On Oct 12, 3:13*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT), Country wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:52*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Country wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:41 pm, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Country
wrote:

Well, truth be told, I'm a "prepper", too. Except I stock up on ammunition.

Ammunition is a prepping item for sure. One might want to consider the
rule of threes when considering what to prep. Why would you need
enough ammunition to live three months if you don't have enough food,
water and shelter to live three months?

-C-

One reason is the killing of meat. Kill it, eat the protein and then
gather whatever raw roots you can get from the forest.

Ammo can save you, food wise and preventing critters from attacking
you. It really is simple.

Fish hooks are also be a big help.

Ahh, the ole' killing animals to eat thing. If the **** really hits
the fan, game animals will disappear fast because of all the people
who think that all they need to have to survive is ammo. Even today,
there are plenty of hunters that go into the woods time and again and
come home without killing anything but time.

Your mind is *very* narrow.

Insults is all you have. How pathetic is that?

No, the fact that you're *stuck* on only one way bullets can be used to get
food shows a narrow mind. *HeyBub came up with another, without too much
trouble. *Now that he's shown that there is more than one possible, maybe you
can you find a third? *Come on. *Surprise us.


Sheesh, will you please learn to read. What I said was it is better to
store food, water and ammo and not just depend on there being game to
kill and eat or risk your life trying to take other people's food.
Please show me why that is not logical.

A third way to use ammo to get food other than killing game or killing
someone and taking what they have? Wow, how hard can that be? Let me
think here. What to do, what to do. I'm so scared that I can't please
you with the proper answer to that question.

Another part of prepping is acquiring items and knowledge that can be
bartered to get other things you need. Ammo can be used to barter for
food or other needs if you can find someone who needs more ammo.

Man, if you had a brain, you'd be feeling real sad about now. lol.

-C-

I've said much this same thing, many times. So many armchair
survivalists think they can hunt and fish their way through
lean times.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Country" wrote in message
...


Ammo can save you, food wise and preventing critters from
attacking
you. It really is simple.

Fish hooks are also be a big help.


Ahh, the ole' killing animals to eat thing. If the ****
really hits
the fan, game animals will disappear fast because of all the
people
who think that all they need to have to survive is ammo.
Even today,
there are plenty of hunters that go into the woods time and
again and
come home without killing anything but time.

-C-

Most prepper who I know, realize that many will
be unprepared, except for the box of bang. And,
the preppers I've met are completely ready to
defend what they earned and purchased.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Country" wrote in message
...

Ammunition is a prepping item for sure. One might want to
consider the
rule of threes when considering what to prep. Why would
you need
enough ammunition to live three months if you don't have
enough food,
water and shelter to live three months?

Because if you have nine months worth of ammunition, one
way or another, you
can get the others. ;-) Not so much, with the others.


That's not as easy as it sounds. I don't understand that
attitude when
it is just as easy to store food and water as it is ammo.
Then you can
hunt to supplement your preps instead of having to depend on
the
availability of game or risking your life trying to take
preps from a
well armed and well prepared prepper.

-C-

I hadn't really considered what punch lines would work.
Hoping others would provide a few. You did very well.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Why did the Mormon Missionary Chicken cross the road?



Because it was there?
She was trained to do so?
She didn't like where she was put?
To hold up her pants?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I hadn't really considered what punch lines would work.
Hoping others would provide a few. You did very well.


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Why did the Mormon Missionary Chicken cross the road?



Because it was there?
She was trained to do so?
She didn't like where she was put?
To hold up her pants?

I have a fertile imagination. Others think so, too. They are forever telling
me I'm full of... well, you know.

Country wrote:

Because the people with sufficient ammunition will take your stored
food.

Hint: Divide your stores into discrete packets. Store these packets
in different places (a couple buried, one up in a tree, one in the
attic, etc.). When the person with all the bullets demands - on the
life of your youngest child - food, give up one of the packets.


Prepping ain't just about storing food. Taking precautions as far as
defense is part of it too. If the **** hits the fan, do you just think
you can walk up to my house, threaten me and take my preps? Do you
think you will be the only one with guns and ammo?


If you live in some jurisdictions and you were formerly the law-abiding
type, the chances of you having a gun are miniscule.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I've said much this same thing, many times. So many armchair
survivalists think they can hunt and fish their way through
lean times.


I know of no one who thinks that way.

Of course I live in a big city and game is pretty rare (opossums and pigeons
excepted).

fertile-izer?

Well, we have different gifts and talents. Yours appear to
be making ideas grow, in rich soil.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news Stormin Mormon wrote:
I hadn't really considered what punch lines would work.
Hoping others would provide a few. You did very well.


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Why did the Mormon Missionary Chicken cross the road?



Because it was there?
She was trained to do so?
She didn't like where she was put?
To hold up her pants?

I have a fertile imagination. Others think so, too. They are
forever telling
me I'm full of... well, you know.

The Mormons I know are hard working, and pro America.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Heh! If American can vote for a Black Liberationist, it can
vote for a
Mormon.

Oren wrote:

Um, no. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, addresses
qualifications to be eligible. Nothing about deserving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...Vice_President

Pass all those requirements with the votes, and you deserve the title.
Its quite simple.

______________________________________

Section 1: President and Vice President
[edit] Clause 1: Executive power
€œ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four
Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term,
be elected, as follows[1] €�

Clause one is a "vesting clause," similar to other clauses in Articles
One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of
Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in
the government of the United States, or in any department or officer
thereof." The important distinction between the vesting clause in
Article I and this Vesting Clause is that this one is Plenary (i.e., it
implies the power the executive to fall in line with what other
"executives" around the world at the time could do) whereas the power
vested in Article I is subject to limits to be outlined in later
sections.

The head of the Executive Branch is the President of the United States.
The President and the Vice President are elected every four years.
[edit] Clause 2: Method of choosing electors
€œ Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office
of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an
Elector. €�

Under the U.S. Constitution the President and Vice President are chosen
by Electors, under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the
legislatures of the several states and the District of Columbia (see
Bush v. Gore). The constitution reserves the choice of the precise
manner for creating Electors to the will of the state legislatures. It
does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to
create its state college of Electors. In practice, the state
legislatures have generally chosen to create Electors through an
indirect popular vote, since the 1820s.

In an indirect popular vote, it is the names of the electors who are on
the ballot to be elected. Typically, their names are aligned under the
name of the candidate for President and Vice President, that they, the
Elector, have pledged they will support. It is fully understood by the
voters and the Electors themselves that they are the representative
"stand-ins" for the individuals to whom they have pledged to cast their
electoral college ballots to be President and Vice President. In some
states, in past years, this pledge was informal, and an Elector could
still legally cast their electoral ballot for whomever they chose. More
recently, state legislatures (exercising their constitutional authority
to do so) have mandated in law that Electors shall cast their electoral
college ballot for the Presidential Candidate to whom they are pledged.

Each state chooses as many Electors as it has Representatives and
Senators representing it in Congress. Under the Twenty-third Amendment,
the District of Columbia may choose no more electors than the state with
the lowest amount of electoral votes. No Senators, Representatives or
federal officers may become Electors.
[edit] Clause 3: Electors
€œ The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by
Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant
of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the
Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the
Government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number
of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such
Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for
President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest
on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the
President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken
by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum
for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of
the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a
Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person
having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice
President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes,
the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President. €�

(Note: This procedure was changed by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.)

In modern practice, each state chooses its electors in popular
elections. Once chosen, the electors meet in their respective states to
cast ballots for the President and Vice President. Originally, each
elector cast two votes for President; at least one of the individuals
voted for had to be from a state different from the elector's. The
individual with the majority of votes became President, and the
runner-up became Vice President. In case of a tie, the House of
Representatives could choose one of the tied candidates; if no person
received a majority, then the House could again choose one of the five
with the greatest number of votes. When the House voted, each state
delegation cast one vote, and the vote of a majority of states was
necessary to choose a President. If second-place candidates were tied,
then the Senate broke the tie. A quorum of two-thirds applied in both
Houses: at least one member from each of two-thirds of the states in the
House of Representatives, and at least two-thirds of the Senators in the
Senate. This procedure was followed in 1801 after the electoral vote
produced a tie, and nearly resulted in a deadlock in the House.

The Twelfth Amendment introduced a number of important changes to the
procedure. Now, Electors do not cast two votes for President; rather,
they cast one vote for President and another for Vice President. In case
no Presidential candidate receives a majority, the House chooses from
the top three (not five, as with Vice Presidential candidates). The
Amendment also requires the Senate to choose the Vice President from
those with the two highest figures if no Vice Presidential candidate
receives a majority of electoral votes (rather than only if there's a
tie for second for President). It also stipulates that to be the Vice
President, a person must be qualified to be the President.
[edit] Clause 4: Election day
€œ The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the
Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day
shall be the same throughout the United States. €�

Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, Electors are chosen on
the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before
the President's term is to expire. The Electors cast their votes on the
Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year.
Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the Vice President, as
President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.
[edit] Clause 5: Qualifications for office
€œ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall
be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
€�
See also: natural-born citizen and President of the United States

By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must
be:

natural born citizens
The provision of "Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution" is no longer significant, as it
applied to people living in the United States at the time that the
country was formed.
at least thirty-five years old
inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years.

Eligibility for holding the office of President and Vice-President were
modified by subsequent amendments:

The Twelfth Amendment (1804) requires the Vice-President must meet
all of the qualifications of being a President.
The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) prevents a President from being
elected more than twice.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:53:29 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Oren wrote:

Um, no. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, addresses
qualifications to be eligible. Nothing about deserving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...Vice_President

Pass all those requirements with the votes, and you deserve the title.
Its quite simple.


I think you are confusing "qualifications" with executive /
legislative branch powers once elected.

I'm not a scholar, but see no where that "deserving" is mentioned.

For that matter; Anwar-al Awlaki was a terrorist. He was born in New
Mexico and met the age requirement. Was he _DESERVING_ of the
presidency? NO!

Oren wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:53:29 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Oren wrote:

Um, no. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, addresses
qualifications to be eligible. Nothing about deserving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...Vice_President

Pass all those requirements with the votes, and you deserve the title.
Its quite simple.


I think you are confusing "qualifications" with executive /
legislative branch powers once elected.

Nope, meet the guidelines set out by it and get elected (of course),
then you have earned and 'deserve' the title.

If you want to examine where the Constitution failed us, let's revisit
the 2000 Presidential election.

Nominee George W. Bush Al Gore

Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
Percentage 47.9% 48.4%

I see something terribly wrong with that, and thus Presidents may no
longer refer to the USA as a "Democracy" due to the numbers above.

We are most definitely a Republic, which is a step below true democracy.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:43:37 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

Oren wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:53:29 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Oren wrote:

Um, no. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, addresses
qualifications to be eligible. Nothing about deserving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...Vice_President

Pass all those requirements with the votes, and you deserve the title.
Its quite simple.


I think you are confusing "qualifications" with executive /
legislative branch powers once elected.

Nope, meet the guidelines set out by it and get elected (of course),
then you have earned and 'deserve' the title.

If you want to examine where the Constitution failed us, let's revisit
the 2000 Presidential election.

Nominee George W. Bush Al Gore

Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
Percentage 47.9% 48.4%
Electoral votes 271 266

The Constitution didn't fail anyone.

I see something terribly wrong with that, and thus Presidents may no
longer refer to the USA as a "Democracy" due to the numbers above.

The US is *NOT* a democracy. It was *never* intended to be. Quite the
opposite, in fact. Of course you "see" what you want to "see", as uneducated
as it is.

We are most definitely a Republic, which is a step below true democracy.

No, it's a *giant* step above. As has been said here many time, a democracy
is two lions and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:43:37 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Oren wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:53:29 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Oren wrote:

Um, no. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, addresses
qualifications to be eligible. Nothing about deserving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...Vice_President

Pass all those requirements with the votes, and you deserve the title.
Its quite simple.


I think you are confusing "qualifications" with executive /
legislative branch powers once elected.

Nope, meet the guidelines set out by it and get elected (of course),
then you have earned and 'deserve' the title.

If you want to examine where the Constitution failed us, let's revisit
the 2000 Presidential election.

rolls eyes

Nominee George W. Bush Al Gore

Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
Percentage 47.9% 48.4%

I see something terribly wrong with that, and thus Presidents may no
longer refer to the USA as a "Democracy" due to the numbers above.


Wrong. The Constitution works just fine. See the Supreme Court - Bush
vs Gore. Do you think that ruling is not the Law of The Land?

We are most definitely a Republic, which is a step below true democracy.

-1

Will you now tell me Texas is a State and not a Republic?

I think you should come out of from the "Liberal Light". It must be
burring your eyes.

In article ,
G. Morgan wrote:

Oren wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:53:29 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Oren wrote:

Um, no. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, addresses
qualifications to be eligible. Nothing about deserving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...Constitution#S
ection_1:_President_and_Vice_President

Pass all those requirements with the votes, and you deserve the title.
Its quite simple.


I think you are confusing "qualifications" with executive /
legislative branch powers once elected.

Nope, meet the guidelines set out by it and get elected (of course),
then you have earned and 'deserve' the title.

If you want to examine where the Constitution failed us, let's revisit
the 2000 Presidential election.
Nonsense, it went exactly as the Constitution said it was supposed
to, the winner of the ELECTORAL college. Never in the entire 200+ years
of the US's existence has the Presidential election ever been about the
popular vote.




Nominee George W. Bush Al Gore

Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
Percentage 47.9% 48.4%

Of the votes counted. The margin of error of voting sytems in the
country general runs around 3-5% (the California Supremes when they let
the Ahnold election go through had a fascinating discussion of the error
built into the various voting systems if you are interested enough to go
looking for it). You really can't say anyone won the popular vote.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

aemeijers was thinking very hard :
On 10/10/2011 8:09 AM, Mike Dobony wrote:
harry explained :
On Oct 10, 4:48 am, Mike Dobony wrote:
harry explained :





On Oct 9, 6:16 pm, Mike Dobony wrote:
After serious thinking Bob F wrote :
Mike Dobony wrote:
Look at other nations that have national health care. Canadians are
coming to the US for treatment. They have to wait for over a day in
the emergency room for treatment. In the UK it takes nearly two
years
to see a specialist to diagnose sleep apnea and then you are not
allowed to buy necessary medical equipment to deal witih it. Is that
what you want here?

More people leave the US for treatment than come here for
treatment. What
does that say?

In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for
medical care;
the number is expected to increase to 6 million by the end of this
year.1
On the flip side, only a little more than 400,000 nonresidents
visited the U.S. in 2008 for the latest medical care.In 2007, an
estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care; the
number is expected to increase to 6 million by the end of this
year.1 On the flip side, only a little more than 400,000
nonresidents visited the U.S. in 2008 for the latest medical care.
http://www.the-hospitalist.org/detai...edical_Tourism...

http://www.health-tourism.com/medica.../usa-research/
Are they going to countries with socialized medicine or just cheaper
health care? There is a push in Canada to go back to the old way as
socialized medicine is NOT working.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It works here in the UK.

It would have taken me well over two years there to get my CPAP for
sleep apnea in the UK and several more years to get the humidifier, if
at all. Here in the US it took me less than two months.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

You are in cloud cuckoo land. Dunno where you get this drivel from.
If you need such equipment it normally takes a couple of weeks.

It takes 18 months or more to get the sleep study. Then it takes several
more months to get the doctor's evaluation of the study. Then several
more months to get the CPAP, minus the humidifier, unless you have
extremly unusual other conditions. Source: sleep apnea NG from several
British posters. Nobody from the UK had any better experience. The
shortest time from the first call to set up the appointment to getting
the machine was somewhere in the two year range.



Not that I am advocating medical self-treatment, but here in the states, you
can just go out and buy the machine on your own. Used ones are often
available pretty cheap. Other than the out-of-pocket expense, is there a
medical downside why someone could not just buy one to try, and see if it
helps? The machines can't kill you, can they? Or are the machines a
controlled-access item in UK?



I would like to know where you can buy one on your own. Every supplier
I know of, whether in person or online, demands a doctor's
prescription. You can't even buy the mask without a prescription! Ebay
quit allowing these for sale because of the prescription requirement,
per law.

(disclaimer- I would of course not recommend anyone do any invasive
procedures or controlled medication regimens on their own. )

JimT laid this down on his screen :
On 10/10/2011 7:14 AM, Mike Dobony wrote:
HeyBub formulated the question :
Mike Dobony wrote:

It works here in the UK.

It would have taken me well over two years there to get my CPAP for
sleep apnea in the UK and several more years to get the humidifier, if
at all. Here in the US it took me less than two months.

Humph! You could get what you need in less than TWO DAYS by buying it from
any of a dozen suppliers on the net.

I'd like to know where you can get one on the net without a prescription.
Even getting rid of the wait for the machine may eliminate some of the
wait, but one cannot get the sleep study off the net.

Question, can one try out the masks to see which one fits properly on the
net before wasting one's money on ones that don't work? Finding the right
mask is a nightmare. What about service? Will they come in and teach you
how to use it when you buy online? What about repairs, do they supply a
loaner before giving up your broken machine when you buy it on the net?



The real question is: Do you use it?

YES! Without it I am extremely fatigued all day. Imagine trying to
sleep while suffocating! That is what sleep apnea does, it suffocates
you as you sleep. The natural reaction is to come out of a sleep state
to restore breathing. It is common for sleep apnea victims to die of a
heart attack as this condition severely stresses the heart. Think
Reggie White. Depending on the severity (frequency and length), it can
totallyeliminate REM sleep and oxygen levels can go into extreme danger
states. Normally one has a sleep study to confirm the condition and
severity, then another one to find the proper settings. I know of one
person who had it so severe that after an hour they woke him up and
immediately gave him a CPAP to go home with. His O2 levels went to
below 50%. This is a life-threatening condition, but in the UK they
don't care and it is extremely unusual to get a machine in less than
two years, due to government rationing of specialized health care.

HeyBub was thinking very hard :
Mike Dobony wrote:
HeyBub formulated the question :
Mike Dobony wrote:

It works here in the UK.

It would have taken me well over two years there to get my CPAP for
sleep apnea in the UK and several more years to get the humidifier,
if at all. Here in the US it took me less than two months.

Humph! You could get what you need in less than TWO DAYS by buying
it from any of a dozen suppliers on the net.

I'd like to know where you can get one on the net without a
prescription. Even getting rid of the wait for the machine may
eliminate some of the wait, but one cannot get the sleep study off the
net.

Prescription wasn't the issue - time to obtain was the discussion.

Sleep apnea is a life threatening conditon. Here in the US one can go
from initial referal to obtaining the machine in less than two months
if the patient is open with appointments. In the UK it takes over two
years to get the machine and they will NOT allow you to get vital
accessories without fighting for it. I don't know of anybody from the
UK on the sleep apnea NG that got it in less time. They recommend
coming to the US for it.


Goggle "CPAP" and the first return yields a company that (seemingly) will
sell you anything withut a prescription.
http://www.cpap.com/


I dare you to try to order one there without a prescription.


Question, can one try out the masks to see which one fits properly on
the net before wasting one's money on ones that don't work? Finding
the right mask is a nightmare. What about service? Will they come in
and teach you how to use it when you buy online? What about repairs,
do they supply a loaner before giving up your broken machine when you
buy it on the net?

I don't know. Of the hundreds of companies offering such accommodations, I'm
sure you could find at least one that would entertain difficult customers.

This is NOT difficult customers. It is NORMAL customers. This is a life
threatening condition. There is not one mask that covers a multitude of
faces. I don't know of anyone who went through less than 3 masks to
find one that fits well. Being a life threatening condition, all
physical location medical suppliers give loaners to customers when they
need their unit repaired. My machine goes out today I need a
replacement TODAY, not in three days.

Wow, that sounds miserable.
1) Hope they provided some use training for the "one hour
and sent home" guy.
2) Rationing? What? Do you think Obamacare will result in
rationing, in the USA?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Mike Dobony" wrote in message
...

Question, can one try out the masks to see which one fits
properly on the
net before wasting one's money on ones that don't work?
Finding the right
mask is a nightmare. What about service? Will they come
in and teach you
how to use it when you buy online? What about repairs, do
they supply a
loaner before giving up your broken machine when you buy
it on the net?



The real question is: Do you use it?

YES! Without it I am extremely fatigued all day. Imagine
trying to
sleep while suffocating! That is what sleep apnea does, it
suffocates
you as you sleep. The natural reaction is to come out of a
sleep state
to restore breathing. It is common for sleep apnea victims
to die of a
heart attack as this condition severely stresses the heart.
Think
Reggie White. Depending on the severity (frequency and
length), it can
totallyeliminate REM sleep and oxygen levels can go into
extreme danger
states. Normally one has a sleep study to confirm the
condition and
severity, then another one to find the proper settings. I
know of one
person who had it so severe that after an hour they woke him
up and
immediately gave him a CPAP to go home with. His O2 levels
went to
below 50%. This is a life-threatening condition, but in the
UK they
don't care and it is extremely unusual to get a machine in
less than
two years, due to government rationing of specialized health
care.

Mike Dobony wrote:

This is NOT difficult customers. It is NORMAL customers. This is a
life threatening condition. There is not one mask that covers a
multitude of faces. I don't know of anyone who went through less than
3 masks to find one that fits well. Being a life threatening
condition, all physical location medical suppliers give loaners to
customers when they need their unit repaired. My machine goes out
today I need a replacement TODAY, not in three days.

This is the HOME REPAIR newsgroup. Home repair is often about improvising.

Do you not have a roll of duct tape?

Geeze, why do I have to think of everything.

"JimT" wrote in message
net...
On 10/8/2011 9:52 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:19:38 -0500, wrote:

You're an idiot. Obama is no more a Muslim than you are.

Clear foul, Jim. Well, at least you didn't say "your an idiot." Wondering
whether a guy whose middle name is Hussein is a Muslim was bound to happen.
It's nowhere near as ludicrous as the belief that he's a non-citizen, it's
just a natural conclusion to reach after spending trillions to end the rule
of another Hussein named Saddam.

The real question is whether Romney's Mormon beliefs are going to sink the
Republican hopes of recapturing the presidency. We KNOW without a doubt
Mitt's a Mormon. What that means, in practical terms, is that a whole lot
of evangelicals, a large chunk of the conservative block, may not vote at
all if Romney gets the nod. My two evangelic friends don't just dislike
Mormons, they despise them. As much if not more than Muslims. Christie
throwing his support to Romney makes him look more and more like the
anointed one for 2012. Perry's caught major flack over in-state tuition and
Gardasil

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...shannen-coffin

says: Perry's executive order was a significant break with his base of
social conservatives, who opposed the forced immunization of pre-teen girls
not based on some general anti-vaccine paranoia, but because this particular
kind of forced vaccination interfered with parental rights in a sensitive
area of sexual morals . . . Bachmann's charge that Perry was playing
favorites with his former chief of staff's client, Merck, reinforces charges
that he ran a "pay to play" government. Whether those charges or true or
not, I have no idea, but as a matter of appearances, it is a charge that
would damage Perry greatly if it were to stick.

I think it's possible that his campaign may never recover with die-hard
conservatives over this and giving tuition breaks to the children of illegal
aliens. Cain's 9-9-9 plan is doomed once people realize how much of a break
it gives corporations and how regressive it will be in the long run. The
fact that it's the dreaded 666 in the era of a new apocalyptic frenzy won't
help either. (-: We're already stuck with one president that had no real
government experience to speak of. Electing another seems unlikely. But it
has been a very, very entertaining race to the nomination, so who knows what
will happen. Romney's looking more and more like the only sane candidate if
you look beyond his flip-flops on the issues, most notably universal health
care and just about every other issue under the sun (hyperbole alert).

What church does he attend? When was his last public appearance in a
church? You know, one that requires Secret Service?

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.

Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.

Know any Mormon you can direct that comment towards, except behind a
keyboard?

I know a few Mormon gals. They refuse to have sex because they follow
a moral conscience.

No they don't want to "****", because of their belief.

You think ALL Mormons are molesters of children? That is completely
absurd.

Broaden your horizons.

Go **** yourself and stick your keyboard up your ass.

Very disappointing. Disagreeing with someone isn't a license to be
foul-mouthed especially if they haven't dissed you first.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440.../#.TpESq94g_UA

Well, the mainstream Mormons have moved away from those practices. Polygamy
still lingers on in the weirder sects like the FLDS. It's no more fair to
accuse all of them of the acts of a small few as it is to condemn all
Christians because of yo-yos like Ted Haggard and
a.. 1.1 Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s-40s
b.. 1.2 Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s-1980s
c.. 1.3 Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
d.. 1.4 Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
e.. 1.5 Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, and Jim & Tammy Bakker, 1986 and
1991
f.. 1.6 Peter Popoff, 1987
g.. 1.7 Morris Cerullo, 1990s
h.. 1.8 Mike Warnke, 1991
i.. 1.9 Robert Tilton, 1991
j.. 1.10 W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
k.. 1.11 Bob Moorehead, 1998
l.. 1.12 Roy Clements, 1999
m.. 1.13 John Paulk, 2000
n.. 1.14 Paul Crouch, 2004
o.. 1.15 Douglas Goodman, 2004
p.. 1.16 Kent Hovind, 2006
q.. 1.17 Ted Haggard, 2006
r.. 1.18 Paul Barnes, 2006
s.. 1.19 Lonnie Latham, 2006
t.. 1.20 Gilbert Deya, 2006
u.. 1.21 Richard Roberts, 2007
v.. 1.22 Earl Paulk, 2007
w.. 1.23 Coy Privette, 2007
x.. 1.24 Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
y.. 1.25 Michael Reid, 2008
z.. 1.26 Joe Barron, 2008
aa.. 1.27 Todd Bentley, 2008
ab.. 1.28 Ergun Caner, 2010
ac.. 1.29 George Alan Rekers, 2010
ad.. 1.30 Eddie L. Long, 2010
ae.. 1.31 Marcus Lamb, 2010
af.. 1.32 Vaughn Reeves, 2010
ag.. 1.33 Stephen Green, 2011
ah.. 1.34 Albert Odulele, 2011
--
Bobby G.

On 10/14/2011 3:11 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
net...
On 10/8/2011 9:52 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:19:38 -0500, wrote:

You're an idiot. Obama is no more a Muslim than you are.
Clear foul,

snip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

Stormin Mormon explained on 10/14/2011 :
Wow, that sounds miserable.
1) Hope they provided some use training for the "one hour
and sent home" guy.

One, Don't top post.

Two, one hour into the sleep study they shut it down and got him set up
with the CPAP. That means they spent the rest of the night finding his
settings for the machine they sent home with him in the morning. Yes,
they trained him on the spot in the morning.

2) Rationing? What? Do you think Obamacare will result in
rationing, in the USA?


--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Mike Dobony" wrote in message
...

Question, can one try out the masks to see which one fits
properly on the
net before wasting one's money on ones that don't work?
Finding the right
mask is a nightmare. What about service? Will they come
in and teach you
how to use it when you buy online? What about repairs, do
they supply a
loaner before giving up your broken machine when you buy
it on the net?



The real question is: Do you use it?

YES! Without it I am extremely fatigued all day. Imagine
trying to
sleep while suffocating! That is what sleep apnea does, it
suffocates
you as you sleep. The natural reaction is to come out of a
sleep state
to restore breathing. It is common for sleep apnea victims
to die of a
heart attack as this condition severely stresses the heart.
Think
Reggie White. Depending on the severity (frequency and
length), it can
totallyeliminate REM sleep and oxygen levels can go into
extreme danger
states. Normally one has a sleep study to confirm the
condition and
severity, then another one to find the proper settings. I
know of one
person who had it so severe that after an hour they woke him
up and
immediately gave him a CPAP to go home with. His O2 levels
went to
below 50%. This is a life-threatening condition, but in the
UK they
don't care and it is extremely unusual to get a machine in
less than
two years, due to government rationing of specialized health
care.

Percival P. Cassidy laid this down on his screen :
On 10/09/11 01:16 pm, Mike Dobony wrote:

Look at other nations that have national health care. Canadians are
coming to the US for treatment. They have to wait for over a day in
the emergency room for treatment. In the UK it takes nearly two years
to see a specialist to diagnose sleep apnea and then you are not
allowed to buy necessary medical equipment to deal witih it. Is that
what you want here?

More people leave the US for treatment than come here for treatment.
What does that say?

In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical
care; the number is expected to increase to 6 million by the end of
this year.1 On the flip side, only a little more than 400,000
nonresidents visited the U.S. in 2008 for the latest medical care.In
2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care;
the number is expected to increase to 6 million by the end of this
year.1 On the flip side, only a little more than 400,000 nonresidents
visited the U.S. in 2008 for the latest medical care.

http://www.the-hospitalist.org/detai...l_Tourism.html


http://www.health-tourism.com/medica.../usa-research/

Are they going to countries with socialized medicine or just cheaper
health care? There is a push in Canada to go back to the old way as
socialized medicine is NOT working.

Certainly some are going to Canada, but I saw a TV program about some who are
going to Thailand. In both cases, they are paying local "market price" for
their medical procedures.

A US TV program I watched a few days ago (but it might have been recorded a
week or two earlier) had a piece about a physician in Philadelphia who
started investigating the ER statistics and found that the average cost of a
visit was $21,000; he said, "I didn't realize health care was so expensive."
He instituted a program of nurses visiting the sick in their homes and
greatly reduced the number of ER visits required; one patient went from 32 ER
visits in a 6-month period to only two ER visits in the next 6-month period.
This ties in with the frequent assertion that the USA does a very poor job of
preventive health care. And that physician agreed that hospitals are not
going to want his methods to become widespread, as this would reduce their
income.

Even if (as is often asserted) anyone can go to the ER for free, that is a
big cost to the system, even assuming that the actual cost to the hospital is
only 50% of the figure cited above. But is it even true that anyone can go
the the ER and get treated free of charge? Yes, they can get treated without
payment on the spot, but the bills come later: it happened with our son in
August, when -- away from home and on a weekend -- he had to go to the ER
when he had not yet received his new insurance card and so got recorded as
being responsible for his own costs; there was the facility's bill, the
physician's bill, the bills for the X-ray and the blood test. If he hadn't
been able to forward those bills to the insurance company, would those bills
simply have been written off? I don't think so.


Think again. Many times the hospital will write down such bills. I know
several people who had their bills written down. They are not on
welfare and are workign for minimum wage or barely above minimum. I do
a lot of work with these people and so does my wife in the ministries
we aer associated with.

Perce

On 10/9/2011 2:07 PM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/09/11 01:16 pm, Mike Dobony wrote:

Look at other nations that have national health care. Canadians are
coming to the US for treatment. They have to wait for over a day in
the emergency room for treatment. In the UK it takes nearly two years
to see a specialist to diagnose sleep apnea and then you are not
allowed to buy necessary medical equipment to deal witih it. Is that
what you want here?

More people leave the US for treatment than come here for treatment.
What does that say?

In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical
care; the number is expected to increase to 6 million by the end of
this year.1 On the flip side, only a little more than 400,000
nonresidents visited the U.S. in 2008 for the latest medical care.In
2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care;
the number is expected to increase to 6 million by the end of this
year.1 On the flip side, only a little more than 400,000 nonresidents
visited the U.S. in 2008 for the latest medical care.

http://www.the-hospitalist.org/detai...l_Tourism.html



http://www.health-tourism.com/medica.../usa-research/

Are they going to countries with socialized medicine or just cheaper
health care? There is a push in Canada to go back to the old way as
socialized medicine is NOT working.

Certainly some are going to Canada, but I saw a TV program about some
who are going to Thailand. In both cases, they are paying local
"market price" for their medical procedures.

A US TV program I watched a few days ago (but it might have been
recorded a week or two earlier) had a piece about a physician in
Philadelphia who started investigating the ER statistics and found
that the average cost of a visit was $21,000; he said,

BS. I'm sure that includes much more than the ER charge.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:LPqdnTaLqft5GAzTnZ2dnUVZ_o-

stuff snipped

My only beef with Mormons, and it's a small one, is that they think
they're
Jewish and they want all Jews to become Mormons.

I have much bigger ones. They come around every year and try to convert us.
They use the same strategy year in and out, and it fails, yet they keep
trying. I think people who want to "convert" you to something, even in
their private lives, are suspect and perhaps not the people to put in a
position of power over others.

Their steadfast refusal to realize we won't be converting indicates pretty
one-dimensional and dull thinking at a time when we need innovation and lots
of it. Then there's the whole magic underwear thing

along with the magic eyeglasses to read the Fabulous Book of Mormon that
doesn't seem to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_an...ter_Day_Saints)

(In fairness, I should mention that the Jews were the first with the magic
eyeglasses.) And that the Indians are the lost tribe of Israel yet they
tried to blame them for the Mountain Meadow Massac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

Intending to give the appearance of Native American aggression, their plan
was to arm some Southern Paiute Native Americans and persuade them to join
with a larger party of militiamen-disguised as Native Americans-in an attack
.. . intending to leave no witnesses of complicity by Mormons (members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church) in the
attacks, and to prevent reprisals that would further complicate the Utah
War, the perpetrators killed all the adults and older children (totaling
about 120 men, women, and children). Seventeen children, all younger than
seven, were spared..

That sort of flip-flopping to fit the current winds seems built into the
religion. One day, their the Mormon's long lost brothers from Israel, the
next day, patsies for a massacre of men, women and children. With friends
like that . . .

Add to that the fact they adjust their "word from God" to suit legal and
social pressures brought to bear against them like ending polygamy and
racism. Other than that, I guess I'm troubled about where Joseph Smith
stands in relation to the Christian concepts of God and Christ. That's the
part that really torques up my two evangelicals. Some seem to feel
inserting him in the "mix" diminishes the other two.

Their sects do tend to become VERY cult-like:
Ervil LeBaron was born February 22, 1925 and died August 16, 1981 (aged 56)
Had at least 13 wives and was the founder of the Church of the Lamb of God.
He followed the practice of blood atonement and used that religious
doctrine to induce his followers to kill many of his opponents, including
Rulon C. Allred. In 1980, He was sentenced to prison for orchestrating the
murder of an opponent, and died in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement

In Mormonism, blood atonement is a controversial doctrine that teaches
that murder is so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus,
in order to atone for these sins, the perpetrators must have their blood
shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. The concept was originally
taught by Brigham Young, though it appears to be an expansion on the
previous teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. Within Mormon fundamentalism, the
concept of blood atonement is still recognized.

While fundamentalists represent less than one percent of Mormons worldwide,
they kick up enough mud to slime a lot of innocent people of the Mormon
faith.

So, I am more troubled than you. I agree that converting dead Jews and
other deceased historical figures has little bearing on the future, but
concepts like blood atonement give me pause. Mitt doesn't look like he
could murder anyone over anything, but you never know the kind of people
he'll drag into the Whitehouse with him. Bush might have been a much
different and less-maligned President had he not fallen under the spell of t
he Prince of Darkness and his minions, many of whom, like Rummy, got
filleted.

Oh. I really like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and actually own a copy of the
Book (left here by the previous Mormon owners).

--

Bobby G.

+

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:11:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.

Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.

Robert,

This is how the progressive liberals act when you disagree with their
agenda. Must be something in the water or their DNA.

They have this "superior intelligence" and no one can think for
themselves, because _they_ know what is best for you.

It is funny when they pop a cork...

On 10/15/2011 3:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:11:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.
Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.
Robert,

This is how the progressive liberals act when you disagree with their
agenda. Must be something in the water or their DNA.

They have this "superior intelligence" and no one can think for
themselves, because _they_ know what is best for you.

It is funny when they pop a cork...

What's funny is how you've become obsessed by this.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:23:33 -0500, JimT wrote:

On 10/15/2011 3:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:11:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.
Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.
Robert,

This is how the progressive liberals act when you disagree with their
agenda. Must be something in the water or their DNA.

They have this "superior intelligence" and no one can think for
themselves, because _they_ know what is best for you.

It is funny when they pop a cork...

What's funny is how you've become obsessed by this.

Don't you really mean "**** you"?! Just so you realize, not all child
molesters are Mormon. Not all Mormons are child molesters. Some are
British.

Even funnier is that you have now become my Usenet therapist.

You get the last word.

On 10/15/2011 5:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:23:33 -0500, wrote:

On 10/15/2011 3:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:11:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.
Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.
Robert,

This is how the progressive liberals act when you disagree with their
agenda. Must be something in the water or their DNA.

They have this "superior intelligence" and no one can think for
themselves, because _they_ know what is best for you.

It is funny when they pop a cork...
What's funny is how you've become obsessed by this.
snip

Even funnier is that you have now become my Usenet therapist.

At least you admit you need help. Try he alt.usenet.kook. I'm sure
you'll have lots to talk about.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:11:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.

Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.

Robert,

This is how the progressive liberals act when you disagree with their
agenda. Must be something in the water or their DNA.

Respectfully disagree, Oren. Sadly, it's not just restricted to liberals.
If you recall, KRW recently called Higgs Boson a hag and Trader recently
called Jim T. a "fu&wit." Are you saying that *they* are progressive
liberals? (-: I think they might disagree. (The only way that could make
sense is if they are really liberal fifth columnists, behaving badly to
cause people to move away from their alleged causes. Jim T. could be a
closet conservative, acting badly as a liberal to throw muck on the left.
On the internet, it's hard to know who really represents what - hey, don't
laugh - it's happened many times in the past.) The bottom line is that
intelligent people from both sides have to clamp down on bad behavior within
their own groups. Until that happens, it's just going to get worse.

To damn all liberals based on some bad behavior by some would be the same as
saying all prison guards are sadists or criminals because of the actions of
a few:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep...uards-20110930

There are people on both sides of the aisle that can't argue without biting
ears or hitting below the belt. True enlightenment comes from realizing
that both sides have their share of miscreants and either trying to get them
to change their ways or ignoring them. Calling out the bad behavior of one
side while ignoring it from the other side isn't really taking any kind of
stand against bad behavior. It's just more partisan BS along the lines of
"our side is angelic, their side is demonic." I know you're smart enough to
realize that although it's clear there are some who don't get it and never
will.

I hope Jim T. will change his ways because whether he knows it or not, he
damages his own position and that of all who agree with him when he resorts
to insults and vulgarity. In this case, declaring all Mormons to be baby
rapers is just not true. If he had said "fundamentalist" Mormons he might
have been closer to the mark, but still far off it because some do lead
regular sorts of lives. IIRC, it's been mostly FLDS members who take
multiple child brides and get charged with molestation and statutory rape.

On rare occasions (especially when you've been on the receiving end of
insults for some time) a little vulgarity is called for, just to make a
point, but most often it's just a sign of either immaturity or not having
any facts they can point to. That's sad, because Jim T. and I have often
been in agreement on issues. But that won't stop me from calling them the
way I see them and noting that he undermines his own cause by taking the low
road.

They have this "superior intelligence" and no one can think for
themselves, because _they_ know what is best for you.

Are you sure that knife doesn't cut both ways? Don't you think that
hard-core conservatives don't believe that THEY know what's best for
everyone? If I had the time I'd google up a dozen or so examples, but I
don't think I have to. I know that you know that it's true. There are
people in this world who have nothing but contempt for those who disagree
with them and express it in the most vulgar terms. They must think that
somehow they're helping their cause which is sad. Rude people on both sides
don't realize that it's not people that they agree with that they have to
convince of their ideas, but the independents. At least if they want to win
elections.

It is funny when they pop a cork...

No, that's sad, too. There are just some people on either side that can't
discuss a point like reasonable human beings. I've never had a problem with
you, Oren, but you surely know that at least some conservatives here just
can't hold their water. The same is obviously true for some liberals. I
imagine that you wince when people who believe as you do explode or curse
people out, just as I did when Jim T. lost his cool. Unfortunately, some
people egg them on. As you can see, I don't care what side someone's on when
they can't act like gentlemen - I'll point it out or just plonk them.
Sometimes, I'll reel out enough rope so that they can hang themselves. Some
even tie the hangman's knot for me. (-:

The problem with modern America is that we've lost the ability to come
together and compromise. Each side, although never getting a huge majority
in an election, takes a 5% or 10% edge and declares they've been given a
mandate to do what they please. Until that attitude changes, we're going to
be up to our necks in never-ending trouble.

I was an Obama supporter until he decided that to continue both wars and ram
universal health care down the throats of millions of people was his
*mandate.* National health care will unfortunately come like every almost
every other bill Congress manages to pass nowadays: when there's no other
choice.

It will take some huge national health disaster like a plague that
completely swamps our current system to change things. What we'll see in
the next ten years won't be pretty. If he had started slow, like making the
Medicare eligibility age younger each year for people who have paid payroll
taxes for most of their lives, he might have had a chance. Instead, he
pushed for too much change too quickly and ended up with a huge monstrosity
of a bill that will be hacked to death, piece by piece. It's the older
people that have lost their jobs that need healthcare help the most and they
are getting short-changed. Forcing people to buy insurance (and giving it
away free to non-workers) just isn't going to go down very easily in
America, even if the Supreme Court ends up declaring it legal.

--
Bobby G.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:04:01 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:11:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.

Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.

Robert,

This is how the progressive liberals act when you disagree with their
agenda. Must be something in the water or their DNA.

Respectfully disagree, Oren. Sadly, it's not just restricted to liberals.
If you recall, KRW recently called Higgs Boson a hag

Higgs Moron *IS* an old hag.

and Trader recently called Jim T. a "fu&wit."


Well...

diarrhea snipped

On 10/16/2011 10:04 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:11:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

And yes, LDS is a wacko cult full of child molesters. So **** you.
Low blow, Jim. I wish you had taken the high road and kept this debate
above board. Oren's view may have disturbed you, but he neither bit your
ear, hit below the belt or personally attacked you in any way.
Robert,

This is how the progressive liberals act when you disagree with their
agenda. Must be something in the water or their DNA.
Respectfully disagree, Oren. Sadly, it's not just restricted to liberals.
If you recall, KRW recently called Higgs Boson a hag and Trader recently
called Jim T. a "fu&wit." Are you saying that *they* are progressive
liberals? (-: I think they might disagree. (The only way that could make
sense is if they are really liberal fifth columnists, behaving badly to
cause people to move away from their alleged causes. Jim T. could be a
closet conservative, acting badly as a liberal to throw muck on the left.
On the internet, it's hard to know who really represents what - hey, don't
laugh - it's happened many times in the past.) The bottom line is that
intelligent people from both sides have to clamp down on bad behavior within
their own groups. Until that happens, it's just going to get worse.

To damn all liberals based on some bad behavior by some would be the same as
saying all prison guards are sadists or criminals because of the actions of
a few:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep...uards-20110930

There are people on both sides of the aisle that can't argue without biting
ears or hitting below the belt. True enlightenment comes from realizing
that both sides have their share of miscreants and either trying to get them
to change their ways or ignoring them. Calling out the bad behavior of one
side while ignoring it from the other side isn't really taking any kind of
stand against bad behavior. It's just more partisan BS along the lines of
"our side is angelic, their side is demonic." I know you're smart enough to
realize that although it's clear there are some who don't get it and never
will.

I hope Jim T. will change his ways because whether he knows it or not, he
damages his own position and that of all who agree with him when he resorts
to insults and vulgarity. In this case, declaring all Mormons to be baby
rapers is just not true. If he had said "fundamentalist" Mormons he might
have been closer to the mark, but still far off it because some do lead
regular sorts of lives. IIRC, it's been mostly FLDS members who take
multiple child brides and get charged with molestation and statutory rape.

On rare occasions (especially when you've been on the receiving end of
insults for some time) a little vulgarity is called for, just to make a
point, but most often it's just a sign of either immaturity or not having
any facts they can point to. That's sad, because Jim T. and I have often
been in agreement on issues. But that won't stop me from calling them the
way I see them and noting that he undermines his own cause by taking the low
road.

They have this "superior intelligence" and no one can think for
themselves, because _they_ know what is best for you.
Are you sure that knife doesn't cut both ways? Don't you think that
hard-core conservatives don't believe that THEY know what's best for
everyone? If I had the time I'd google up a dozen or so examples, but I
don't think I have to. I know that you know that it's true. There are
people in this world who have nothing but contempt for those who disagree
with them and express it in the most vulgar terms. They must think that
somehow they're helping their cause which is sad. Rude people on both sides
don't realize that it's not people that they agree with that they have to
convince of their ideas, but the independents. At least if they want to win
elections.

It is funny when they pop a cork...
No, that's sad, too. There are just some people on either side that can't
discuss a point like reasonable human beings. I've never had a problem with
you, Oren, but you surely know that at least some conservatives here just
can't hold their water. The same is obviously true for some liberals. I
imagine that you wince when people who believe as you do explode or curse
people out, just as I did when Jim T. lost his cool.

Fail.

Unfortunately, some
people egg them on. As you can see, I don't care what side someone's on when
they can't act like gentlemen - I'll point it out or just plonk them.
Sometimes, I'll reel out enough rope so that they can hang themselves. Some
even tie the hangman's knot for me. (-:

The problem with modern America is that we've lost the ability to come
together and compromise. Each side, although never getting a huge majority
in an election, takes a 5% or 10% edge and declares they've been given a
mandate to do what they please. Until that attitude changes, we're going to
be up to our necks in never-ending trouble.

I was an Obama supporter until he decided that to continue both wars and ram
universal health care down the throats of millions of people was his
*mandate.* National health care will unfortunately come like every almost
every other bill Congress manages to pass nowadays: when there's no other
choice.

It will take some huge national health disaster like a plague that
completely swamps our current system to change things. What we'll see in
the next ten years won't be pretty. If he had started slow, like making the
Medicare eligibility age younger each year for people who have paid payroll
taxes for most of their lives, he might have had a chance. Instead, he
pushed for too much change too quickly and ended up with a huge monstrosity
of a bill that will be hacked to death, piece by piece. It's the older
people that have lost their jobs that need healthcare help the most and they
are getting short-changed. Forcing people to buy insurance (and giving it
away free to non-workers) just isn't going to go down very easily in
America, even if the Supreme Court ends up declaring it legal.

--
Bobby G.


yawn

From what I've heard about Romney, he's also a far left
liberal.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..