Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 24 Jan 2010 12:23 In article <4b5ba70d$0$31417$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 23-Jan-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > Nonsense. Hospitals at public institutions, such as those attached to > > major universities, have no such funds. Nor do the hospitals in the big > > corporate hospital chains. They simply absorb those costs by what they > > charge the fully insured. > > You are just ig-nant then. Uh?
From: William Clark on 24 Jan 2010 12:26 In article <4b5c7455$0$4846$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:42:37 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b5c59cd$0$4851$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:46:54 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>> In article <4b5bcd74$0$30935$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:34:37 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>>>> In article <50718a59-d231-4b4b-a2ae- > >>>>> 8193b8547fff(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, frostback2002(a)att.net > >>>>> says... > >>>>>> On Jan 23, 11:02 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <4b5b17ee$0$5085$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>>>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:07:44 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The President of the US regardless of whether he be a > >>>>>>>>> Democrat, a Republican or of other political affiliation is > >>>>>>>>> never on vacation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I didn't realize golf, fishing, mountainbiking, etc were work. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When you play golf or go bike riding on Saturday or Sunday do > >>>>>>> you take vacation time from work. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Freaking argumentative idiot. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bush II quit golfing after becoming president because he thought > >>>>>> it would set a bad example to for the POTUS to be seen golfing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Obama doesn't seem to hold that view, he's played more the 25 > >>>>> times in his first year in office. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not jealous but, the D's have no place to complain. > >>>> > >>>> Be sure to let us know when he matches Wubya's record for vacation > >>>> days. > >>> > >>> The POTUS, R or D or other affiliation, is never on vacation. In > >>> fact I challenge you to show me in the job description or the POTUS > >>> or in the his T&A (Time and Attendance) reporting that any president > >>> has ever recorded a day of vacation. > >> > >> That's hilarious. Presidents are as involved as they want to be. > >> Those who were largely unaware of was going on around them, like > >> Reagan and Wubya, took a lot of them. Those who cared about policy > >> and such, like Clinton and Obama, took fewer. The records are there > >> for all to see. Look 'em up. > > > > Show me their time cards where they recorded vacation time. > > http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/ > > Obama took all or part of 26 days on vacation during his first year in > office, less than either one of the Bushes (especially Wubya), and > slightly more than Clinton and Carter. According to the cite, "of the 77 > total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch > while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his > first year as president." Note that this only includes trips to Wubya's > "ranch," not to Camp David. According to the cite, Wubya also spent > close to three times as many days there as Obama did during his first > year. Oops, look like to got poor ol' Bertie again. Damn, these fact thingies are a nuisance.
From: dene on 24 Jan 2010 12:49 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b5c5a4b$0$4862$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, dene wrote: > > "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message > > news:m09ml5522i831lbtmohjqpc0abnompt37t(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:35:46 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > > > >> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't > >> want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor. > > > > People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to > > reduce their own premiums. > > It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and > suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are > manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit. Race has nothing to do with it. The bill will not directly reduce premiums and it robs from medicare. It's complicated, corrupt, and too encompassing. -Greg
From: dene on 24 Jan 2010 12:50 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-C218D0.12165624012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7s23f4FircU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:wclark2-6CD7D2.12290223012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > > > > Why education and not health care? > > > > One reason is that there is no end to it. When was the last time you heard > > of an educator tell the public, "we have enough funds, thank you very much." > > In Oregon, K-12, the state spends 10k. per child. A classroom of 24 equals > > $240,000. The teacher makes 70k tops. So where is the rest going?? > > > > Medicare is just as bad. So would be any sort of a gov't health care plan. > > > > -Greg > > What are you talking about? Look at your question (top line). -Greg
From: dene on 24 Jan 2010 12:56
"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b5c5e71$0$4887$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:55:11 -0800, dene wrote: > > > You snipped the part about the 12% Harmony tax. It's relevent to this > > discussion. If your government needs to do this to finance the needs of > > 35 million, think what our bloated, inefficient gov't would require. > > > > I respect your country and it's system. It just will not work here. > > Part of it is culture. The US was born out of rebellion and immigrants > > risking all to make a better life. Canadians have a different history, > > which makes them more agreeable to cradle to grave socialism and the > > accompanying taxes. Case in point...in Oregon one cannot pump your own > > gas. A gas station must pay somebody to do it for you. There has been > > attempts to repeal this silly law but it goes down in flames every time. > > Why? It's part of our state culture. Same is true about our employer > > based health insurance system. > > I haven't been in BC since 1999. I left the harmony tax out because I've > never heard of it. If it's a regular sales tax that pays for higher > quality healthcare and better schools, it is possible that a majority of > Canadians will be in favor of it. The difference, I think, is there is > more trust that tax revenue will be spent on the things the government > says they will be spent on. It "harmonizes" provincial taxes and the federal VAT (sales), adding up to 12%. The citizens don't want it. It was imposed on them. The appetite of big government never ceases, in any country. You should stay south, enjoy the sunshine, and pay less taxes....unless you miss hockey. > There is a fundamentally different culture in the US, a willingness to > say "you can't have it!" to fellow citizens. To an outsider, it's > surprising. I don't understand it. I think there is absolutely a racist > component that is deliberately exploited by the far right media and its > sponsors. Watch enough Fox and you can practically see an endless wave > of syphilitic, leprous Mexicans jumping the fences to join all the lazy, > illiterate Blacks lounging around collecting welfare. One comment this Canadian couple made was disgust that the US allows illegal immigration and provides education and health care to them. Both said none of these services are provided to any illegals in Canada. Why shouldn't the US do the same? -Greg |