From: BAR on 4 Mar 2010 07:49
In article <4b8f0c98$0$4975$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> >> So say you lose your job and can't find another, your wife leaves
> >> you, your dog dies, etc. Would you still have the same charming
> >> fuckya philosophy of life if you were one of the less fortunate?
> > Do you know what integrity and principles are, some of us have them.
> > It was late October 1980. My boss at the USDA said that if you wanted
> > to keep your job you know who to vote for for president. I pulled the
> > lever for Ronald Wilson Reagan. I voted for the guy who said that he
> > was going to reduce the federal workforce.
> > I take responsibility for the choices and decisions I make in my life.
> > I don't complain about the curves that life has thrown at me, I look
> > them in the eye and deal with them and get on with my life.
> > To answer your question, I will never be "less fortunate" because I
> > will pick myself up and move on with my life.
> So you believe your fuckya philosophy is A-OK because you think it will
> never apply to you. How very noble. It must really burn you up that so
> many poor people (e.g. "thieves") get free healthcare. Forget Obama.
> Here's the Bert Robbins healthcare plan. Install bouncers at every
> hospital and run the credit of everyone who walks in the door, no
> exceptions. It's not like they have any choice, so make the sick pay in
> advance. Anyone who turns out to be sicker than they have money to pay
> for shall be dragged out back and shot.
I believe in personal responsibility.
Why do you want to make everyone a ward of the state?
From: William Clark on 4 Mar 2010 08:14
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 5:07�pm, Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 12:22�pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:clark-8D24D2.09530403032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > In article <MPG.25f8312054bcd8d6989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > > > �BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <clark-6883CE.08091703032...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > > > > state.edu>, cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > > > > > > > Do you know how much of your medical expenses car insurance will
> > > cover?
> > > > > > > > Thank you. But, for the benefit of the hard of thinking, let's
> > > call it
> > > > > > > > getting hit by falling masonry while walking in the street.
> > > > > > > > There. Got it now?
> > > > > > > Fine. �If there is no liability insurance to cover the accident
> > > first,
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > one's health insurance will take over.
> > > > > > > If you don't have it, get it.
> > > > > > > -Greg
> > > > > > Provided you can afford it.
> > > > > Provided they are willing to give up unnecessary luxuries.
> > > > Indeed, I go down to the east side of Columbus and work with single
> > > > parent families whose homes are loaded with "unnecessary luxuries", like
> > > > Ramen Noodles and such.
> > > > You're a bigoted idiot.
> > > If true, they are on medicaid, aren't they? �They are also receiving food
> > > stamps and housing allowances. �So why are they *choosing* to eat Ramen
> > > Noodles?
> > > Laziness??
> > > -Greg
> > You need to follow some food stamp users into the parking lot. Many of
> > them drive new, (current model year) model vehicles. Not all do, mind
> > you, but many. People who can pay for their insurance will take the
> > free if they can get it, regardless.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Do you have some knowledge or experience to back this up? When I was
> in college in Boston, I worked in a grocery store in a poor
> neighborhood where lots of people were on food stamps. Not a single
> one of them drove a new car or had any other luxury items.
Urban legend. This is the stuff of Fox News.
From: William Clark on 4 Mar 2010 08:15
In article <3muto5lb75n2e92bbanqujlhsu9pgs651r(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:51:58 -0500, William Clark
> <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >You have, and it is still total and absolute BS. The 49 countries with
> >life expectancies longer than the US represent all parts of the genetic
> >tree. Which ethnic component of the US population is responsible for
> >pulling its figures down?
> >Think carefully before you answer.
> Old people?
Indeed, I was thinking of the dead ones ;-)
From: bknight on 4 Mar 2010 08:59
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:56:03 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
>> ><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>> >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:40:50 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Businessmen are smarter than politicians.
>> >> George Bush was a businessman.
>> >> QED
>> >> BK
>> >And the Democrats lost to him....twice.
>> What does that have to do with Hollis' statement and my response?
>> Nothing, GB was dumb as a businessman and a politician.
>It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I will
>never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man.
If you ever met him face-to-face you'd see.
From: Jack Hollis on 4 Mar 2010 11:26
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:10:55 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:47:48 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
>>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:31:31 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>>He's traded on the
>>>Bush name frome day one.
>>If you think that anyone other than W was in charge, you're clueless.
>>And he wasn't the first president who came from a rich family. Do you
>>think that people from rich families shouldn't be president. If that
>>were true then the US would have to do without FDR and JFK. Wait a
>>minute, maybe you're right.
>Boy does everything fly over your head?
>He definitely was NO in charge. Cheney was the POTUS.
Complete nonsense. By the middle of Bush's second term, Cheney was
totally ignored by Bush.
>I don't have any problem with moneyed people becoming president unless
>they have nothing to offer. Bush fits that perfectly. He is, and
>was, an empty suit.
Obama doesn't even have the substance to be called an empty suit.