Bob Quintal wrote:

Jim Thompson
wrote in :

On 05 Jul 2007 00:47:45 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:

Jim Thompson
wrote in :

On 04 Jul 2007 21:02:38 GMT, Bob Quintal

You must be a liberal/leftist weenie... make up numbers to
fit your argument:


http://www.payscale.com/research/US/..._Jobs_as_Physi
c
i
ans_%2f_Doctors/Salary

My remembered number of $140K seems to be dead-on.

...Jim Thompson
So die already, You are just an uglly fat american for making
such an unfounded accusation.

try http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html

This has it at over 200,000 for mostr specailities.

Or
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/TiffanyYam.shtml
which says "Perhaps because of persistent high salaries
($186,000 average physician compensation in 1994) there is
little public sympathy for the physician's current plight."
or

http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensat...ician_compensa
t ion_survey.htm

or
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/20...tors_sala.html

which says
Physicians’ incomes are much higher in the United States than
they are in other OECD countries. In 1996, the most recent
year for which data are available for multiple countries, the
average U.S. physician income was $199,000. The comparable
OECD median physician income was $70,324.

I'll let my numbers stand.
--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

Take your numbers and shove 'em where you will. I know,
personally, many doctors in the USA. They're struggling,
because of government meddling and below-par Medicare
payments.

I didn't realize you were a proctologist. I thought you were an
engineer.

I know a bunch of doctors in the USA too. I dated one for a few
years. She now practices in Baltimore, MD. One of my cousins is
a doctor, too. She practices in upper NY state. I have a good
idea of their disposable income. It is greater than the gross
pay of 80% of all american families.


I suspect your numbers are for a _practice_, not the
individual's take-home after overhead.



I'll have to ask my next-door neighbor, an anesthesiologist,
why he washes his own car.

I don't ;-)

Maybe because he's not a crotchety old fart.

...Jim Thompson



Hell, i am about 80th percentile in income as an engineer, and JT is over
95% percentile.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:46:17 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:


"qrk" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:10:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

For your heartburn of the day, Google on...

Hillary "on behalf of the common good"

...Jim Thompson

Not to worry, her fat-cat donors will still have their tax cuts. It's
the middle-class that will pay.

The far-right freaks have had their day (and badly blew all of their
opportunities) and their shrill outcries well document this fact.


Poor baby, we're rich and you're poor, and it'll stay that way no
matter what you leftist weenies try to do ;-)

And the Demoncrat Congress is impotent... is it not?

...Jim Thompson
Because it coould grandstand better that way?
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

Stephen J. Rush wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:46:17 -0400, Charles wrote:

"qrk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:10:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

For your heartburn of the day, Google on...

Hillary "on behalf of the common good"

...Jim Thompson

Not to worry, her fat-cat donors will still have their tax cuts. It's
the middle-class that will pay.

The far-right freaks have had their day (and badly blew all of their
opportunities) and their shrill outcries well document this fact.

Every four years, I wish that the last selection on the voting machine
read "May you ALL be dipped in lukewarm sewage and hung out to dry!"
You are much to nice to them, no dipping, sink them forever.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:35:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:25:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:47:31 -0700, John Larkin
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:10:36 -0700, Jim Thompson

For your heartburn of the day, Google on...

Hillary "on behalf of the common good"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288392,00.html

There you go again, John, being politically incorrect ;-)

Both the Clintons are frightening, and dangerous, in their absolute
amorality.

The neocons, like Cheney, Bush, et al, are even more frightening and
dangerous, since they're the ones with their finger on the button, and
they're demonstrably quite insane.

Thanks,
Rich
And amoral, they were brought up that way.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:46:38 -0700, joseph2k
wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:35:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:25:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:47:31 -0700, John Larkin
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:10:36 -0700, Jim Thompson

For your heartburn of the day, Google on...

Hillary "on behalf of the common good"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288392,00.html

There you go again, John, being politically incorrect ;-)

Both the Clintons are frightening, and dangerous, in their absolute
amorality.

The neocons, like Cheney, Bush, et al, are even more frightening and
dangerous, since they're the ones with their finger on the button, and
they're demonstrably quite insane.

Thanks,
Rich
And amoral, they were brought up that way.

Their mistakes resulted from an excess of morality, not a shortage.

John

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in
news
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:29:34 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in

What is this "access to the green" stuff you keep chanting?
I

I stated that taxation is not theft. It's like a membership
fee to a golf club. If you want to putt on the green you
gotta pay the fee. If you don't want to putt on the greens,
or drink in the clubhousew, get off the golf course...

Yes, precisely. But I'm not allowed to do that - if I choose
not to pay those fees I never use, they will come and take my
money by force.

That's not getting off the green. That is squatting on the
green. Pack up. Move. I remember during the Vietnam war, there
was a group promoting the slogan "America -- Love it or Leave
it."

Shut up and choose your option.


This is theft, plain and simple.

If you can't see that, then you need medical attention.

No, I'm not the SiCKO!

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:05:34 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in

Yes, precisely. But I'm not allowed to do that - if I choose
not to pay those fees I never use, they will come and take my
money by force.

That's not getting off the green. That is squatting on the
green.

What part of "never use" don't you understand?

Thanks,
Rich

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in
news
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:05:34 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in

Yes, precisely. But I'm not allowed to do that - if I choose
not to pay those fees I never use, they will come and take
my
money by force.

That's not getting off the green. That is squatting on the
green.

What part of "never use" don't you understand?

What part of "It's part of the pakage. If you don't want this
part you can't have that part either." don't YOU understand.

If You don't want to pay taxes, pack up and move to Iraq or
Antartica, or better yet Mars.

America, love it or leave it!

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bob Quintal wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in
news
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:29:34 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in

What is this "access to the green" stuff you keep chanting?
I

I stated that taxation is not theft. It's like a membership
fee to a golf club. If you want to putt on the green you
gotta pay the fee. If you don't want to putt on the greens,
or drink in the clubhousew, get off the golf course...

Yes, precisely. But I'm not allowed to do that - if I choose
not to pay those fees I never use, they will come and take my
money by force.

That's not getting off the green. That is squatting on the
green. Pack up. Move. I remember during the Vietnam war, there
was a group promoting the slogan "America -- Love it or Leave
it."

Shut up and choose your option.


This is theft, plain and simple.

If you can't see that, then you need medical attention.

No, I'm not the SiCKO!

I think i love it better than you do. I am willing to try to tell it when
is doing what i consider wrong.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

joseph2k wrote in
et:

Bob Quintal wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in
news
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:29:34 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in

What is this "access to the green" stuff you keep
chanting? I

I stated that taxation is not theft. It's like a membership
fee to a golf club. If you want to putt on the green you
gotta pay the fee. If you don't want to putt on the greens,
or drink in the clubhousew, get off the golf course...

Yes, precisely. But I'm not allowed to do that - if I choose
not to pay those fees I never use, they will come and take
my money by force.

That's not getting off the green. That is squatting on the
green. Pack up. Move. I remember during the Vietnam war,
there was a group promoting the slogan "America -- Love it or
Leave it."

Shut up and choose your option.


This is theft, plain and simple.

If you can't see that, then you need medical attention.

No, I'm not the SiCKO!

I think i love it better than you do. I am willing to try to
tell it when is doing what i consider wrong.

There are ways to tell it it's wrong. Running for political
office is one. Supporting a candidate who sees things the way
you do is another. Ignoring tax bills is not telling it that you
consider said taxation wrong. It's just saying "I don't give a
damn about my country nor its citizens."

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:33:37 GMT, joseph2k
wrote:

Bob Quintal wrote:

John Fields wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2007 21:02:38 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:



What's with the Canadian $ being on par with the US$ these
days. That's making my vacation more expensive!. Lousy US
currency!

It's gonna get a lot worse unless you stop burning it.

---
Agreed, and...

I work from home, as I'm sure a lot of the rest of us do, so
my use of petrochemicals to get me from place to place has
been largely eliminated since I can get from place to place
online for a lot less than 16 miles per gallon.


Good for you, I try to use public transport when I'm in town.
but I wasn't only alluding to oil prices. The deficit the US is
running up is staggering.


That reminds me, for all the screaming that Republicans did to get a
balanced budget during Clinton's terms; they were sure quick to do deficit
spending once they got in office.

What business is it of yours?

...Jim Thompson
For starters, that is creating debt that i and my descendants are going to
have to pay for. And i dare say you and yours as well. Not to mention
that shows them to be a bunch of hypocrites, thus not the kind of persons i
want making the laws of this country.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:46:38 -0700, joseph2k
wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:35:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:25:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:47:31 -0700, John Larkin
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:10:36 -0700, Jim Thompson

For your heartburn of the day, Google on...

Hillary "on behalf of the common good"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288392,00.html

There you go again, John, being politically incorrect ;-)

Both the Clintons are frightening, and dangerous, in their absolute
amorality.

The neocons, like Cheney, Bush, et al, are even more frightening and
dangerous, since they're the ones with their finger on the button, and
they're demonstrably quite insane.

Thanks,
Rich
And amoral, they were brought up that way.

Their mistakes resulted from an excess of morality, not a shortage.

John
More like an excess of self-righteousness.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:21:16 GMT, joseph2k
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:46:38 -0700, joseph2k
wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:35:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:25:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:47:31 -0700, John Larkin
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:10:36 -0700, Jim Thompson

For your heartburn of the day, Google on...

Hillary "on behalf of the common good"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288392,00.html

There you go again, John, being politically incorrect ;-)

Both the Clintons are frightening, and dangerous, in their absolute
amorality.

The neocons, like Cheney, Bush, et al, are even more frightening and
dangerous, since they're the ones with their finger on the button, and
they're demonstrably quite insane.

Thanks,
Rich
And amoral, they were brought up that way.

Their mistakes resulted from an excess of morality, not a shortage.

John

More like an excess of self-righteousness.

Having morality sort of requires a degree of self-righteousness.

Like they say, you can't accuse people of hypocracy unless they have
principles.

John