the heebie-jeebies.
Like I said, until it can be sold(and damn, it shouldn't be that hard a
sell) to the majority of the voting public that Healthcare should be a
public service, not a for-profit industry, and until the American public can
learn to value different levels of care and show the willingness to manage
their own costs responsibly, we are never going to be able to reform an
out-of-control system that costs WAY too much, per capita.
Tom
Giles
> "DaveS" <snedek...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6f0d1b6c-734a-47d8...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> But the most insulting disregard of the American people in this whole
> health care debate was for the GOP to knowingly pretend that Obama's
> attack on medicare fraud, particularly in Florida and Texas, was a
> "cut in health care for the elderly."
>
> wait a minute......as a Democrat(entire adult life, ward leader, etc), and
> as a supporter of Obama, IMHO, they set themselves up for that.
"They" may or may not have set themselves up for "that" (whoever they
may be and whatever that may be) but what has your allegedly being a
more or less lifelong Democrat (whatever that may mean) got to do with
it (whatever "it" may be)?
> Why?
Excellent question. I've used it myself from time to time.
> Because
> it was presented in an extremely poor fashion.
O.k., sure, but what isn't?
> To the VAST majority of the
> public, all that was laid out was that they were going to 'reduce' Medicare
> costs. Nothing about efficiency or fraud crackdowns, just 'reduce costs'. To
> most elderly people(scientific sample: two parents and and Aunt, all in
> their 90's, two of whom voted for Obama), this brought on a serious case of
> the heebie-jeebies.
Hm.....a proposed reduction in Medicare costs gave your elderly
relatives a serious case of the heebie-jeebies? Um......not to appear
insensitive or anything, but maybe it's time for them to take a nap
(metaphorically speaking) or something.
> Like I said, until it can be sold(and damn, it shouldn't be that hard a
> sell) to the majority of the voting public that Healthcare should be a
> public service, not a for-profit industry, and until the American public can
> learn to value different levels of care and show the willingness to manage
> their own costs responsibly, we are never going to be able to reform an
> out-of-control system that costs WAY too much, per capita.
Anything can be sold. Take, for example, the laughably meaningless
phrase, "manage their own costs responsibly." Reform should be easy
to......oops.....wait a minute.....what is that tapping, as of some
one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door?
Hang on. I'll get back to you.
> Tom
g.
Tom Littleton
"Giles" <g_go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e7e2faec-2dac-42d1...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>"They" may or may not have set themselves up for "that" (whoever they
may be and whatever that may be) but what has your allegedly being a
more or less lifelong Democrat (whatever that may mean) got to do with
>it (whatever "it" may be)?
If you would just follow basic English, 'that' would refer to the use of
scare tactics, that the Dems could have easily avoided, with a better
explanation at the outset.....if, indeed, that was how they planned to
reduce Medicare costs. I tossed in the lifelong dem thing to make clear to
Dave(sometimes he jumps to conclusions) that I am not, by any means, a shill
for the GOP.
>Excellent question. I've used it myself from time to time.
thanks. I'm sure we're all just tickled pink to know that.
>Hm.....a proposed reduction in Medicare costs gave your elderly
relatives a serious case of the heebie-jeebies? Um......not to appear
insensitive or anything, but maybe it's time for them to take a nap
>(metaphorically speaking) or something.
folks, at that end of the age spectrum(and also those considerably younger)
don't want to hear about 'reductions' to their healthcare plan. Hell, who
does, if the reductions aren't spelled out, and in this case they were not.
Is it so unreasonable to acknowledge that people get very uneasy about
changes to their medical care. As one gets older, and thus more likely to
need that care more often, such changes are downright frightening. Perhaps a
nap would do you good, Wolfie, as I've waded this far through your retort,
and it's been pretty weak....
>Anything can be sold. Take, for example, the laughably meaningless
phrase, "manage their own costs responsibly." Reform should be easy
to......oops.....wait a minute.....what is that tapping, as of some
>one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door?
perhaps to you, that phrase was meaningless. However, as one who has worked
in the field of healthcare for a few decades, one gets very aware that the
average American wants the absolute best of the best, state of the art
healthcare, and then expresses shock at costs going through the roof. We
cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
afford it, without a massive taxation increase. We should, IMHO, be able to
provide every citizen basic routine health services and proven, effective
treatment of acute and chronic medical conditions for a reasonable cost to
the society. Is that clearer for you, Wolfie?
>Hang on. I'll get back to you.
whee! I can hardly wait. No intelligent discourse could ever be expected
here without you, right?
Tom
DaveS
> "DaveS" <snedek...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6f0d1b6c-734a-47d8...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> But the most insulting disregard of the American people in this whole
> health care debate was for the GOP to knowingly pretend that Obama's
> attack on medicare fraud, particularly in Florida and Texas, was a
> "cut in health care for the elderly."
>
> wait a minute......as a Democrat(entire adult life, ward leader, etc), and
> as a supporter of Obama, IMHO, they set themselves up for that. Why? Because
> it was presented in an extremely poor fashion. To the VAST majority of the
> public, all that was laid out was that they were going to 'reduce' Medicare
> costs. Nothing about efficiency or fraud crackdowns, just 'reduce costs'. To
> most elderly people(scientific sample: two parents and and Aunt, all in
> their 90's, two of whom voted for Obama), this brought on a serious case of
> the heebie-jeebies.
True but. . . you argue like when a thief blames the victim, because
they were vulnerable. OK thats a stretch but not much. Who knew just
how low the Post-defeated GOP was willing to go to score a one match
point. IMHO They apparently hate the American working people.
> Like I said, until it can be sold(and damn, it shouldn't be that hard a
> sell) to the majority of the voting public that Health care should be a
> public service, not a for-profit industry, and until the American public can
> learn to value different levels of care and show the willingness to manage
> their own costs responsibly, we are never going to be able to reform an
> out-of-control system that costs WAY too much, per capita.
> Tom
Well that's one idea of the necessary precursors. I am some more of an
existentialist on the subject: we shall see. Politics/National policy
continue to surprise me, just as an appreciation of the planets
oneness is setting in. ;+")
Dave
Giles
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e7e2faec-2dac-42d1...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>"They" may or may not have set themselves up for "that" (whoever they
>
> may be and whatever that may be) but what has your allegedly being a
> more or less lifelong Democrat (whatever that may mean) got to do with
>
> >it (whatever "it" may be)?
>
> If you would just follow basic English, 'that' would refer to the use of
> scare tactics, that the Dems could have easily avoided, with a better
> explanation at the outset.....if, indeed, that was how they planned to
> reduce Medicare costs.
I'm actually pretty good at basic English. For example, if you had
said that "the Dems" (an interesting usage for a lifelong Democrat,
incidentally) were using scare tactics instead of relying on something
or other, as yet unnamed, that you think might have worked better, I'd
probably have understood you to mean that "the Dems" were, to their
own detriment, using scare tactics instead of something or other, as
yet unnamed, that you think might have worked better. Try it
sometime.....let's see what happens.
> I tossed in the lifelong dem thing to make clear to
> Dave(sometimes he jumps to conclusions) that I am not, by any means, a shill
> for the GOP.
And stupid shit like this is supposed to accomplish......what,
exactly?
> >Excellent question. I've used it myself from time to time.
>
> thanks. I'm sure we're all just tickled pink to know that.
Moron.
> >Hm.....a proposed reduction in Medicare costs gave your elderly
>
> relatives a serious case of the heebie-jeebies? Um......not to appear
> insensitive or anything, but maybe it's time for them to take a nap
>
> >(metaphorically speaking) or something.
>
> folks, at that end of the age spectrum(and also those considerably younger)
> don't want to hear about 'reductions' to their healthcare plan.
Ah....see.....there's the problem. When you said "just 'reduce
costs'" I took that to mean reduce costs, not reduce benefits. Silly
of me.......one of those basic English things, I guess.
> Hell, who does, if the reductions aren't spelled out, and in this case they were not.
Do you have any idea at all of which side you are on in this issue?
Do you have any idea at all of what the issue is? Do you have any
idea at all of what the words you use mean?
> Is it so unreasonable to acknowledge that people get very uneasy about
> changes to their medical care.
You can acknowledge anything you please. Evidently this much, at
least, is clear to you. However, acknowledgement is not the same
thing as understanding.......one of those basic English things.
Meanwhile, I have no problem at all in uderstanding why people with
limited financial means might be upset about diminished medical care.
What I'm having trouble with is why and how your family has managed to
spread their panic over reduced costs to you.
> As one gets older, and thus more likely to
> need that care more often, such changes are downright frightening.
Yes, yes, we've already covered that. It's the fear of reduced costs
that remains unexplained.
> Perhaps a
> nap would do you good, Wolfie, as I've waded this far through your retort,
> and it's been pretty weak....
Not worth the effort, to be sure. And yet, here you are.
> >Anything can be sold. Take, for example, the laughably meaningless
>
> phrase, "manage their own costs responsibly." Reform should be easy
> to......oops.....wait a minute.....what is that tapping, as of some
>
> >one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door?
>
> perhaps to you, that phrase was meaningless. However, as one who has worked
> in the field of healthcare for a few decades, one gets very aware that the
> average American wants the absolute best of the best, state of the art
> healthcare, and then expresses shock at costs going through the roof.
Yeah, you're a legend in the health care field......something I
wouldn't know anything about.
> We
> cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
> afford it, without a massive taxation increase.
Yep, we'd end up like the Canadians, eh?
> We should, IMHO, be able to
> provide every citizen basic routine health services and proven, effective
> treatment of acute and chronic medical conditions for a reasonable cost to
> the society.
Uh huh, but I have it from an unimpeachable source that we can't
approach that without fatal tax increases.
> Is that clearer for you, Wolfie?
You remember a time when you had something resembling opinions that
you could call your own? You remember something vaguely resembling
self-respect?
> >Hang on. I'll get back to you.
>
> whee! I can hardly wait. No intelligent discourse could ever be expected
> here without you, right?
With or without me, I see precious little reason to expect intelligent
discourse from some quarters. You want to tell me where I've gone
wrong in this analysis?
g.
Tom Littleton
> Who knew just
how low the Post-defeated GOP was willing to go to score a one match
>point.
this is politics. Finding the bottom of the barrel is at best a challenge.
>IMHO They apparently hate the American working people.
and, generally they always have. What is disappointing is the realization
that neither party holds the American public in very high regard, based on
this debacle.
Tom
Tom Littleton
> Try it
> sometime.....let's see what happens.
I'll take that under consideration, but it seems that Dave understood me
perfectly, so I'm not exactly fired with great urgency because you failed to
grasp my meaning.
>
> Ah....see.....there's the problem. When you said "just 'reduce
> costs'" I took that to mean reduce costs, not reduce benefits. Silly
> of me.......one of those basic English things, I guess.
it is. But, when you tell folks you are going to spend less on a
program('reduce costs'), they often make the leap to a reduction of benefits
being the most likely spot to reduce costs. Does that make sense to you?
>
> Do you have any idea at all of which side you are on in this issue?
> Do you have any idea at all of what the issue is? Do you have any
> idea at all of what the words you use mean?
yup. Do you?
> Yeah, you're a legend in the health care field......something I
> wouldn't know anything about.
working in research gives you one perspective. Working at the provider end
of things gives another. That, I understand. It's just that I choose not to
belittle your perspective because it is different. What I belittle is the
small-minded way you handle the opinions of others.
>
>> We
>> cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
>> afford it, without a massive taxation increase.
>
> Yep, we'd end up like the Canadians, eh?
really?? Canada provides state of the art care for all citizens under the
public plan? As compared to what is available in the US, or even to those in
Canada willing to
pay extra? That isn't my understanding of reality, but I'd love to hear the
Canadian contingent weigh in.
> Uh huh, but I have it from an unimpeachable source that we can't
> approach that without fatal tax increases.
what source would that be?
>
> You remember a time when you had something resembling opinions that
> you could call your own? You remember something vaguely resembling
> self-respect?
I haven't changed a bit. Check your mirror.
> With or without me, I see precious little reason to expect intelligent
> discourse from some quarters. You want to tell me where I've gone
> wrong in this analysis?
well, if you leave it THAT vague, I couldn't argue....simply because it is
as vague a statement as it is vaucous. You see, when you make your mind up
before starting to read and/or listen to others, that is the outlook one
develops.
Sad to see you descend to that level. Like I said, I haven't changed my
outlooks, thought processes, or manner of presentation one bit. Look in the
mirror to find the shortcomings.......
Tom
Mark Bowen
"Tom Littleton" <ThomasL...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:hgiff4$67r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That these so-called representatives (no matter their political stripe) of
our's could careless about us has only expanded to the latest debacle-their
disdain for the unwashed masses has been evident for decades, IMMHO!
Op
Giles
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c2b623a1-7bcd-449f...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Try it
> > sometime.....let's see what happens.
>
> I'll take that under consideration, but it seems that Dave understood me
> perfectly,
Well,if your understanding of what Dave understood is perfect......
> so I'm not exactly fired with great urgency because you failed to
> grasp my meaning.
I'm not certain that I failed to grasp your meaning. How about you
spell it out and we'll see if that's what I thought?
> > Ah....see.....there's the problem. When you said "just 'reduce
> > costs'" I took that to mean reduce costs, not reduce benefits. Silly
> > of me.......one of those basic English things, I guess.
>
> it is.
See, that's what I thought. This is going very well! :)
> But, when you tell folks you are going to spend less on a
> program('reduce costs'), they often make the leap to a reduction of benefits
> being the most likely spot to reduce costs. Does that make sense to you?
Nuance, my dear. 'reduce costs' isn't quite the same thing as "just
'reduce costs.'"
It's a basic English thing.
> > Do you have any idea at all of which side you are on in this issue?
> > Do you have any idea at all of what the issue is? Do you have any
> > idea at all of what the words you use mean?
>
> yup. Do you?
Well, I can come up with a few ideas. The problem is in coming up with
reliable ways to test hypotheses.
> > Yeah, you're a legend in the health care field......something I
> > wouldn't know anything about.
>
> working in research gives you one perspective. Working at the provider end
> of things gives another.
And there are ways to arrive at yet others.
> That, I understand. It's just that I choose not to
> belittle your perspective because it is different. What I belittle is the
> small-minded way you handle the opinions of others.
That last sentence is a gem worth preserving. You should have a
calligrapher write it out nicely on some good quality vellum and then
hang it on your wall.
> >> We
> >> cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
> >> afford it, without a massive taxation increase.
>
> > Yep, we'd end up like the Canadians, eh?
>
> really?? Canada provides state of the art care for all citizens under the
> public plan? As compared to what is available in the US, or even to those in
> Canada willing to pay extra? That isn't my understanding of reality, but I'd love
> to hear the Canadian contingent weigh in.
Nah, the Canadian's don't provide state of the art health care for all
their citizens under a public plan. They couldn't afford to do that
without a massive taxation increase. As a matter of fact, they
couldn't afford to do that even WITH a massive taxation increase. Nor
could we. In point of fact, providing state of the art health care to
all citizens of any country is sort of a nonsensical
idea.......wouldn't you say?
> > Uh huh, but I have it from an unimpeachable source that we can't
> > approach that without fatal tax increases.
>
> what source would that be?
Someone you know.....but not very well.
> > You remember a time when you had something resembling opinions that
> > you could call your own? You remember something vaguely resembling
> > self-respect?
>
> I haven't changed a bit.
The one reliable constant in the universe, eh?
> Check your mirror.
O.k., what am I looking for?
> > With or without me, I see precious little reason to expect intelligent
> > discourse from some quarters. You want to tell me where I've gone
> > wrong in this analysis?
>
> well, if you leave it THAT vague, I couldn't argue....simply because it is
> as vague a statement as it is vaucous.
Vague and vacuous.....yeah, there's a lot of that going around, I
hear.
> You see, when you make your mind up
> before starting to read and/or listen to others, that is the outlook one
> develops.
I bow to your experience.
> Sad to see you descend to that level.
Ah, you'll get over it.
> Like I said, I haven't changed my
> outlooks, thought processes, or manner of presentation one bit.
Stultified, huh? Pity. Life is change. No change......
> Look in the mirror to find the shortcomings.......
I see some wrinkles that didn't used to be there. :(
g.
Tom Littleton
> In point of fact, providing state of the art health care to
all citizens of any country is sort of a nonsensical
>idea.......wouldn't you say?
yes, I would agree. However, talk to folks, and you start to get the idea
that is what everyone wishes for. Or, viewed another way, no one wishes to
give up a single possible surgical, diagnostic or pharmaceutical option, and
those same folks then puzzle at why heathcare costs go up.
Oh, and sure, we all change, evolve, whatever with time and age. But, you
seem to imply that I've had some sort of sea-change in terms of attitude,
self-respect or whatever other silly terms you throw in, at various times.
Sorry, no such radical change has happened. Too bad that you see it
otherwise, but like most folks making guesses about others outlooks,
intellects or intentions, you are far off reality.
Finally, where I am on the issue of healthcare is pretty clear(you mused as
to where I stood....): What the nation should have is a single-payer system,
similar to the setup of Medicare, that covers all citizens from birth to
death.
And, like Medicare, there should be reasonable limitations that can be
overcome with supplemental coverage to those who desire that sort of thing.
The second part of the equation is a reworking of how we educate and later
compensate physicians and other critical health personnel.
We cannot put doctors in a half-million dollar debt hole by age 30,and then
NOT expect them to seek compensation down the road.
Tom
Giles
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7f46ea9c-397e-4cde...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> In point of fact, providing state of the art health care to
>
> all citizens of any country is sort of a nonsensical
>
> >idea.......wouldn't you say?
>
> yes, I would agree. However, talk to folks, and you start to get the idea
> that is what everyone wishes for.
Everyone also wishes for a long healthy life, leavened with moderate
to great wealth, notable physical beauty and vigor, numerous
trustworthy and steadfast friends, and eternal true love. But I don't
think I've ever met anyone who thought that he or she was going to
accomplish many of those things that he or wasn't already blessed with
(except perhaps the last.....just about everybody thinks their going
to get that, it appears.....and they are almost universally
disappointed in that), and I know I've almost never heard anyone
express the belief that anyone should provide them with all these
fundamental human rights. And I have absolutely never heard anyone
say that he or she needed or deserved "state of the art" health care
or that it is a fundamental human right or one guaranteed by the
constitution of the United States.
What people want is decent and affordable health care, with affordable
to be understood in the same sense that it is when speaking of
groceries, fuel, transportation, toiletries, car wax and all the other
ordinary day to day (which is how people actually live) expenses
incurred in an ordinary life.
> Or, viewed another way, no one wishes to
> give up a single possible surgical, diagnostic or pharmaceutical option,
Bullshit and arrant nonsense. The vast majority are stupefied and
petrified by the vast array of incomprehensible options with which
they are constantly confronted in health care. And this is no
accident. The system was deliberately designed that way and is
continually and deliberately "improved" to make it ever more so. It
has long been known that the easiest path to an eternity of bilking
the public is to keep them terrified, confused and bemused. This way
to the egress-->
> and
> those same folks then puzzle at why heathcare costs go up.
Some of them, to be sure.....the ones who wonder how the garage
managed to jump into the middle of the driveway while they were
backing out. Most, though, are not as stupid as you think they are.
They know why costs keep going up.
> Oh, and sure, we all change, evolve, whatever with time and age. But, you
> seem to imply that I've had some sort of sea-change in terms of attitude,
> self-respect or whatever other silly terms you throw in, at various times.
I don't see anything at all silly about self-respect or attitude as
such. To be sure, one's rationalization for assuming he or she
deserves the former can be downright silly.....or perverse, obscene,
itiotic, or what have you. And I guess that a particular attitude may
be silly depending on various definitions, criteria, and perceptions,
but this does not materially affect attitudes in general.
> Sorry, no such radical change has happened.
Well, you'd know.....right? I mean, it's like when you have a major
stroke or get knocked into a coma or something......you suddenly sit
up and say, "Wow, I just had a major stroke or got knocked into a coma
or something. Hey, did any of you notice?".....right?
> Too bad that you see it otherwise,
Too bad? Why?
> but like most folks making guesses about others outlooks,
> intellects or intentions, you are far off reality.
O.k., outlooks, intellects and intentions. Got it. What about fears
and expectations? What about puzzlement? What about heebie-jeebies?
What about interest in options?
> Finally, where I am on the issue of healthcare is pretty clear(you mused as
> to where I stood....):
May be clear to you. Then again, maybe you just think so. On the
other hand, like most folks making guesses about what is clear to
others, you may be far off reality.
> What the nation should have is a single-payer system,
> similar to the setup of Medicare, that covers all citizens from birth to
> death.
And chocolate......LOTS of good chocolate. But I suspect there will
be some disagreement about that.
> And, like Medicare, there should be reasonable limitations that can be
> overcome with supplemental coverage to those who desire that sort of thing.
O.k., that sounds easy enough. Consider it done.
> The second part of the equation is a reworking of how we educate and later
> compensate physicians and other critical health personnel.
Heck, that sounds even easier.
> We cannot put doctors in a half-million dollar debt hole by age 30,and then
> NOT expect them to seek compensation down the road.
Actually, we can expect ANYTHING. Meanwhile, I've known many people
who were (and are) still paying off student loans ten and fifteen
years after graduating from college. Not ONE of them is a doctor or
other health care professional.
g.
so, is anyone interested in how to to bring about substantial reform
in health care in america......and why it isn't going to happen in the
forseeable future? anyone? go ahead.......ask. :)
David LaCourse
I'll sit here near the warm fire with my beautiful wife and wait for
the guys in the white coats. Hopefully they can make it through the
snow. Wonder what they will feed me in the rubber room...............
Tom Littleton
so, is anyone interested in how to to bring about substantial reform
in health care in america......and why it isn't going to happen in the
forseeable future? anyone? go ahead.......ask. :)
ok, fire away. Hell, I just gave my point of view, and specified it as such.
I'd love to hear yours.....
Tom
Giles
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
First you have to gut three or four of the largest, most deeply
entrenched, wealthiest (and therefore most powerful) and highly
connected commercial institutions in the country; insurance, health
care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment/supplies. Not
"reform"......gut. After that, the next step doesn't matter much
because that isn't going to happen......who would do it?
It's that simple. And that isn't a "point of view."
g.
~^ beancounter ~^
Tom Littleton
First you have to gut three or four of the largest, most deeply
entrenched, wealthiest (and therefore most powerful) and highly
connected commercial institutions in the country; insurance, health
care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment/supplies. Not
"reform"......gut. After that, the next step doesn't matter much
because that isn't going to happen......who would do it?
who indeed? Especially since no one would wish to live through the 'gutting'
of the health care, pharmaceutical or medical equipment industries. Therein
lies the issue I put out on these pages a few months ago: it has been a long
process getting us to the current f-ed up stage, and it cannot be quickly or
painlessly undone. It's not just about the 'connected' part, either. At
present, our healthcare delivery absolutely depends on those industries and
their ongoing output, you couldn't 'gut ' them without severely limiting
care for a significant amount of time, unless we were to 'gut' them
gradually. And that, as I tried to point out, requires an overwhelming
public perception that healthcare is a public service, not an industry.
Tom
Tom Littleton
"~^ beancounter ~^" <richb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ee422fb-e838-4777...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>yea, i think we used to call it "being a commie"...
and, eventually, we'll call it the 'only viable option'.
How times change, huh?
Tom
Mark Bowen
> "~^ beancounter ~^" <richb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0ee422fb-e838-4777...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>yea, i think we used to call it "being a commie"...
>
And your parents once thought the bundle of joy they held in their arms
would grow-up to be an intelligent thinking individual; it is amazing how
wrong parents can be, isn't it?
Op
~^ beancounter ~^
what a laugh...
On Dec 20, 6:45 am, "Mark Bowen" <beaus...@charter.net> wrote:
> > "~^ beancounter ~^" <richboni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
~^ beancounter ~^
" Well, you may not be able to see Russia from your house, but it's
still a
very heavenly location "
~^ beancounter ~^
really have a death wish (honorable or otherwise), or are just out of
touch with reality. Their contituents be damned! They will definitely
pay the price in the November 2010 elections, re: Michael Bennet,
Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter and others nationwide. Just after the
Obama election, when it was clear that the Liberals would have a
virtual Federal government monopoly, I often opined my wish that they
would trot out their agenda ASAP so they would expose their clear
Liberal agenda and intentions before the mid-term elections. Well, I'm
getting my wish for Christmas. They have absolutely out done
themselves in that regard. For that, I am extremely thankful. Let the
citizen backlash begin. Tea, anyone?
Tom Littleton
jeezus, you are an idiot.
Tom
Mark Bowen
Why would you feel the need insult idiots?
Idiots are by far more intelligent than little richie bonilla.
HTH
Op
Giles
> yea, i think we used to call it "being a commie"...
>
Moron.
g.
Giles
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ac18e38c-124f-4525...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> First you have to gut three or four of the largest, most deeply
> entrenched, wealthiest (and therefore most powerful) and highly
> connected commercial institutions in the country; insurance, health
> care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment/supplies. Not
> "reform"......gut. After that, the next step doesn't matter much
> because that isn't going to happen......who would do it?
>
> who indeed? Especially since no one would wish to live through the 'gutting'
> of the health care, pharmaceutical or medical equipment industries. Therein
> lies the issue I put out on these pages a few months ago: it has been a long
> process getting us to the current f-ed up stage, and it cannot be quickly or
> painlessly undone. It's not just about the 'connected' part, either. At
> present, our healthcare delivery absolutely depends on those industries and
> their ongoing output, you couldn't 'gut ' them without severely limiting
> care for a significant amount of time, unless we were to 'gut' them
> gradually.
Right. It ain't gonna happen. That's what I said.
> And that, as I tried to point out, requires an overwhelming
> public perception that healthcare is a public service, not an industry.
> Tom
It IS an industry.....well, several interlocked industries, to be more
precise. It is most emphatically NOT a public service. Maybe it
should be.....personally, I think it would be a pretty good idea if
done properly.....but it ain't. Meanwhile, a large percentage of the
population think it is a public service......and what are ya gonna do
with tens of millions of people who can't tell the difference?
g.
DaveS
Hang tight Beanster, if you think our last shit on your head has been
rough on you, wait till I put you in for a stint at the Central
Communist Re-edumacation Camp. We will set up lines to the latrines
with signs so people can choose which of the bound whackjobs they want
to take a dump on. One sign will say "Mother Teresa." The sign for
your line will say "Anne Coulter" or maybe "Glenn Beck."
Then if anybody notices its you, the Beanster, and not Beck or Coulter
who is getting the Hershey Squirt, the attendant will say, "Are you
sure Mam?" he sure squealed like Coulter? Try Again." A few days of
that and you will deny even your precious Yankee constimatution.
That will be another victory for us Communists and be another step on
your long road to compliance and rehabilitation. Praise Lenin Boy
First Grand Field Marshal and Commissar, Commandante Dabid
Tom Littleton
on that last part, you make a very good point, Wolfie.
Tom
~^ beancounter ~^
DaveS
wrote:
> ha !! funny...hey, be ready for the bullet between the eyes....
>
> " That will be another victory for us Communists "
Beanster? Just in case things don't work out for you how about
tagging your foot before you go nighty night?
Tom Littleton
Beanster? Just in case things don't work out for you how about
tagging your foot before you go nighty night?
just a guess, but even the toe-tag would be misspelled.
Tom
~^ beancounter ~^
BFD
Family-Outdoors
Apparently the HC industry did not think the "reform" legislation
equated to a communist/state takeover as their stocks made a quite
nice gain on the markets the next trading day after the filibuster was
stopped. It seems to me if the industry was too worried about Obama
and/or the Dems being "commies" it would be unlikely their stocks
would soar the next trading day.
Paul
Wayne Harrison
"Tom Littleton" <ThomasL...@msn.com> wrote
> just a guess, but even the toe-tag would be misspelled.
hilarious.
and a happy christmas to you, mr. tom.
yfitons
wayno
~^ beancounter ~^
>
> > just a guess, but even the toe-tag would be misspelled.
Thank goodness you came along. If it hadn't been for your observation
that the word "report" was supposed to be "rapport" it may have had no
effect whatsoever on our lives. But you, ah, you have found meaning in
the minutiae. This is the Internet, after all, and someone needs to
police it. You, sir or madam, are a hero for your willingness to
sacrifice valuable hours of your day to something nobody else cares
about just so that we know you can spell better than we can.
You spend countless hours combing posts and responses to posts just so
you can point out when the rest of us make mistakes, because of course
you never do. You don't have anything more important to do with your
life because this is the most important thing in the world. In fact,
if someone makes a spelling error online, it's a far more important
representation of their ability to perform their duties as a human
being than anything they actually say. Because if we don't proofread
our 18th post today on an Internet message board about which actress
has the best rack, then we probably don't proofread our resumes
either. It's the only logical conclusion to make.
So I applaud you today, Guy Who Points Out Typos, for making sure we
all know you found our mistake. You're right, it IS unprofessional to
make spelling errors on an online forum about homosexual monkey sex
photos. Your life is truly validated each time you point that out to
the rest of us. So even though the others fail to appreciate your
solid work ethic, know that I see your heroic efforts and I am
eternally grateful that you made sure I know I accidentally left the
"u" out of "restaurant" in my post about where to eat fried crickets
in Los Angeles. Had you not pointed that out, nobody would have cared.
But now we all know that you do.
Sincerely,
Someone Who Occasionally Makes Mistakes
Tom Littleton
> Sincerely,
> Someone Who Occasionally Makes Mistakes
>
shortly after by the fact you largely post replies to yourself. I could go
on, but your spelling is merely amusing, your content is what is completely
moronic.
Tom
~^ beancounter ~^
many fishermen are in this forum.........
On Dec 22, 6:14 pm, "Tom Littleton" <ThomasLittle...@msn.com> wrote:
> "~^ beancounter ~^" <richboni...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:68abd549-e915-426d...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> Sincerely,
~^ beancounter ~^
Thursday, December 17, 2009
FNC
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," December 16, 2009. This
copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GLENN BECK, HOST: No matter what you might read about me or this
program, we try very hard to get our stories right. And we try very,
very hard to make sure that it's accurate and there's no reason to
make
stuff up. I mean, the stuff that is out there is crazy.
This story that I'm about to give to you here in the next few minutes
is
probably the most outrageous story — in fact, it is the story that I
have paused three times and gone back to my producers today and said,
"Are you sure we have enough on this one? Are you sure we have
enough?"
Because this is a story I do not want to believe, but if it is true,
we're in a different world.
We know that this administration practices Chicago hardball politics.
But this goes far beyond any tactic I can imagine any president — no
matter how much I disagree with him, he is still the president of the
United States — and I cannot believe that anyone in the White House
would do this to pass his agenda.
But this morning, there was one source. Today, I'm told there are
three
separate sources. Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard — full
disclosure in case you don't know who he is, he was the
communications
director, right Joe? Communications director of the McCain campaign.
The
Weekly Standard is conservative.
But he confirmed to me today that he had a Senate aide inform him
that
the White House has threatened to put Nebraska's Offut Air Force base
on
the BRAC list — that's the Base Realignment and Closure list — if
Sen.
Ben Nelson doesn't fall in line with health care, they will close
this
base.
Sen. Nelson has denied this story this afternoon. The White House
denies
this story. But Goldfarb and The Weekly Standard are standing by
their
source and now two others.
Sen. Nelson has been against several portions of this bill from the
beginning. He's still holding out for taxpayer money not to be used
to
fund abortions. But the left cannot allow that one to fall through as
well. They need to have that in there for the progressives.
Column Archive
* Obama White House Playing Politics With National Security?
* Glenn Beck: President Obama Is Surrounded By 'Fat Cats'
* Is Government-run Health Care a Right?
* EPA's End Run Around Congress
* Audit the Fed? Ron Paul on 'Glenn Beck'
Full-page INTERVIEW ARCHIVE Archive
Video
* Watch Beck's interview
Show Info
Airs Weekdays at 5 p.m. ET
* Glenn Beck's bio
* The One Thing archive
* Glenn Beck's interview archive
* E-mail the show: glennb...@foxnews.com
Thus, the allegation is the White House has stepped up to use now the
U.S. military and the security and defense of the United States of
America as a bargaining tool against Nelson.
The Nebraska base is the headquarters for U.S. Strategic Command. It
is
in Nebraska for a reason. The successor to Strategic Air Command, it
was
the place used by President Bush during the uncertain hours of 9/11.
Do
you remember when we didn't know where he was exactly? He was there.
It's Strategic Command. It's in Nebraska for a reason.
The Obama administration is possibly — and I can't bring myself to
say
these words because it is abhorrent if it is true but it sure fits
the
pattern. They're playing politics with the national security of the
United States. If it is true, that's exactly what they're doing for
health care.
"Does it seem implausible?" was the question that was asked to me
several times by producers. Does it seem possible? Does it seem
implausible to you? A year ago, I would have said yes. Today, I bring
up
the three Navy SEALs that are facing court-martial for giving one of
the
most vile, sought-after terrorists on the planet a fat lip after they
captured him.
Would you believe the president could sit on a recommendation from
his
general that he appointed on the ground in Afghanistan for months,
pleading for more troops? More months, more months, more months —
pleading. We're going to lose this thing. The troops' lives are on
the
line.
Could you believe even six months ago that after the slaughter of 13
U.S. soldiers on a U.S. military base on U.S. soil, when the
president
steps up to inform the country about that tragedy, he would spend two
whole minutes talking about someone else before making the
announcement,
and then sending a shout-out before talking about Fort Hood?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior
administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe
Medicine Crow was around and I want to give a shout-out to that
Congressional Medal of Honor winner. Good to see you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Look what happened to Sen. Joe Lieberman. We talked to you
about
it yesterday. To get him to tow the line, Lee Siegel at The Daily
Beast
wrote that he needed to start "acting Jewish" and vote for the bill.
Liberal Democrats were calling for a recall election in Connecticut.
The
goofball Shakespearean want-to-be on the other channel that nobody
watches, hollering, "Mr. Lieberman, just resign already!"
Lieberman's wife was attacked. Liberal bloggers called for her to be
fired from her position as a global ambassador for the Komen Breast
Cancer Foundation because of her husband's views.
We have seen plenty of extortion and the politics of absolute
destruction from this White House. They're also capable of what I
would
believe — I mean, I can't believe it's not called out-and-out
bribery.
Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu — she was bought off with $300
million
carrot for her state:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU, D-LA.: I am not going to be defensive about
asking
for help in this situation. And it is not a $100 million fix. It is a
$300 million fix.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: The rabid progressives don't care how they accomplish their
goals.
The ends justify the means. This book — this guy just last week said
about me, "We've got to shut Glenn Beck up by any means necessary."
That's how they do their work.
But this? Using the military and our strategic command as a pawn,
threatening to weaken our national security defenses to fulfill your
utopian social justice agenda? To me, that borders on treason.
No one — no one — no one wants to believe that the president of the
United States or any of his advisors would stoop to these kinds of
tactics. But what are we supposed to believe here?
Senator Ben Nelson who, even if the story is true, would obviously
deny
it to protect his party and the president. Or do we take the story at
face value based on the preponderance of evidence of Chicago thuggery
we
have already seen?
I don't have time to tell you about the story about the other two
guests
that went into the White House and just had breakfast with the
president. This is two couples now and a convicted felon in three
weeks.
What happened? Did everybody in the Secret Service all of a sudden
have
an aneurysm? Or is somebody changing the game on us?
Something is wrong — very wrong. As we get closer to the end of the
year, Obama's poll numbers continue to drop. They seem to be getting
more and more desperate at the White House.
I understand that no one at the G.E.-owned NBC is interested in
anything
but propaganda anymore for health care or green energy. Oh no,
there's
not a conflict of interest there. The New York times is toeing the
line
as they hold out for their bailout money. But someone, somewhere,
must
be interested are in journalism besides this program and The Weekly
Standard.
Is there anyone who would like to report on this, report on this
story,
the possible White House extortion techniques?
Probably not. Well, not unless Tiger Woods is sleeping with one of
the
sexy female air persons at Offut Air Force Base, then they will cover
it.
Oh, by the way, in an update from a story last night, speaking of
people
sleeping with other people, do remember the story of Joe Lieberman I
just told you about again? The woman going after his wife — I told
you
about her yesterday. She dated for two years Andy Stern. Our sources
say
she just left when she met him. And by the end, she was just a
leftist.
By the end, she was a guerilla activist. What a surprise.
Up next, the editor of The Weekly Standard who first reported on this
story and some pushback on it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO 10/26/2009 CLIP)
BECK: Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, two lovers sitting in a tree, B-E-A-
T-
I-N-G.
What is it that Barack Obama promised on the campaign trail? Oh,
that's
right, I remember: A new kind of politics. Well, America didn't think
new politics would be even worse than the old politics.
But here is what the new politics is: You don't agree with the
administration? Well, I tell you what, you know what I'm saying? You
want to stand in the way of reform? No longer is it a gentlemen's
disagreement that can be debated. No, no, no, no. You're going to
play
ball or you're going to get a beat down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: This is the most outrageous story, I think, that we have
reported
on and we have reported on outrageous stories. And because this story
has not — the homework on this has not been done on me or my staff.
This
is not our story that we're breaking. This one is from Mike Goldfarb.
He
is the online editor of The Weekly Standard and the former deputy
director of communications for McCain in 2008.
So let's address that first: People will say you're a political hack.
Why should we believe a guy who was a communications director for the
McCain campaign?
MICHAEL GOLDFARB, ONLINE DIRECTOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, I've got
a
perfect track record. You know, I have never made up a story before.
I
hope that will be enough.
BECK: OK. Mike, I talked to you this morning. I don't remember when
it
was — 10:00 when I first heard this story. And it fits the M.O. that
we
have been seeing.
But you have changed your story from this morning. You said to me
that
you felt it was — your source said it was Rahm Emanuel. Did I mishear
you? Have you changed the story? Because now, the story is that it's
just the — someone in the White House. Can you tell me what happened?
GOLDFARB: Look, what happened was I got a call yesterday. And a
source
of mine at the Senate told me that Ben Nelson's office had gotten a
call
threatening to put Offut Air Force Base on the BRAC list if he did
not
play ball on this vote.
Subsequently, I put that up quickly. He told me, "Look, this is
obviously a naked play by Rahm Emanuel." And that was the exact quote
I
had in the story. As interest in this story continued, I went back to
my
source and got more details. And the one thing we know for certain is
that the White House put in a call —
BECK: Hang on. Back in a minute. Back in a minute. Hang on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECK: Back with Mike Goldfarb. He's the online editor of The Weekly
Standard and former deputy director of communications for McCain
2008.
He broke the story today that says that Sen. Ben Nelson is being
threatened by the White House now to either sign on for health care
or
lose Offut Air Force Base which is Strategic Command.
This is not just any Air Force Base, this was Strategic Air Command.
If
you grew up when I did, you know exactly what this base is. It was
put
there strategically for reasons and is the place that George Bush
went
to for 9/11.
OK. So Mike, you were saying that you do know that the White House
made
the call.
GOLDFARB: Yes.
BECK: According to your source?
GOLDFARB: Yes. And look, as my source told me — he said look, this
was
clearly done by somebody who didn't understand the BRAC process. It
is
actually not a very credible threat. The BRAC process won't begin
again
until 2012, 2013.
But clearly, they wanted to exert some pressure. And I think it's
evidence of a couple of things: One, the desperation of the White
House.
Nelson has not signed on to this yet and they are using whatever they
can to push him to do it.
But also, look, it is part of a pattern we've seen where they played
politics with national security most of the year. They delayed the
Afghanistan troop decision because they didn't want to rock the boat
on
health care until finally it was no longer possible. And they wanted
to
have health care done a month ago long before they made that
decision.
They have done the same thing with Gitmo, exactly. And —
BECK: But I think they put Illinois at risk, quite honestly.
GOLDFARB: And they have done it on Iran sanctions, which have been
pushed off into the new year so they can try and resolve this health
care mess.
So they are doing all kinds of things with national security to try
and
get health care.
BECK: But we have also seen the beat downs of the Chamber of
Commerce.
He won't play ball. We saw it with Humana — they went after Humana.
I'm
just trying to look at some of the other things. We have the Chrysler
bondholders — they got a beat down.
I mean, anybody who won't play ball gets a serious —
GOLDFARB: You know they ask citizens to turn in their neighbors and
send
e-mails to, you know, Flag.gov at Whitehouse.com or wherever it is.
They
wanted people to send e-mails reporting, you know, neighbors who are
making suspicious statements about health care.
And obviously, went to war with Fox News which — but you know, the
sort
of the funny thing here is this is not a very credible threat they
have
made to Nelson. They lost the war against Fox News.
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: I'm sorry, Michael. It doesn't matter if it's credible or not
that
they could do it. The fact that they threatened it — it is our
national
security. There comes a point — anyone in the White House — there
comes
a point where you have crossed far too many lines. This is on the
lunatic fringe if this, indeed, happened.
Family-Outdoors
> "~^ beancounter ~^" <richboni...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:68abd549-e915-426d...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> Sincerely,
> > Someone Who Occasionally Makes Mistakes
>
> first amongst those would be posting your senseless drivel here, followed
> shortly after by the fact you largely post replies to yourself. I could go
> on, but your spelling is merely amusing, your content is what is completely
> moronic.
> Tom
Tom,
Have you not noticed that beancounter is best left alone. He reminds
me of a guy that was in my college dorm (very long ago) who would walk
about the cafeteria ranting about God knows what. For some reason he
would occasionally lock in on me, perhaps sensing I preferred to be
left alone. He would stand very close spewing (literally) about stuff
that made no sense.
Only once did I feel the need to "deal" with him. It gave me no sense
of satisfaction whatsoever.
The difference (and it's a big one) is that beancounter is more like
the guy who just stands on a street corner shouting nonsense, but not
forcing anyone to engage him. I do not understand him as he makes no
effort to truly articulate anything. What I do know with some
certainty is that he is not quite as angry as he seems and some of his
schtick (sp???) is for entertainment value. (beancounter...I hope you
take no offense to this...I doubt it seriously)
Merry Christmas Tom and Beancounter!
Paul
Giles
Imbercile.
Plagiarist.
Idiot.
g.
Giles
>
> read more »
Moron.
g.
Giles
> What I do know with some
> certainty is that he is not quite as angry as he seems and some of his
> schtick (sp???) is for entertainment value. (beancounter...I hope you
> take no offense to this...I doubt it seriously)
Doesn't matter. He's an idiot. His rationale, motives, intent,
content, methods, ends and means don't matter. He's a moron.
> Merry Christmas Tom and Beancounter!
> Paul
Merry Christmas, Paul.
giles.
~^ beancounter ~^
foothills of the rockies......
~^ beancounter ~^
care overhaul announced
Tuesday he is defecting to the GOP, another blow to Democrats ahead of
the midterm elections.
U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith spoke to reporters at his home in northern
Alabama, a region that relies
heavily on defense and aerospace jobs.
"I believe our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align
myself with a party that continues
to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy,
and drives us further and further
into debt," Griffith said as his wife Virginia stood by his side.
The 67-year-old radiation oncologist was narrowly elected last year in
a district that includes Huntsville
and Decatur. President Barack Obama lost badly there to Republican
John McCain.
Mark Bowen
"Family-Outdoors" <pama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2dcb1b9-e51d-49b2...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Very reasoned response and precisely why I never see his posts--directly--as
I can not trust myself not to reply to his drivel!
It's a mental issue for both of us I'm quite certain.
Op
Mark Bowen
"Mark Bowen" <beau...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:NBsYm.510$wC3...@newsfe07.iad...
Oh yeah! Sorry, I for got to pass along the obligatory seasons greetings :~^
(
Merry Christmas, Happy hanukah, Kwansaa, and New Year to all!
Op
~^ beancounter ~^
every thing off track when you corner them?
They accuse others of everthing and answer
nothing pertaining to the topic. Thats their
way of spinning. They have no care that what
they say is lies. It goes on and on. When
BILL got caught with his pants down, Hillary
came out on world wide TV and said it was,"A
right winged conspericy". See no shame, caught
in lies and they blame something else. Its
all depends what the defination of IS....IS...
Where is the birth cert.? Oh G. Wahington wasn't
born here. Or McCain was born over seas. Don't
ever answer and never give proof...funny bunch
of ..... No One questioned Hillary, did they?
Don't question Obama or you answer will be, "Bush
did it" and you'd better believe it...Funny
and unbelievable. Stupidy is not rare.
Mark Bowen
Giles
wrote:
> Stupidy is not rare.
No, it ain't.
Moron.
g.
Mark Bowen
DP_diddly
Stupidy is not rare or unbelievable in this group! I doubt
anyone of you can spell Fly Fishing! Is this a Political group?
I think not!
Diddly, Living and fishing in the Northeastern Sierra/Nevada.
Mark Bowen
"DP_diddly" <dale_p...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4B37DFB0...@verizon.net...
> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>
> Stupidy is not rare or unbelievable in this group! I doubt anyone of you
> can spell Fly Fishing! Is this a Political group? I think not!
>
> Diddly, Living and fishing in the Northeastern Sierra/Nevada.
If you can stop theMoron from posting his drivel, I'll tie you a box of phly
phishing flyz that should last you a year or more!
Best of luck.
Op --Oh yeah, no one is stopping you from posting Phly Phishing stuff, are
they?--
~^ beancounter ~^
David LaCourse
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Y9X5ggxzA
Seems like old Max has spent way too much time with the Cowardly Kennedy.
Giles
> On 2009-12-27 20:23:12 -0500, "~^ beancounter ~^" <richboni...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Y9X5ggxzA
>
> Seems like old Max has spent way too much time with the Cowardly Kennedy.
Idiot.
g.
David LaCourse
> Idiot.
>
> g.
One trick pony.
Mikey wannabe.
Davey
Giles
> On 2009-12-27 21:29:37 -0500, Giles <g_goat...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Idiot.
>
> > g.
>
> One trick pony.
>
> Mikey wannabe.
>
> Davey
Moron.
g.
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Welcome Diddly (We try to use names here so . . . . ) Can't really
tell what you think about other that guns,bikes and cars. There is no
evidence that you have ever posted to any fishing NG. Enlighten us
please.
Dave
DaveS
> On 2009-12-27 21:29:37 -0500, Giles <g_goat...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Idiot.
>
> > g.
>
> One trick pony.
>
> Mikey wannabe.
>
> Davey
IMHO of course. You can see where the video was crudely doctored and
the sound track was processed. The tip-off is the wave pattern of the
slurs- too "mechanical." Pretty funny really. Easy to do to a tired
older man with a Western accent.
By the time the origins of the tape and its "perfection" are
untangled, the tricksters will have moved on. But, for us old timers,
I'll just say that the Nixon dirty tricksters did better work in the
1970s. This job looks like an old KGB "film school" product. Crude but
effective. Miami Cuban if I were guessing.
Dave