In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions. One
tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek business
but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was that to decorate
one's store window with lights or colors, or to display one's stock of
goods attractively in the view of the public, was a contemptible and
underhanded method of tempting a brother tradesman's customers away
from him. Still another tradition was that it was strictly unethical
and unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold
tea, it was the best reason in the world why he should not sell
teaspoons. As for advertising, the thing would have been so brazen and
bold that public opinion would have put the advertiser out of business.
The proper demeanor for a merchant was to seem reluctant to part with
his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant bustled
into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply broke them all.
In those days tradition had all the force of a divinely promulgated
moral law and in consequence of his initiative the Jew was regarded as
a great offender. A man who would break those trade traditions would
stop at nothing! The Jew was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one
article to a customer, he had another on hand to offer him.

The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department
stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods
was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He
was the originator of "a quick turnover and small profits." He
originated the
installment plan. The one state of affairs he could not endure was
business at a standstill, and to start it moving he would do anything.
He was the first advertiser-in a day when even to announce in the
public prints the location of your store was to intimate to the public
that you were in financial difficulties, were about to go to the wall
and were trying the last desperate expedient to which no
self-respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child's play to connect this energy with dishonesty.
The Jew was not playing the game, at least so the staid English
merchant thought. As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it
all in his own hands-which he has practically done.

"KW" wrote:
In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions. One
tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek business
but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was that to decorate
one's store window with lights or colors, or to display one's stock of
goods attractively in the view of the public, was a contemptible and
underhanded method of tempting a brother tradesman's customers away
from him. Still another tradition was that it was strictly unethical
and unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold
tea, it was the best reason in the world why he should not sell
teaspoons. As for advertising, the thing would have been so brazen and
bold that public opinion would have put the advertiser out of business.
The proper demeanor for a merchant was to seem reluctant to part with
his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant bustled
into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply broke them all.
In those days tradition had all the force of a divinely promulgated
moral law and in consequence of his initiative the Jew was regarded as
a great offender. A man who would break those trade traditions would
stop at nothing! The Jew was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one
article to a customer, he had another on hand to offer him.

The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department
stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods
was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He
was the originator of "a quick turnover and small profits." He
originated the
installment plan. The one state of affairs he could not endure was
business at a standstill, and to start it moving he would do anything.
He was the first advertiser-in a day when even to announce in the
public prints the location of your store was to intimate to the public
that you were in financial difficulties, were about to go to the wall
and were trying the last desperate expedient to which no
self-respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child's play to connect this energy with dishonesty.
The Jew was not playing the game, at least so the staid English
merchant thought. As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it
all in his own hands-which he has practically done.

My wife and daughter have just gone out to the sales, what bliss to have the
house to myself. I will save a fortune by just staying indoors for the next
fortnight. Why this obsession with shopping, irrespective of whether the
items are needed or not? I got another pullover for Christmas, but I have
several already that I can't wear out, and I can only wear one at once. And
more boxer shorts, so that draw is now full. And as for keep buying food, I
was speaking to my brother-in-law yesterday who said that they had lots of
food left over from Christmas, they won't be able to eat it, and it will
have to be thrown out. What a waste, especially when so many people in large
areas of the World are dying of hunger. In many parts of Africa if you want
protein you have to poke about in an ants nest then knock the ants off into
a bucket, there are no supermarkets with packets of meat, in fact no shops
at all. At least with unwanted Christmas presents you can give them to a
charity shop and they will do some good. We give all our unwanted stuff to
the hospice shop to help care for those poor buggers dying from cancer. But
what can you do with unwanted food?

"KW" wrote in message
ps.com...

In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions. One
tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek business
but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was . . .
The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department
stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods
was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He
was the originator of "a quick turnover and small profits." He
originated the installment plan. . . .
As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it
all in his own hands-which he has practically done.

1. When trade was regulated (i.e. maximum prices
were fixed by the town guild) it made perfect sense for
businessmen to wait for trade. This characterized English
business up to the 17th century.
2. Except in seaports, foreigners were rare in England
before the 19th century. The most obvious foreigners
were Scotsmen resident in England (permissible only
after the Act of Union approx. 1700), as noticed with
amused contempt by commentators like Samuel Johnson.
3. The pioneer of the department store in England was
Gordon Selfridge, a foreigner (American) but not Jewish.
It was called "department" store because it included
various departments for such items as clothing, food
and furniture, all under one roof. Traditional businesses
(Jewish or not) did not sell (e.g.) clothing and furniture
under the same roof.
4. The poster's suggestion that "the Jew" now controls
retail trade appears challenged by Arab ownership of
retail businesses in England today. (Of course both
groups are Semites; but someone born in Arabia is
more obviously foreign than someone born in Bradford.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

KW wrote:
In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions. One
tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek business
but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was that to decorate
one's store window with lights or colors, or to display one's stock of
goods attractively in the view of the public, was a contemptible and
underhanded method of tempting a brother tradesman's customers away
from him. Still another tradition was that it was strictly unethical
and unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold
tea, it was the best reason in the world why he should not sell
teaspoons. As for advertising, the thing would have been so brazen and
bold that public opinion would have put the advertiser out of business.
The proper demeanor for a merchant was to seem reluctant to part with
his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant bustled
into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply broke them all.
In those days tradition had all the force of a divinely promulgated
moral law and in consequence of his initiative the Jew was regarded as
a great offender. A man who would break those trade traditions would
stop at nothing! The Jew was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one
article to a customer, he had another on hand to offer him.

The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department
stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods
was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He
was the originator of "a quick turnover and small profits." He
originated the
installment plan. The one state of affairs he could not endure was
business at a standstill, and to start it moving he would do anything.
He was the first advertiser-in a day when even to announce in the
public prints the location of your store was to intimate to the public
that you were in financial difficulties, were about to go to the wall
and were trying the last desperate expedient to which no
self-respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child's play to connect this energy with dishonesty.
The Jew was not playing the game, at least so the staid English
merchant thought. As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it
all in his own hands-which he has practically done.

Where's your footnote or site reference? How do we know you didn't
just make all of this up? Or how do we know you didn't write this
as a veiled anti-semetic rant?

Curious wrote

My wife and daughter have just gone out to the sales, what bliss to have the house to myself. I
will save a fortune by just staying
indoors for the next fortnight. Why this obsession with shopping,
irrespective of whether the items are needed or not? I got another
pullover for Christmas, but I have several already that I can't wear
out, and I can only wear one at once. And more boxer shorts, so that draw is now full.

Time to trade both those women in on something more appropriate.

Corse you were actually stupid enough to marry her,
that might have some real financial downsides now.

And as for keep buying food, I was speaking to my brother-in-law yesterday who said that they had
lots of food left over from Christmas, they won't be able to eat it, and it will have to be thrown
out.

Presumably there's a genetic problem there somewhere.

What a waste, especially when so many people in large areas of the World are dying of hunger.

Bugger all now actually. And that only happens when they are stupid
enough to care more about killing each other than feeding themselves
now. Just a tad worse than an obsession with shopping.

In many parts of Africa if you want protein you have to poke about in an ants nest then knock the
ants off into a bucket, there are no supermarkets with packets of meat, in fact no shops at all.

There's almost no where in africa like that anymore.

And those who are stupid enough to 'live' like that...

At least with unwanted Christmas presents you can give them to a charity shop and they will do
some good.

We give all our unwanted stuff to the hospice shop to help care for those poor buggers dying from
cancer.

Presumably they can afford to buy stuff like that themselves.

But what can you do with unwanted food?

Dont buy it in the first place, stupid.

"Seerialmom" wrote in message
ups.com...

Or how do we know you didn't write this
as a veiled anti-semetic rant?

There was a veil?

Don Phillipson wrote:
"KW" wrote in message
ps.com...

In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions.
One tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek
business but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was . . .
The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department
stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods
was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He
was the originator of "a quick turnover and small profits." He
originated the installment plan. . . .
As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it
all in his own hands-which he has practically done.

1. When trade was regulated (i.e. maximum
prices were fixed by the town guild)

That didnt happen.

it made perfect sense for businessmen to wait for trade.
This characterized English business up to the 17th century.

Fantasy.

2. Except in seaports, foreigners were
rare in England before the 19th century.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Pity about the Normans, Vikings, Romans etc etc etc.

The most obvious foreigners were Scotsmen resident in
England (permissible only after the Act of Union approx. 1700), as
noticed with amused contempt by commentators like Samuel Johnson.

Pity about his origins.

3. The pioneer of the department store in England was
Gordon Selfridge, a foreigner (American) but not Jewish.
It was called "department" store because it included
various departments for such items as clothing, food
and furniture, all under one roof. Traditional businesses
(Jewish or not) did not sell (e.g.) clothing and furniture
under the same roof.

4. The poster's suggestion that "the Jew" now controls
retail trade appears challenged by Arab ownership of
retail businesses in England today. (Of course both
groups are Semites; but someone born in Arabia is
more obviously foreign than someone born in Bradford.)

Curious wrote:

And more boxer shorts, so that draw is now full.
^^^^

"Drawer."




Geoff

--
"I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration,
communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the
international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all
of our precious bodily fluids!" --Gen. Jack D. Ripper, USAF

"Geoff Miller" wrote:
"Drawer."

Yes. It's full.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Time to trade both those women in on something more appropriate.

Corse you were actually stupid enough to marry her,
that might have some real financial downsides now.

Jealous are we?

wrote
Rod Speed wrote

At least with unwanted Christmas presents you can give
them to a charity shop and they will do some good.
We give all our unwanted stuff to the hospice shop to
help care for those poor buggers dying from cancer.

Presumably they can afford to buy stuff like that themselves.

Two points here regarding hospices have we and do we all not
pay our enforced subscriptions to the NHS while in employment

Not in the stupid US system.

which should provide us with all our health care be
we dying or just suffering from some illness or other.
So why the need for hospices to be run by charitable
means and rely on charitable contributions from the
general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

Not take our money every bloody week and expect us to dip our
hands in our pockets and pay extra money for health care on top.

Yes, but they may choose to provide more than the govt considers reasonable.

Dunno what the denizens of hospices want, but if its dancing girls etc,
its possible that the govt doesnt consider that to be worth paying for.

A very old friend died in our local hospice about four years ago
after spending three months in the hospice and he told me many
times while he was in there what excellent food was served up
at meal times so why the need to donate Christmas left over's .

He was talking about donating surplus clothes for them to sell.

Curious wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
Curious wrote

My wife and daughter have just gone out to the sales, what bliss to have the house to myself. I
will save a fortune by just staying
indoors for the next fortnight. Why this obsession with shopping,
irrespective of whether the items are needed or not? I got another
pullover for Christmas, but I have several already that I can't wear out, and I can only wear
one at once. And more boxer shorts, so that draw is now full.

Time to trade both those women in on something more appropriate.

Corse you were actually stupid enough to marry her,
that might have some real financial downsides now.

Jealous are we?

Nope, you were the one stupid enough to get
into that predicament you were howling about.

Don K wrote:
"Seerialmom" wrote in message
ups.com...

Or how do we know you didn't write this
as a veiled anti-semetic rant?

There was a veil?

Hard to say...it was such a wordy post I just skimmed over it and saw
the references to the Jewish shop keepers. Perhaps it was an outright
anti-semetic post afterall

On 27 Dec 2006 10:27:52 -0800, "Seerialmom"
wrote:


KW wrote:
In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions. One
tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek business
but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was that to decorate
one's store window with lights or colors, or to display one's stock of
goods attractively in the view of the public, was a contemptible and
underhanded method of tempting a brother tradesman's customers away
from him. Still another tradition was that it was strictly unethical
and unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold
tea, it was the best reason in the world why he should not sell
teaspoons. As for advertising, the thing would have been so brazen and
bold that public opinion would have put the advertiser out of business.
The proper demeanor for a merchant was to seem reluctant to part with
his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant bustled
into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply broke them all.
In those days tradition had all the force of a divinely promulgated
moral law and in consequence of his initiative the Jew was regarded as
a great offender. A man who would break those trade traditions would
stop at nothing! The Jew was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one
article to a customer, he had another on hand to offer him.

The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department
stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods
was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He
was the originator of "a quick turnover and small profits." He
originated the
installment plan. The one state of affairs he could not endure was
business at a standstill, and to start it moving he would do anything.
He was the first advertiser-in a day when even to announce in the
public prints the location of your store was to intimate to the public
that you were in financial difficulties, were about to go to the wall
and were trying the last desperate expedient to which no
self-respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child's play to connect this energy with dishonesty.
The Jew was not playing the game, at least so the staid English
merchant thought. As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it
all in his own hands-which he has practically done.

Where's your footnote or site reference? How do we know you didn't
just make all of this up? Or how do we know you didn't write this
as a veiled anti-semetic rant?


Veiled?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:Presumably they
can afford to buy stuff like that themselves.

Two points here regarding hospices have we and do we all not
pay our enforced subscriptions to the NHS while in employment

Not in the stupid US system.

The stupid U.S? The envy of the world & you call it stupid? I think the
stupid one here is pretty easy to spot.



general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from
so many so called "enlightened" countries come to places like May, john
Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?






--
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But
notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism
seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville






Not take our money every bloody week and expect us to dip our
hands in our pockets and pay extra money for health care on top.

Yes, but they may choose to provide more than the govt considers
reasonable.

Dunno what the denizens of hospices want, but if its dancing girls etc,
its possible that the govt doesnt consider that to be worth paying for.

A very old friend died in our local hospice about four years ago
after spending three months in the hospice and he told me many
times while he was in there what excellent food was served up
at meal times so why the need to donate Christmas left over's .

He was talking about donating surplus clothes for them to sell.

Bob Ward wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 10:27:52 -0800, "Seerialmom"
wrote:


KW wrote:
In older England the merchant class had many easy-going traditions. One
tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek business
but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was that to decorate
one's store window with lights or colors, or to display one's stock of
goods attractively in the view of the public, was a contemptible and
underhanded method of tempting a brother tradesman's customers away
from him. Still another tradition was that it was strictly unethical
and unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold
tea, it was the best reason in the world why he should not sell
teaspoons. As for advertising, the thing would have been so brazen and
bold that public opinion would have put the advertiser out of business.
The proper demeanor for a merchant was to seem reluctant to part with
his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant bustled
into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply broke them all.
In those days tradition had all the force of a divinely promulgated
moral law and in consequence of his initiative the Jew was regarded as
a great offender. A man who would break those trade traditions would
stop at nothing! The Jew was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one
article to a customer, he had another on hand to offer him.

The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern department
stores, and the old English custom of one store for one line of goods
was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He
was the originator of "a quick turnover and small profits." He
originated the
installment plan. The one state of affairs he could not endure was
business at a standstill, and to start it moving he would do anything.
He was the first advertiser-in a day when even to announce in the
public prints the location of your store was to intimate to the public
that you were in financial difficulties, were about to go to the wall
and were trying the last desperate expedient to which no
self-respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child's play to connect this energy with dishonesty.
The Jew was not playing the game, at least so the staid English
merchant thought. As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it
all in his own hands-which he has practically done.

Where's your footnote or site reference? How do we know you didn't
just make all of this up? Or how do we know you didn't write this
as a veiled anti-semetic rant?


Veiled?

Ok...blatant...see what I get for trying to be even keeled?

Roughrider50 wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Two points here regarding hospices have we and do we all not
pay our enforced subscriptions to the NHS while in employment

Not in the stupid US system.

The stupid U.S?

The stupid US SYSTEM, stupid. Health care SYSTEM in this case.

The envy of the world

The way the US health care SYSTEM is funded certainly aint.

& you call it stupid?

Yep, and you too.

I think

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

the stupid one here is pretty easy to spot.

Yep, look in the mirror, stupid.

general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from so many so called
"enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.

Seerialmom wrote:
Bob Ward wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 10:27:52 -0800, "Seerialmom"
wrote:


KW wrote:
In older England the merchant class had many easy-going
traditions. One tradition was that a respectable tradesman would
never seek business but wait for it to come to him. Another
tradition was that to decorate one's store window with lights or
colors, or to display one's stock of goods attractively in the
view of the public, was a contemptible and underhanded method of
tempting a brother tradesman's customers away from him. Still
another tradition was that it was strictly unethical and
unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold
tea, it was the best reason in the world why he should not sell
teaspoons. As for advertising, the thing would have been so brazen
and bold that public opinion would have put the advertiser out of
business. The proper demeanor for a merchant was to seem reluctant
to part with his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant
bustled into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply
broke them all. In those days tradition had all the force of a
divinely promulgated moral law and in consequence of his
initiative the Jew was regarded as a great offender. A man who
would break those trade traditions would stop at nothing! The Jew
was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one article to a
customer, he had another on hand to offer him.

The Jews' stores became bazaars, forerunners of our modern
department stores, and the old English custom of one store for one
line of goods was broken up. The Jew went after trade, pursued it,
persuaded it. He was the originator of "a quick turnover and small
profits." He originated the
installment plan. The one state of affairs he could not endure was
business at a standstill, and to start it moving he would do
anything. He was the first advertiser-in a day when even to
announce in the public prints the location of your store was to
intimate to the public that you were in financial difficulties,
were about to go to the wall and were trying the last desperate
expedient to which no self-respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child's play to connect this energy with
dishonesty. The Jew was not playing the game, at least so the
staid English merchant thought. As a matter of fact he was playing
the game to get it all in his own hands-which he has practically
done.

Where's your footnote or site reference? How do we know you didn't
just make all of this up? Or how do we know you didn't write
this as a veiled anti-semetic rant?


Veiled?

Ok...blatant...see what I get for trying to be even keeled?

You should be keel hauled.

On 27 Dec 2006 15:10:12 -0800, "Seerialmom"
wrote:



Veiled?

Ok...blatant...see what I get for trying to be even keeled?


keel-hauled?

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:46:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from so many so called
"enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.



Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

I WANT EVERYBODY TO CHECK OUT WWW.BUYSMARTSHOPPING.COM IN THEIR
INTERNET EXPLORER BROWSER AND TELL ME WHAT KIND OF ADVERTISING THAT IS!

Bob Ward wrote
Rod Speed wrote

If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many
foreigners from so many so called "enlightened" countries
come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.

Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Nope, they are mostly the stinking rich either from countrys that
dont have a decent health care system, or a few of the stinking
rich from other first world countrys that have money to burn.

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:46:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from so many so called
"enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.



Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Don't confuse Ron. He can't take it.

--
Keith

Bob Ward writes:

Veiled?


You quoted two full screens of text in order to append a
single word?

Learn to use a text editor, you inconsiderate, bottom-posting
retard.



Geoff

--
"I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration,
communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the
international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all
of our precious bodily fluids!" --Gen. Jack D. Ripper, USAF

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Roughrider50 wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Two points here regarding hospices have we and do we all not
pay our enforced subscriptions to the NHS while in employment

Not in the stupid US system.

The stupid U.S?

The stupid US SYSTEM, stupid. Health care SYSTEM in this case.

The envy of the world

The way the US health care SYSTEM is funded certainly aint.


I suppose you're one of those clowns that believe in a socialist style
health care system huh? In other words mediocre care for all......except the
wealthy who can afford to come to the US.



& you call it stupid?

Yep, and you too.

Naw......you've already earned that title many times over.


I think

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

Well bud you've definitely not shown any that I've seen.





the stupid one here is pretty easy to spot.

Yep, look in the mirror, stupid.

To see stupid you'll have to post your picture.







general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners
from so many so called "enlightened" countries come to places like May,
john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.


Yeah & rich foreigners





--
"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake,
that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that
the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that
society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it
deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
-- Ayn Rand

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Bob Ward wrote
Rod Speed wrote

If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many
foreigners from so many so called "enlightened" countries
come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.

Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Nope, they are mostly the stinking rich either from countrys that
dont have a decent health care system, or a few of the stinking
rich from other first world countrys that have money to burn.

Sounds like the ramblings of a stinking socialist





--
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose
fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate
arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one
of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 27 Dec 2006 18:10:42 -0800, "BuySmartShopping"
wrote:


I WANT EVERYBODY TO CHECK OUT WWW.BUYSMART scam NG.COM IN THEIR
INTERNET EXPLORER BROWSER AND TELL ME WHAT KIND OF ADVERTISING THAT IS!


Obviously, it's gutter-dwelling, pond-scum spamming.

But people who use Internet Explorer might deserve it.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:28:19 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:46:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from so many so called
"enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.



Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Don't confuse Ron. He can't take it.


Who is it that's confused? I was responding to Rod's drivel.

Roughrider50 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bob Ward wrote
Rod Speed wrote

If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many
foreigners from so many so called "enlightened" countries
come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.

Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Nope, they are mostly the stinking rich either from countrys that
dont have a decent health care system, or a few of the stinking
rich from other first world countrys that have money to burn.

Sounds like the ramblings of a stinking socialist

Clearly wouldnt know what a socialist was if one bit it on its lard arse.

Roughrider50 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Roughrider50 wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Two points here regarding hospices have we and do we all not
pay our enforced subscriptions to the NHS while in employment

Not in the stupid US system.

The stupid U.S?

The stupid US SYSTEM, stupid. Health care SYSTEM in this case.

The envy of the world

The way the US health care SYSTEM is funded certainly aint.

I suppose you're one of those clowns that believe in a socialist style health care system huh?

Nope, one who realises that the stupid system the US uses is
extremely inefficient and that that doubles the cost of health care.

In other words mediocre care for all......

You've clearly never used a properly organised health care system.

except the wealthy who can afford to come to the US.

It aint just the wealthy, and any decent first world health care system
doesnt pay for optional crap, most obviously cosmetic surgery etc.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many
foreigners from so many so called "enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins,
Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.

Yeah & rich foreigners

Irrelevant to how to pay for the health care that most of us use.

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:28:19 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:46:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from so many so called
"enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.



Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Don't confuse Ron. He can't take it.


Who is it that's confused?

Not I (Rod = Ron).

I was responding to Rod's drivel.

I know. I was suggesting that it was wasted effort.

--
Keith

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:58:45 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:28:19 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:46:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from so many so called
"enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.



Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Don't confuse Ron. He can't take it.


Who is it that's confused?

Not I (Rod = Ron).

I was responding to Rod's drivel.

I know. I was suggesting that it was wasted effort.


As was your advice to me.

How much time do you have to waste on this? I've got all day.

Rod Speed writes:

So why the need for hospices to be run by charitable
means and rely on charitable contributions from the
general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.


Uh, the fact of the matter is that we don't do things that way
here, Sammy Socialist. And our doing things differently than
other countries do them doesn't _ipso facto_ make our way "wrong."
Ever heard of the Bandwagon Fallacy? As Marge the Palmolive Liquid
lady used to say, "You're soaking in it!"

Here in America, we have a system based on the use of insurance
policies and HMOs. Don't like some aspect of the way the system
works? Then work within the system to change it. You have the
constitutional right to petition for a redress of grievances,
after all. Is this a great country, or what? ("What," cries
the Greek chorus from behind the curtain...)

It's the responsibility of the federal government to print money,
deliver the mail, provide for the defense of the nation and its
people, and keep bird **** off of the statues. That's all. Don't
like that? Then move to Sweden or some other European socialist
paradise.



Geoff

--
"Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell, Whitey has to pay
Burning, shooting, oh what fun on this made-up holiday!"

Geoff Miller wrote
Rod Speed writes

So why the need for hospices to be run by charitable
means and rely on charitable contributions from the
general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

Uh, the fact of the matter is that we don't do things that way here,

You do. Its just not universal, you only do it with a
subset of the population, most obviously with Medicare.

Sammy Socialist.

You wouldnt know what a socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse.

And our doing things differently than other countries
do them doesn't _ipso facto_ make our way "wrong."

No one ever said it did. But when the cost of adequate health insurance
is completely unaffordable for so many, particularly those who work for
themselves etc, and when you fools **** an immense amount of money
against the wall in the mindless bureaucratic system you use instead, to
get a worse outcome than most other modern first world countrys do in
average life expectancy etc, even a fool like you should notice the problem.

Ever heard of the Bandwagon Fallacy? As Marge the
Palmolive Liquid lady used to say, "You're soaking in it!"

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic excuse for mindless bull****.

Obviously not.

Here in America, we have a system based on the use of insurance
policies and HMOs. Don't like some aspect of the way the system
works? Then work within the system to change it. You have the
constitutional right to petition for a redress of grievances,
after all. Is this a great country, or what? ("What," cries
the Greek chorus from behind the curtain...)

It's the responsibility of the federal government to print money,
deliver the mail, provide for the defense of the nation and its
people, and keep bird **** off of the statues. That's all.

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. Its the federal responsibility to do
whatever the voters decide it should do. You get to like that or lump it.

Don't like that? Then move to Sweden or
some other European socialist paradise.

So stupid it hasnt even noticed that even Canada has managed to get a clue.

And that the US has that too. The only problem with the stupid US
system is that it isnt universal and only applys to the geriatrics etc.

"Geoff Miller" wrote in message
...
the Greek chorus from behind the curtain...)

It's the responsibility of the federal government to print money,
deliver the mail, provide for the defense of the nation and its
people, and keep bird **** off of the statues. That's all. Don't
like that? Then move to Sweden or some other European socialist
paradise.



Geoff

--
"Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell, Whitey has to pay
Burning, shooting, oh what fun on this made-up holiday!"


Uh.......you don't have to be that radical to spend wads of money emigrating
to Europe , Just load up your old jalopy, head north, & when you get across
the border tell 'em you hate your country & you ain't fighting in no stinkin
war & they'll welcome you with open arms & give you socialized healthcare.
BTW love your sig.







--
so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm) KEY

NOUN:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and
communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the
dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:58:45 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:28:19 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:46:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


If the US healthcare system is so fouled up why do so many foreigners from so many so called
"enlightened" countries come to places like May, john Hopkins, Sloan Kettering etc.?

Those have the money to pay for that, stupid.



Then you are admitting that those who have the money to pay for the
best that money can buy don't spend it in a National Health System?

Don't confuse Ron. He can't take it.


Who is it that's confused?

Not I (Rod = Ron).

I was responding to Rod's drivel.

I know. I was suggesting that it was wasted effort.


As was your advice to me.

Indeed. Just trying to help.

How much time do you have to waste on this? I've got all day.

As much time as you think you have Ron's got far more time to be
stupid that we can dream about.

--
Keith

Rod Speed writes:

: Uh, the fact of the matter is that we don't do things that way here,

You do. Its just not universal, you only do it with a subset of
the population, most obviously with Medicare.

Universality was the "way" that I was alluding to when I said we don't
do things "that way" here.


: Sammy Socialist.

You wouldnt know what a socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse.

What makes you think my arse is lardy? And more to the point, why
would you care if it were?

You advocate socialized medicine, therefore you're a socialist.

"Quack quack, quackitty-quack-quack-quack!" If it quacks like a duck...


: And our doing things differently than other countries do them doesn't
: _ipso facto_ make our way "wrong."

No one ever said it did.

Yes, as a matter of fact someone did. *You* did.

You wrote, regarding the idea that "all health care should be provided
by the government of the day":

"[...] the US is the only modern first world country that hasnt actually
got a clue about something as basic as that.

Now what is one to infer from that, if not that you believe the U.S. is
wrong because it doesn't follow in lockstep what other "modern, first
world countries" do ? Do you snack on dog**** because eighty gazillion
flies can't be wrong?


But when the cost of adequate health insurance is completely unafford-
able for so many, particularly those who work for themselves etc, and
when you fools **** an immense amount of money against the wall in the
mindless bureaucratic system you use instead, to get a worse outcome
than most other modern first world countrys do in average life expec-
tancy etc, even a fool like you should notice the problem.

My disagreeing with you hardly makes me a fool. Why are you liberals
unable to engage in political discourse without being nasty and insulting?
What do you think that says about the emotional development of your kind?

(Yes, I called you a socialist. But that not only wasn't an insult, it
had the added benefit of being true.)

People who can't afford healthcare because they work for themselves have
no one but themselves to blame. It wasn't "the system's" fault that they
decided to go into business for themselves, and so deny themselves the sort
of healthcare that corporate employees have. Whatever happened to personal
accountability in our culture?

I explained all this to an acquaintance of mine who's a small businessman
(in both senses of the term) in my hometown. A new father, he was be-
moaning the lack of universal medical care. He didn't appreciate being
told that he essentially screwed himself and his new family out of proper
medical care because of his choice of livelihood -- but then, it was no
less true for that. "You pays your money and you makes your choice."

And speaking of which, I don't "**** away" money. The amount of money I
pay toward my healthcare coverage is so small as to be completely painless
(my employer pays the rest). Why is it "****ing away" money if I pay an
HMO through a payroll deduction, but not if the money is taken from me by
the government through taxation, to pay for socialized medical care?

And my HMO is not a "mindless bureaucratic system" but a very well-run
enterprise. Indeed, you know nothing whatsoever about my health coverage,
apart from the fact that it's an HMO. So on what basis do you presume to
dismiss it as a "mindless bureaucratic system?" We all know how efficient
and responsive to individual needs government-run enterprises tend to be,
don't we?


: Ever heard of the Bandwagon Fallacy? As Marge the Palmolive Liquid
: lady used to say, "You're soaking in it!"

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic excuse for
mindless bull****.

Obviously not.

I'm afraid that insults are poor substitutes for cogent and compelling
rebuttal...speaking of a "pathetic excuse for mindless bull****."


: It's the responsibility of the federal government to print money,
: deliver the mail, provide for the defense of the nation and its
: people, and keep bird **** off of the statues. That's all.

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.

Yet another insult, eh? No bloody wonder nobody takes you socialists
seriously. You come across like a bunch of gradeschoolers arguing on
the playground at recess.


Its the federal responsibility to do whatever the voters decide it
should do. You get to like that or lump it.

I'm afraid things aren't quite that simple, my idealistic-yet-naive
friend. There's no such thing as a nationwide referendum.


: Don't like that? Then move to Sweden or some other European
: socialist paradise.

So stupid it hasnt even noticed that even Canada has managed to get
a clue.

Um, when did I say that Canada _didn't_ have socialized medical care?
Canada has it, therefore Europe doesn't? Or was I supposed to mention
Canada in preference to Europe because Canada is closer to the U.S.?
What exactly is your point?


And that the US has that too. The only problem with the stupid US
system is that it isnt universal and only applys to the geriatrics etc.

If endless variations of "yer stupid!" are the only sort of discourse
you liberals can come up with, you may as well put guns into your
yammering pieholes and paint the walls with what passes for your brains
right now. And I mean, the sooner the better.



Geoff

--
"Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell, Whitey has to pay
Burning, shooting, oh what fun on this made-up holiday!"

Geoff Miller wrote
Rod Speed writes
Geoff Miller wrote
Rod Speed writes

So why the need for hospices to be run by charitable
means and rely on charitable contributions from the
general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

Uh, the fact of the matter is that we don't do things that way here,

You do. Its just not universal, you only do it with a subset
of the population, most obviously with Medicare.

Universality was the "way" that I was alluding to
when I said we don't do things "that way" here.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

No modern first world country has universality with their health
care system, most obviously with visitors to the country.

Sammy Socialist.

You wouldnt know what a socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse.

What makes you think my arse is lardy?

What makes you 'think' I'm a socialist ?

And more to the point, why would you care if it were?

See above.

You advocate socialized medicine,

Lying, again. I JUST pointed out that the US is the last of the modern first
world countrys that hasnt YET chosen to do its health care funding that way.

And you clearly wouldnt know what socialised
medicine was if it bit you on your lard arse anyway.

therefore you're a socialist.

Pathetic, really.

"Quack quack, quackitty-quack-quack-quack!" If it quacks like a duck...

Pathetic, really.

And our doing things differently than other countries
do them doesn't _ipso facto_ make our way "wrong."

No one ever said it did.

Yes, as a matter of fact someone did. *You* did.

Lying, as always.

You wrote, regarding the idea that "all health care
should be provided by the government of the day":

I wasnt commenting on that bit.

"[...] the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

Lets have a look at the full context shall we ?

So why the need for hospices to be run by charitable
means and rely on charitable contributions from the
general public hospice care hospital care in fact all
heath care should be provided by the government
of the day no matter which party is in power.

Yes, but the US is the only modern first world country that
hasnt actually got a clue about something as basic as that.

I was commenting on the CHARITABLE MEANS bit in the original.


Now what is one to infer from that, if not that you believe
the U.S. is wrong because it doesn't follow in lockstep
what other "modern, first world countries" do ?

Pathetic, really.

Do you snack on dog**** because eighty gazillion flies can't be wrong?

Pathetic, really.

But when the cost of adequate health insurance is completely
unaffordable for so many, particularly those who work for
themselves etc, and when you fools **** an immense amount
of money against the wall in the mindless bureaucratic system
you use instead, to get a worse outcome than most other
modern first world countrys do in average life expectancy
etc, even a fool like you should notice the problem.

My disagreeing with you hardly makes me a fool.

Never ever said it did.

Why are you liberals

Why are you lard arses...

unable to engage in political discourse without being nasty and insulting?

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh hypocrite ?

What do you think that says about the emotional development of your kind?

There you go, doing it again.

(Yes, I called you a socialist. But that not only wasn't
an insult, it had the added benefit of being true.)

Pity it aint actually true. 'liberal' in spades, lard arse.

People who can't afford healthcare because they work
for themselves have no one but themselves to blame.

Pathetic, really. The problem is that the stupid US system has the
employer funding the health care system and that is completely
****ed. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to fund it out of taxation
instead, and then you dont get the stupid anomolys like you fools
get with the self employed etc and you dont need the massive
bureaucratic that the insurance industry involves, that ****es so
much of what is collect to fund the stupid US system against
the wall mindlessly shuffling paper in the claims system etc.

It wasn't "the system's" fault that they
decided to go into business for themselves,

It is the systems fault that those dont get adequate health care cover.

and so deny themselves the sort of healthcare that corporate employees
have. Whatever happened to personal accountability in our culture?

Whatever happened to designing the system so it covers such
a huge part of those that need decent health care coverage ?

I explained all this to an acquaintance of mine who's a small
businessman (in both senses of the term) in my hometown.

You didnt explain a thing, just flaunted your terminal stupidity.

A new father, he was be- moaning the lack of universal medical
care. He didn't appreciate being told that he essentially screwed
himself and his new family out of proper medical care because
of his choice of livelihood -- but then, it was no less true for that.
"You pays your money and you makes your choice."

Anyone with a clue, and that obviously counts you out, realises
that a properly designed system should provide such a massive
percentage of the population with adequate health care cover,
funded out of taxation, just like all the other stuff the voters
decide needs to be provided like with the cops etc.

And speaking of which, I don't "**** away" money.

Corse you do, its just not as obvious to fools like you.
What your employer pays could be paid to you instead
in a better organised health care funding system.

The amount of money I pay toward my healthcare coverage is so
small as to be completely painless (my employer pays the rest).

What your employer pays for you would be received by
you instead in a properly organised health care system.

Why is it "****ing away" money if I pay an HMO through a payroll
deduction, but not if the money is taken from me by the government
through taxation, to pay for socialized medical care?

The difference is that the stupid US system involves such a massive
overhead in mindless paper shuffling with the claims that your employer
ends up paying for you much more than you would have to pay in taxation
to get the same result. THATS the money you **** against the wall.

And my HMO is not a "mindless bureaucratic
system" but a very well-run enterprise.

No it isnt on the cost of processing the claims.

Indeed, you know nothing whatsoever about my health
coverage, apart from the fact that it's an HMO.

Thats all I need to know.

So on what basis do you presume to dismiss
it as a "mindless bureaucratic system?"

The immense cost of that mindless bureaucracy has to be paid for somehow.

We all know how efficient and responsive to individual
needs government-run enterprises tend to be, don't we?

No one was suggesting that the health care system should be govt RUN.

What is being discussed is how the health care costs are FUNDED.

It makes a lot more sense to FUND health care out of taxation
and not impose that burdon on the employer, essentially because
funding it out of taxation funds health care costs more more fairly
for the huge numbers that dont get health care costs paid for by
their employer, and because it eliminates the massive
bureaucracy that the insurance industry inevitably is.

And the US does that to some extent, most obviously with SSI etc.

Ever heard of the Bandwagon Fallacy? As Marge the
Palmolive Liquid lady used to say, "You're soaking in it!"

Even you should be able to do better than
that pathetic excuse for mindless bull****.

Obviously not.

I'm afraid that insults are poor substitutes for cogent and compelling
rebuttal...speaking of a "pathetic excuse for mindless bull****."

Your puerile **** above in spades.

It's the responsibility of the federal government to print money,
deliver the mail, provide for the defense of the nation and its
people, and keep bird **** off of the statues. That's all.

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.

Yet another insult, eh? No bloody wonder nobody takes you socialists seriously.

You woudnt know what a socialist was if it bit you on your lard arse.

You come across like a bunch of gradeschoolers
arguing on the playground at recess.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

Its the federal responsibility to do whatever the voters
decide it should do. You get to like that or lump it.

I'm afraid things aren't quite that simple, my idealistic-yet-naive
friend. There's no such thing as a nationwide referendum.

Doesnt need to be, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

And a nationwide referendum is precisely what
you have with changes to the constitution anyway.

Don't like that? Then move to Sweden or
some other Europeansocialist paradise.

So stupid it hasnt even noticed that even Canada has managed to get a clue.

Um, when did I say that Canada _didn't_ have socialized medical care?

When did I ever say you did ?

Canada has it, therefore Europe doesn't? Or was I supposed to mention
Canada in preference to Europe because Canada is closer to the U.S.?
What exactly is your point?

Pathetic, really.

And that the US has that too. The only problem with the stupid US
system is that it isnt universal and only applys to the geriatrics etc.

If endless variations of "yer stupid!" are the only sort of discourse
you liberals can come up with, you may as well put guns into your
yammering pieholes and paint the walls with what passes for your
brains right now. And I mean, the sooner the better.

You come across like a bunch of gradeschoolers arguing on the playground at recess.

Now who said that ?