OT:Three top right-wing lies of 2009
Jenn
2. The birthers
1. Death panels
(IMO)
Bret L
The top right wing lies are that the so called mainstream "right
wingers" actually are right wing, that they have any regard for the
wellbeing of the authentic American people, and that they would have
the moral courage to speak the truth if the even did perceive it
correctly.
The people on FOX News are not real conservatives, they are
establishment conservatives, Uncle Bill Truckleys.
A few people say some of the truth. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan say
some of the truth from the right, just like certain leftists like
Dennis Kucinich say some of the truth from the left.
If you want the real truth you won't find it on mainstream media.
The real truth is that we are in a very precarious position indeed,
having squandered hundreds of years of the intellectual, moral and
financial capital of the West to square the circle, to make the
profoundly unequal equal, to support things no society in its health
would tolerate.
The real right wing was run out on a rail, which was the function of
the Bill Truckleys and the Flush Limblows and the Sean Hannitrashes.
Hannity says Jesus died for interracial marriage. Although I am not a
Christian, I don't think I've ever uttered that kind of blasphemy. I'd
be afraid to. Lightning strikes seem kind of painful to me.
Limbaugh says it doesn't matter where our blue jeans and DVD players
and big screens are made, prosperity is having more and cheaper and
better stuff. What is good for consumer is good, period. Limbaugh is a
lazy, fat salesboy who never worked in his life at any kind of
physical work or he wouldn't say it.
Truckling Bill Buckley fired anyone who told the truth, from
Christians like Sobran to the greatest scholar-patriot this country
has ever produced, Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver, when they didn't
lick the encrusted scrotums of the neocons and detournement artists
who continually undermined the right.
So Jenn, you say you don't like the conservative commentators you
hear on the radio and TV? Wel, guess what. We have something in
common, because I don't either.
MiNe 109
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS...@nothing.attdns.com>,
Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
Also: Republicans: defenders of Medicare.
Stephen
Jenn
MiNe 109 <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
Yep, good. Also "No special rights for gays!" although that extends to
way before 2009.
MiNe 109
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS...@news.eternal-september.org
>,
Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
The news this week was a trip to RAO past, especially the report that
the military effort in Afghanistan was starved of resources in favor of
Iraq. Funny how the long run tends to support my views.
Stephen
ScottW
> 3. "You lie!"
>
> 2. The birthers
>
> 1. Death panels
You could at least make some kind of argument instead of just a lame
shallow statement of talking points. Let me add some substance to
your post.
1. Death Panels. You're just arguing against semantics of the term
but the facts remain that a government panel (example, US Preventive
Services Task Force) will determine what a gov't health care plan
would cover and what it would not based upon some "valure"
determination.
The whole debate over breast cancer and mammograms is exactly what the
"death panels" argument is about. Do you deny that some women would
die by not detecting breast cancer during there 40's?
"A statement from the American College of Radiology (ACR) opposed the
newest mammogram recommendations, saying the changes, "will result in
countless unnecessary breast cancer deaths each year.” citing cost
savings as the impetus behind the recommendation."
So you don't like the term "death panel". Boo-hoo. These panels will
put a "value" on your life and decide if you're worth it or if
allowing you access (a single payer argument, controll the cost by
controlling demand in the market) to preventative health care of your
choice doesn't bend the "cost curve" enough.
2. Arguing that the birthers are more than a fringe group is absurd.
They are no more relevant to the right than the code pinkers are to
the left. It's actually the left that elevates them as political
tools to disparage the right. It's the "debating trade" in action and
you should be ashamed for engaging in it.
3. "You lie". You could at least include what Joe Wilson was calling
Obama out for but I suspect you may not really know. Ok...I'll fill
you in.
It was this statement, "There are also those who claim that our reform
effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The
reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here
illegally."
While much has transpired since Wilson's outburst which did bring
scrutiny and further change to the health care reform legislation
(which IMO was a good thing), at the time..he had a point.
Decent detailed documentation is here
if you're really interested in the details. There is no evidence of
that in your post.
ScottW
Bret L
>
> if you're really interested in the details. There is no evidence of
> that in your post.
>
Oh, my heavens, no. That would be illiberal.
MiNe 109
<b608306b-d276-4b92...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"Shhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 10:36�am, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2:47�pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 3. �"You lie!"
> >
> > > 2. �The birthers
> >
> > > 1. �Death panels
> >
> > You could at least make some kind of argument instead of just a lame
> > shallow statement of talking points. �Let me add some substance to
> > your post.
> >
> > 1. Death Panels. �You're just arguing against semantics of the term
> > but the facts remain that a government panel (example, US Preventive
> > Services Task Force) will determine what a gov't health care plan
> > would cover and what it would not based upon some "valure"
> > determination.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> As well it should be.
>
> Medical technology is increasing at a logarithmic pace. There are more
> and more ever expensive treatments available. The unpleasant truth is
> that the nation will eventually bankrupt itself if every single person
> gets afforded the max treatment. The portion of GDP that goes to
> health care is 16%. No other industrialized country spends more than
> 10% and our life expectancy is about average for industrialized
> countries so the added expense does not translate to greater health.
>
> Other types of insurance, such as auto insurance, have reasonable
> limits on what is covered. Health insurance doesn't and the unpleasant
> truth is, we HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES unless we want health care to suck
> up an ever larger share of our GDP.
>
> It's an ugly truth, but reality often is.
Another thing that makes "death panels" a lie is insurance companies
already have them. What does a lifetime spending limit mean?
Stephen
ScottW
> In article
> <b608306b-d276-4b92-b94e-4f98eacbb...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Shhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 10:36 am, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 30, 2:47 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 3. "You lie!"
>
> > > > 2. The birthers
>
> > > > 1. Death panels
>
> > > You could at least make some kind of argument instead of just a lame
> > > shallow statement of talking points. Let me add some substance to
> > > your post.
>
> > > 1. Death Panels. You're just arguing against semantics of the term
> > > but the facts remain that a government panel (example, US Preventive
> > > Services Task Force) will determine what a gov't health care plan
> > > would cover and what it would not based upon some "valure"
> > > determination.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > As well it should be.
>
> > Medical technology is increasing at a logarithmic pace. There are more
> > and more ever expensive treatments available. The unpleasant truth is
> > that the nation will eventually bankrupt itself if every single person
> > gets afforded the max treatment.
A ludicrous argument. The country would go bankrupt it everyone was
given an ocean view 2nd home too. That doesn't mean its going to
happen.
> > The portion of GDP that goes to
> > health care is 16%. No other industrialized country spends more than
> > 10% and our life expectancy is about average for industrialized
> > countries so the added expense does not translate to greater health.
As if life expectancy is the only measure of quality health care.
Here's a hint. Life expectancy won't go down with gov't health care.
Access to quality of life improving medical procedures will diminish.
>
> > Other types of insurance, such as auto insurance, have reasonable
> > limits on what is covered. Health insurance doesn't
See below (lifetime spending limit).
> > and the unpleasant
> > truth is, we HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES unless we want health care to suck
> > up an ever larger share of our GDP.
>
> > It's an ugly truth, but reality often is.
>
> Another thing that makes "death panels" a lie is insurance companies
> already have them.
strawman
> What does a lifetime spending limit mean?
A choice.
ScottW
Jenn
<e5322cb2-29e3-490c...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your argument would have some substance if you, Palin, or any of the
other conservatives claiming "death panels" would have, sometime in the
past, complained about the same with private insurance companies. You
and they haven't, so the level of disingenuousness is high.
>
> 2. Arguing that the birthers are more than a fringe group is absurd.
> They are no more relevant to the right than the code pinkers are to
> the left. It's actually the left that elevates them as political
> tools to disparage the right. It's the "debating trade" in action and
> you should be ashamed for engaging in it.
Talk to Republican government officials Palin, Grassley, Blunt, Posey,
Blackburn, Burton, et al. Is Dobbs part of a fringe group?
>
> 3. "You lie". You could at least include what Joe Wilson was calling
> Obama out for but I suspect you may not really know. Ok...I'll fill
> you in.
>
> It was this statement, "There are also those who claim that our reform
> effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The
> reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here
> illegally."
>
> While much has transpired since Wilson's outburst which did bring
> scrutiny and further change to the health care reform legislation
> (which IMO was a good thing), at the time..he had a point.
> Decent detailed documentation is here
>
> http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/2009_07_24_Analysis_Section_246_is_Ineffe
> ctive_vFINAL.pdf?docID=3101
>
> if you're really interested in the details. There is no evidence of
> that in your post.
Let's see:
SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
(a) DEFINITION. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable
credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an
individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States
(other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding
subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act) --
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability
credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the
United States.
Senate HELP bill excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal
funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the
Affordable Health Choices Act:
(h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. -- Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal
payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United
States.
There's your evidence. Wilson was not only rude, he was wrong. He was
lying.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> In article
> <e5322cb2-29e3-490c-95ba-4aca4bb01...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2:47 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > 3. "You lie!"
>
> > > 2. The birthers
>
> > > 1. Death panels
>
> > You could at least make some kind of argument instead of just a lame
> > shallow statement of talking points. Let me add some substance to
> > your post.
>
> > 1. Death Panels. You're just arguing against semantics of the term
> > but the facts remain that a government panel (example, US Preventive
> > Services Task Force) will determine what a gov't health care plan
> > would cover and what it would not based upon some "valure"
> > determination.
> > The whole debate over breast cancer and mammograms is exactly what the
> > "death panels" argument is about. Do you deny that some women would
> > die by not detecting breast cancer during there 40's?
>
> > ctive_vFINAL.pdf?docID=3101
>
> > if you're really interested in the details. There is no evidence of
> > that in your post.
>
> Let's see:
> SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
> (a) DEFINITION. --
> (1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable
> credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an
> individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States
> (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding
> subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the
> Immigration and Nationality Act) --
> SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
> Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability
> credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the
> United States.
> Senate HELP bill excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal
> funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the
> Affordable Health Choices Act:
> (h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. -- Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal
> payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United
> States.
>
> There's your evidence. Wilson was not only rude, he was wrong. He was
> lying.
2pid are a imbecile in so many ways.
But they just *love* him on the Chargers group.
ScottW
> In article
> <e5322cb2-29e3-490c-95ba-4aca4bb01...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 2:47 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > 3. "You lie!"
>
> > > 2. The birthers
>
> > > 1. Death panels
>
> > You could at least make some kind of argument instead of just a lame
> > shallow statement of talking points. Let me add some substance to
> > your post.
>
> > 1. Death Panels. You're just arguing against semantics of the term
> > but the facts remain that a government panel (example, US Preventive
> > Services Task Force) will determine what a gov't health care plan
> > would cover and what it would not based upon some "valure"
> > determination.
> > The whole debate over breast cancer and mammograms is exactly what the
> > "death panels" argument is about. Do you deny that some women would
> > die by not detecting breast cancer during there 40's?
>
> > orce-under-scrutiny.html
>
> > "A statement from the American College of Radiology (ACR) opposed the
> > newest mammogram recommendations, saying the changes, "will result in
> > countless unnecessary breast cancer deaths each year.² citing cost
> > savings as the impetus behind the recommendation."
>
> > So you don't like the term "death panel". Boo-hoo. These panels will
> > put a "value" on your life and decide if you're worth it or if
> > allowing you access (a single payer argument, controll the cost by
> > controlling demand in the market) to preventative health care of your
> > choice doesn't bend the "cost curve" enough.
>
> Your argument would have some substance if you, Palin, or any of the
> other conservatives claiming "death panels" would have, sometime in the
> past, complained about the same with private insurance companies. You
> and they haven't, so the level of disingenuousness is high.
That's ridiculous. People get to choose their insurance coverage and
purchase supplements when it falls short. The government limits,
especially when part of a plan to move toward single payer, would be
designed to exclude access as part of a national effort to "bend the
cost curve".
It's really an absurdly anti-liberal, anti-freedom position you've
assumed here.
Ideologically...it makes no sense to me at all. But liberals seem to
have sold their souls just to have a black man in the white house and
appease their personal guilt.
Well, I think many of you are already feeling guilty about being so
selfish in appeasing your guilt that you acted so rashly.
>
> > 2. Arguing that the birthers are more than a fringe group is absurd.
> > They are no more relevant to the right than the code pinkers are to
> > the left. It's actually the left that elevates them as political
> > tools to disparage the right. It's the "debating trade" in action and
> > you should be ashamed for engaging in it.
>
> Talk to Republican government officials Palin,
Palin is annointed a top gov't official? LoL. This is how you
paint.
> Grassley, Blunt, Posey,
> Blackburn, Burton, et al. Is Dobbs part of a fringe group?
Is he part of a group at all? As far as I know he's just an ex media
honk representing no one but himself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 3. "You lie". You could at least include what Joe Wilson was calling
> > Obama out for but I suspect you may not really know. Ok...I'll fill
> > you in.
>
> > It was this statement, "There are also those who claim that our reform
> > effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The
> > reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here
> > illegally."
>
> > While much has transpired since Wilson's outburst which did bring
> > scrutiny and further change to the health care reform legislation
> > (which IMO was a good thing), at the time..he had a point.
> > Decent detailed documentation is here
>
> >http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/2009_07_24_Analysis_Section_246_...
> > ctive_vFINAL.pdf?docID=3101
>
> > if you're really interested in the details. There is no evidence of
> > that in your post.
>
> Let's see:
> SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
> (a) DEFINITION. --
> (1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable
> credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an
> individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States
> (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding
> subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the
> Immigration and Nationality Act) --
> SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
> Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability
> credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the
> United States.
> Senate HELP bill excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal
> funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the
> Affordable Health Choices Act:
> (h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. -- Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal
> payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United
> States.
>
> There's your evidence.
No..here's my evidence which is relevant to the time of his speaking.
"Anamendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) at the Ways & Means
Committee markup would have required
that enrollees in the public plan, or those seeking affordability
credits, must verify eligibility with the Income
Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
That amendment was rejected by the committee on a party-line vote."
If they didn't want illegals to benefit...why are they opposed to
enforcement?
Do you realize that the government really has no approved way of
screening for eligibility for legal resident benefits?
"(2) Section 246 Lacks Verification Requirements. Over the years,
Congress has required various methods to
ensure that only eligible individuals receive federal public benefits.
The most effective of these methods involves
the requirement that an agency or employer confirm eligibility with a
verification database. Examples of effective
databases to verify eligibility include the SAVE system, which
confirms an individual is a citizen or qualified
alien (as defined by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, more
commonly known as the “Welfare Reform Act of 1996”)2 and is therefore
eligible for certain benefits; the IEVS,
which confirms income eligibility for purposes of certain means-tested
benefits like Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF); or the E-Verify system, which confirms an
individual is work-authorized in the United
States. A lesser method to screen for benefit eligibility would be to
require applicants to self-attest eligibility,
subject to penalties of perjury, on a benefit enrollment form. This
method is unreliable because it depends solely
on the honesty of applicants and also fails to actually determine an
applicant’s eligibility. The health care reform
bill does not require the use of any verification database to
determine eligibility for affordability credits.
Likewise, this bill does not require any screening or self-attestation
by applicants to determine eligibility for
affordability credits. Instead, Section 246 bars illegal aliens from
receiving affordability credits but contains no
enforcement method to ensure compliance so as to preclude ineligible
individuals from receiving that benefit.
Where enforcement is lacking, we can expect compliance to be similarly
lacking. Accordingly, Section 246 will
do nothing to actually preclude benefits from being improperly
provided to illegal aliens.
(3) Government Studies Confirm: Bar on Benefits without Verification
is Ineffective. Government research
confirms that a statute that limits the availability of government
benefits is meaningless unless it is also coupled
with a vigorous method of ensuring eligibility in order to eliminate
fraud and abuse. For example, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other independent research
have concluded that illegal aliens have
been a significant factor in the rise of Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC) disbursements despite the fact that illegal aliens are
technically ineligible for the tax benefits.3 Likewise, the
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
reported in May 2008 that illegal aliens receive significant federal
benefits, notwithstanding numerous federal
laws designed to prevent this form of fraud.4 CRS cited studies from
the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Labor,
Health and Human Services, and a private organization to support the
contention that a statutory bar alone will not
prevent illegal aliens from accessing government benefits.5
Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that Section 246
will operate to effectively prevent illegal aliens from receiving
affordability credits provided for in the bill."
The gov't can't just claim illegals won't be given benefits. They must
say how they will verify benefit eligibility. Otherwise, as history
has already proven, illegals will receive the benefits because there
is no gov't approved way to screen them out.
The truth is Obama might appear to exclude illegals from benefits, but
with a wink and a nod he (and the democrats) have prevented any
provisions for enforcement.
It's the same 'ol gov't BS which is causing the country to lose faith
in our system.
They don't represent the citizens of this country. They represent
their political party and conspire to do whatever will get them
elected or secure a power base for the future. They won't include
enforcement against illegals for fear of offending the latina voting
block. That will eventually make this reform a failure as expenseses
will balloon far higher than Obama (who will conveniently will be well
into his 2nd term before this shit begins to hit the fan) projected.
Even if they had enforcement, Obama's commitment to create a path to
legal status blows all the CBO cost estimates out of the water.
As usual, you're being exceedingly naive.
ScottW
Jenn
<179a9844-5133-455f...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 5:44�pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e5322cb2-29e3-490c-95ba-4aca4bb01...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 30, 2:47�pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > 3. �"You lie!"
> >
> > > > 2. �The birthers
> >
> > > > 1. �Death panels
> >
> > > You could at least make some kind of argument instead of just a lame
> > > shallow statement of talking points. �Let me add some substance to
> > > your post.
> >
> > > 1. Death Panels. �You're just arguing against semantics of the term
> > > but the facts remain that a government panel (example, US Preventive
> > > Services Task Force) will determine what a gov't health care plan
> > > would cover and what it would not based upon some "valure"
> > > determination.
> > > The whole debate over breast cancer and mammograms is exactly what the
> > > "death panels" argument is about. � Do you deny that some women would
> > > die by not detecting breast cancer during there 40's?
> >
> > >http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/98/34950/newest-mammogram-recommendati...
> > > orce-under-scrutiny.html
> >
> > > "A statement from the American College of Radiology (ACR) opposed the
> > > newest mammogram recommendations, saying the changes, "will result in
> > > countless unnecessary breast cancer deaths each year.2 citing cost
> > > savings as the impetus behind the recommendation."
> >
> > > So you don't like the term "death panel". �Boo-hoo. �These panels will
> > > put a "value" on your life and decide if you're worth it or if
> > > allowing you access (a single payer argument, controll the cost by
> > > controlling demand in the market) to preventative health care of your
> > > choice doesn't bend the "cost curve" enough.
> >
> > Your argument would have some substance if you, Palin, or any of the
> > other conservatives claiming "death panels" would have, sometime in the
> > past, complained about the same with private insurance companies. �You
> > and they haven't, so the level of disingenuousness is high. �
>
> That's ridiculous. People get to choose their insurance coverage and
> purchase supplements when it falls short.
And they still will after reform passes.
> The government limits,
> especially when part of a plan to move toward single payer, would be
> designed to exclude access as part of a national effort to "bend the
> cost curve".
1. You're arguing against something that is not in the bill; in other
words, you're arguing against something that may or may not be proposed
in the future. OK...
2. The insurance company limits are designed to exclude access as part
of a national effort to "bend the cost curve". Perhaps you hadn't heard.
>
> It's really an absurdly anti-liberal, anti-freedom position you've
> assumed here.
> Ideologically...it makes no sense to me at all. But liberals seem to
> have sold their souls just to have a black man in the white house and
> appease their personal guilt.
> Well, I think many of you are already feeling guilty about being so
> selfish in appeasing your guilt that you acted so rashly.
Expanding the list of people who can afford health care is
"anti-freedom". OK...
>
> >
> > > 2. Arguing that the birthers are more than a fringe group is absurd.
> > > They are no more relevant to the right than the code pinkers are to
> > > the left. �It's actually the left that elevates them as political
> > > tools to disparage the right. �It's the "debating trade" in action and
> > > you should be ashamed for engaging in it.
> >
> > Talk to Republican government officials Palin,
>
> Palin is annointed a top gov't official? LoL. This is how you
> paint.
Didn't you hear? Palin was the Republican Party nominee to be a
heartbeat away from the Presidency.
>
> > Grassley, Blunt, Posey,
> > Blackburn, Burton, et al. �Is Dobbs part of a fringe group?
>
> Is he part of a group at all? As far as I know he's just an ex media
> honk representing no one but himself.
OK, we agree on that. The point remains about Palin, Grassley, Blunt,
Posey, Blackburn, Burton, et al.
Because this isn't an enforcement law. That's how it works.
I would think that "conservatives" would be against "eligibility
databases".
ScottW
No, they will be penalized for having "cadillac" insurance plans.
>
> > The government limits,
> > especially when part of a plan to move toward single payer, would be
> > designed to exclude access as part of a national effort to "bend the
> > cost curve".
>
> 1. You're arguing against something that is not in the bill;
> in other
> words, you're arguing against something that may or may not be proposed
> in the future. OK...
> 2. The insurance company limits are designed to exclude access as part
> of a national effort to "bend the cost curve". Perhaps you hadn't heard.
How do you rationally reconcile your 1 with 2 above? First you claim
its not in the bill and then point to provisions in the bill doing
exactly what you claim isn't in the bill.
>
>
>
> > It's really an absurdly anti-liberal, anti-freedom position you've
> > assumed here.
> > Ideologically...it makes no sense to me at all. But liberals seem to
> > have sold their souls just to have a black man in the white house and
> > appease their personal guilt.
> > Well, I think many of you are already feeling guilty about being so
> > selfish in appeasing your guilt that you acted so rashly.
>
> Expanding the list of people who can afford health care is
> "anti-freedom". OK...
"limited" health care. They're raising the cost for "cadillac"
health care so
"limited" health care is paid for people who'd rather have cable TV
and a cell phone and a car.
They're also imposing an insurance tax on healthy young people who
don't need health insurance.
This isn't making health care affordable for more people, it's a
simple take from one group and pay for another.
>
>
>
> > > > 2. Arguing that the birthers are more than a fringe group is absurd.
> > > > They are no more relevant to the right than the code pinkers are to
> > > > the left. It's actually the left that elevates them as political
> > > > tools to disparage the right. It's the "debating trade" in action and
> > > > you should be ashamed for engaging in it.
>
> > > Talk to Republican government officials Palin,
>
> > Palin is annointed a top gov't official? LoL. This is how you
> > paint.
>
> Didn't you hear? Palin was the Republican Party nominee to be a
> heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Was is the operative word. No longer. Try to remain relevant.
>
>
>
> > > Grassley, Blunt, Posey,
> > > Blackburn, Burton, et al. Is Dobbs part of a fringe group?
>
> > Is he part of a group at all? As far as I know he's just an ex media
> > honk representing no one but himself.
>
> OK, we agree on that. The point remains about Palin, Grassley, Blunt,
> Posey, Blackburn, Burton, et al.
I don't even know who half these guys are or what, if anything,
they've said
to be included in the "birther" debate.
As I've said, they are only relevant to the rabid left consumed by
the birther
argument. Everyone else doesn't care.
Where is the "enforcement law"?
Answer: It doesn't exist.
Why do we need 2 bills to cover one issue?
Answer: We don't because there won't be enforcement.
Dems won't piss off the anointed minority constituency that will put
them
over the top for the millenium even if their bribery bankrupts the
nation
in the process.
(google truncated the rest but I'm sure it wasn't worth reading).
ScottW
ScottW
So Jenn, what do you think about your sick pals who are stalking me
around usenets and spamming and trashing a football group after being
left alone on RAO?
Even good little boy Stephen took a walk on the spamming side as they
can't stand the morgue they've created here.
Guys like phillips and ssshhh are always revealed to be the sick
usenet addicted psychos they like to paint others as when people turn
their backs to them.
They freak out and reveal themselves for the scum they are.
Right now they're making Arny look like a model usenet citizen as they
go on usenet jihad.
ScottW
Boon
> On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> So Jenn, what do you think about your sick pals who are stalking me
> around usenets and spamming and trashing a football group after being
> left alone on RAO?
We're not trashing anything. There's plenty of infighting over there
as well. You're painting it as some sort of utopia over there, when
the truth is that they've only just now figured out you're a total
tool.
Hang out over there as long as you trolled over here and you won't be
able to tell the difference.
>
> Even good little boy Stephen took a walk on the spamming side as they
> can't stand the morgue they've created here.
Spamming? You mean like the thousands of OT political posts you
started here?
>
> Guys like phillips and ssshhh are always revealed to be the sick
> usenet addicted psychos they like to paint others as when people turn
> their backs to them.
> They freak out and reveal themselves for the scum they are.
Freak out? What are you talking about?
Usenet is not made up of private clubs, imbecile. We have as much of a
right to be there as you do since we're both football fans as well.
Besides, if it was wrong to follow someone to another group, then why
does Usenet allow you to check someone's profile to see where they
post? It's almost as if Usenet wants you to see who posts where and
when.
And there's nothing wrong with that, crybaby. Unless, of course,
you're one of those cowardly people who act one way when they're one
type of people, and another way when they're with others. I hate weak,
inconsequential people like that.
>
> Right now they're making Arny look like a model usenet citizen as they
> go on usenet jihad.
God, you're a mess. No wonder they ignore you over there...you're not
the manly, football type.
Boon
I thought I'd show the Chargers group how badly you want them to
accept you. Maybe they'll reconsider.
MiNe 109
<150c2b41-cb2a-46ce...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Boon <vinylana...@live.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 12:07�pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 6:56�pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > So Jenn, what do you think about your sick pals who are stalking me
> > around usenets and spamming and trashing a football group after being
> > left alone on RAO?
> >
> > Even good little boy Stephen took a walk on the spamming side as they
> > can't stand the morgue they've created here.
> > ScottW
>
> I thought I'd show the Chargers group how badly you want them to
> accept you. Maybe they'll reconsider.
"Spamming"? I've always been a Chargers fan. Does Scott moderate
alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers?
Stephen
Boon
>
> Boon <vinylanachron...@live.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 12:07 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > So Jenn, what do you think about your sick pals who are stalking me
> > > around usenets and spamming and trashing a football group after being
> > > left alone on RAO?
>
> > > Even good little boy Stephen took a walk on the spamming side as they
> > > can't stand the morgue they've created here.
> > > ScottW
>
> > I thought I'd show the Chargers group how badly you want them to
> > accept you. Maybe they'll reconsider.
>
> "Spamming"? I've always been a Chargers fan. Does Scott moderate
> alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers?
The Chargers group is a little bit of heaven for Scott. It's a place
where he can go to be ignored or ridiculed by those smarter than he
is.
Or is that RAO? He can't seem to leave either place.
josh sullivan
> In article
> <150c2b41-cb2a-46ce-8843-a0493b57f...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Jan 5, 12:07 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 4, 6:56 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > So Jenn, what do you think about your sick pals who are stalking me
> > > around usenets and spamming and trashing a football group after being
> > > left alone on RAO?
>
> > > Even good little boy Stephen took a walk on the spamming side as they
> > > can't stand the morgue they've created here.
> > > ScottW
>
> > I thought I'd show the Chargers group how badly you want them to
> > accept you. Maybe they'll reconsider.
>
> "Spamming"? I've always been a Chargers fan. Does Scott moderate
> alt.sports.football.pro.sd-chargers?
>
> Stephen
Thanks for sharing. I don't really know much about high-end audio
equipment other than that it's really expensive. I have a BK
amplifier that I got from a place down the street called Sound
Images. That's a great place to get used equipment and I suppose it's
because many audio hobbyists often sell or trade in their equipment in
order to get the latest gear. I have floor speakers and I tried to
place them in my living room using the WASP method. Turned out OK but
we had to move my listening location anyway so whatever . . .
Now my dad? he's an audiophile. Oh, and he's a Chargers fan (just
trying to tie this in to both groups).
Jenn
<38ed61d2-b085-4ad8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have no opinion since I've not witnessed it. Have you tried to use
Marc's "special needs children" against him there too?
Jenn
<bbd43641-d32c-478f...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We can talk about that if you wish, but it has no effect on my
statement: people will get to choose their insurance coverage and
purchase supplements when it falls short.
>
> >
> > > The government limits,
> > > especially when part of a plan to move toward single payer, would be
> > > designed to exclude access as part of a national effort to "bend the
> > > cost curve".
> >
> > 1. �You're arguing against something that is not in the bill;
> > in other
> > words, you're arguing against something that may or may not be proposed
> > in the future. �OK...
> > 2. �The insurance company limits are designed to exclude access as part
> > of a national effort to "bend the cost curve". �Perhaps you hadn't heard.
>
> How do you rationally reconcile your 1 with 2 above? First you claim
> its not in the bill and then point to provisions in the bill doing
> exactly what you claim isn't in the bill.
No, what's not in the bill is single payer. You are arguing against
something not in the bill.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's really an absurdly anti-liberal, anti-freedom position you've
> > > assumed here.
> > > Ideologically...it makes no sense to me at all. �But liberals seem to
> > > have sold their souls just to have a black man in the white house and
> > > appease their personal guilt.
> > > Well, I think many of you are already feeling guilty about being so
> > > selfish in appeasing your guilt that you acted so rashly.
> >
> > Expanding the list of people who can afford health care is
> > "anti-freedom". �OK...
>
> "limited" health care.
I don't see your point. Yes, it's limited in some ways. It's less
limited than it is now. That's an improvement.
> They're raising the cost for "cadillac"
> health care so
> "limited" health care is paid for people who'd rather have cable TV
> and a cell phone and a car.
And for people who can't afford it.
> They're also imposing an insurance tax on healthy young people who
> don't need health insurance.
I don't know anything about this alleged provision, but healthy young
people don't need health insurance?
> This isn't making health care affordable for more people, it's a
> simple take from one group and pay for another.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > 2. Arguing that the birthers are more than a fringe group is absurd.
> > > > > They are no more relevant to the right than the code pinkers are to
> > > > > the left. �It's actually the left that elevates them as political
> > > > > tools to disparage the right. �It's the "debating trade" in action
> > > > > and
> > > > > you should be ashamed for engaging in it.
> >
> > > > Talk to Republican government officials Palin,
> >
> > > �Palin is annointed a top gov't official? �LoL. � This is how you
> > > paint.
> >
> > Didn't you hear? �Palin was the Republican Party nominee to be a
> > heartbeat away from the Presidency.
>
> Was is the operative word. No longer. Try to remain relevant.
I'm glad that you agree that Palin is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > �Grassley, Blunt, Posey,
> > > > Blackburn, Burton, et al. �Is Dobbs part of a fringe group?
> >
> > > �Is he part of a group at all? �As far as I know he's just an ex media
> > > honk representing no one but himself.
> >
> > OK, we agree on that. �The point remains about Palin, Grassley, Blunt,
> > Posey, Blackburn, Burton, et al.
>
> I don't even know who half these guys are
I believe that.
> or what, if anything,
> they've said
> to be included in the "birther" debate.
> As I've said, they are only relevant to the rabid left consumed by
> the birther
> argument. Everyone else doesn't care.
OK. You can believe that if you wish to.
Where in the laws against drunk driving does it discuss how it is to be
enforced?
> Dems won't piss off the anointed minority constituency that will put
> them
> over the top for the millenium even if their bribery bankrupts the
> nation
> in the process.
Repubs want enforcement specifics to appease the fears of the
anti-Mexican Right.
>
> (google truncated the rest but I'm sure it wasn't worth reading).
"Your" probably right.
MiNe 109
<2428a3ca-88d6-4be3...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
josh sullivan <cozm...@juno.com> wrote:
Buying used is the best strategy for high end gear if money is an issue
and if you can't go to the game, high def tv and surround sound can be
quite the pleasure.
Stephen
josh sullivan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Used indeed. I was amazed at the quality of the stuff people would
trade in. One day I'll put together a decent system. Right now it's
just parts- as in a Thorens turntable but a Denon pre-amp.
I've been waiting for the HD Tivo for Direct tv for about 2 years. It
was supposed to come out in '09 but never materialized. Hoping to
hear something soon.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> Used indeed. I was amazed at the quality of the stuff people would
> trade in. One day I'll put together a decent system. Right now it's
> just parts- as in a Thorens turntable
So you listen to vinyl? And on a better system the ScottW?
You're OK with me. (aside from backing the wrong NFL team., that
is...).
MiNe 109
<b7ac806e-0422-4df8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
josh sullivan <cozm...@juno.com> wrote:
> Used indeed. I was amazed at the quality of the stuff people would
> trade in. One day I'll put together a decent system. Right now it's
> just parts- as in a Thorens turntable but a Denon pre-amp.
> I've been waiting for the HD Tivo for Direct tv for about 2 years. It
> was supposed to come out in '09 but never materialized. Hoping to
> hear something soon.
By then we'll be expected to trade it in for 3-D!
Stephen
Boon
> >Used indeed. I was amazed at the quality of the stuff people would
>
> trade in.
>
> of our society. If something's a couple/few years old and works perfectly
> well, people still feel the need to "upgrade" as soon as there's something
> newer on the market, often at great expense and for an improvement in
> quality/performance that might be negligible at best.
>
> I've had my 15" floor speakers since probably 1995. They sound fucking great
> like they always have. If I was an "audiophile," I'd run out and spend a
> couple thousand bucks on a set of smaller speakers that claim to sound like
> big speakers but really don't.
That's a fantasy version of audiophiles that's a few years outdated..
In the real world, Audiogon and eBay are a hotbed of activity when it
comes to used high-end audio.
Anonymous
In badlands' world "bigger" is always "better".
Hey badlands, I'll bet everything sounds better when you're baked.
Right?
QuiG...@webtv.net
