On Mar 22, 6:31*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...

Following in the footsteps of their losses in 2006 and 2008, the
republican party has again suffered a crushing defeat. Despite doing
everything possible to stop Obama and the Dems from passing health care
reform, the republicans have failed again. Health care reform has passed.
So chalk up another loss to the republican party...and the teabaggers. All
their efforts could not stop the duly elected majority from doing what
they said they would do if elected. For those who were asking what has
Obama accomplished in his time in office you now have your answer. So next
we get to see how bad the republican's predictions of the end of the world
if the bill passes comes to reality. My prediction is things improve.

Hawke

What about the last time the public got to vote? *You remember when one of
the most liberal states got to vote on someone to replace the extremely
libtarded Ed, Ted, just be glad he's dead, Kennedy? *The last time the
public got to vote, a Republican won and a Democrat lost. *Maybe an
indication of things to come in November.

RogerN

And maybe not.

Today's passing of the health bill tells you what November will be.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 6:31 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...

Following in the footsteps of their losses in 2006 and 2008, the
republican party has again suffered a crushing defeat. Despite doing
everything possible to stop Obama and the Dems from passing health care
reform, the republicans have failed again. Health care reform has
passed.
So chalk up another loss to the republican party...and the teabaggers.
All
their efforts could not stop the duly elected majority from doing what
they said they would do if elected. For those who were asking what has
Obama accomplished in his time in office you now have your answer. So
next
we get to see how bad the republican's predictions of the end of the
world
if the bill passes comes to reality. My prediction is things improve.

Hawke

What about the last time the public got to vote? You remember when one of
the most liberal states got to vote on someone to replace the extremely
libtarded Ed, Ted, just be glad he's dead, Kennedy? The last time the
public got to vote, a Republican won and a Democrat lost. Maybe an
indication of things to come in November.

RogerN
/
/And maybe not.
/
/Today's passing of the health bill tells you what November will be.
/
/TMT

Is Obama going to bribe voters too? Can I get an airport in my yard?

RogerN

On 3/24/2010 3:56 AM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 6:31 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...

Following in the footsteps of their losses in 2006 and 2008, the
republican party has again suffered a crushing defeat. Despite doing
everything possible to stop Obama and the Dems from passing health care
reform, the republicans have failed again. Health care reform has
passed.
So chalk up another loss to the republican party...and the teabaggers.
All
their efforts could not stop the duly elected majority from doing what
they said they would do if elected. For those who were asking what has
Obama accomplished in his time in office you now have your answer. So
next
we get to see how bad the republican's predictions of the end of the
world
if the bill passes comes to reality. My prediction is things improve.

Hawke

What about the last time the public got to vote? You remember when one of
the most liberal states got to vote on someone to replace the extremely
libtarded Ed, Ted, just be glad he's dead, Kennedy? The last time the
public got to vote, a Republican won and a Democrat lost. Maybe an
indication of things to come in November.

RogerN
/
/And maybe not.
/
/Today's passing of the health bill tells you what November will be.
/
/TMT

Is Obama going to bribe voters too? Can I get an airport in my yard?

RogerN

I don't know what you're complaining about. I can just imagine what
you'd be like if you were a Democratic congressman. You'd be doing the
same thing the rest of them did when they realized the president
couldn't pass health care without them. You'd make him give you whatever
you wanted for your vote. In your case it would be about depriving women
of their reproductive rights. I'm sure you'd drive a hard bargain to get
what you wanted too. But since it's someone else and not you in that
position you cry about how bad it is. You would do the same thing if you
were in their place. You're just playing holier than thou.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 3:56 AM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 6:31 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...

snip
/
/And maybe not.
/
/Today's passing of the health bill tells you what November will be.
/
/TMT

Is Obama going to bribe voters too? Can I get an airport in my yard?

RogerN

I don't know what you're complaining about. I can just imagine what you'd
be like if you were a Democratic congressman. You'd be doing the same
thing the rest of them did when they realized the president couldn't pass
health care without them. You'd make him give you whatever you wanted for
your vote. In your case it would be about depriving women of their
reproductive rights. I'm sure you'd drive a hard bargain to get what you
wanted too. But since it's someone else and not you in that position you
cry about how bad it is. You would do the same thing if you were in their
place. You're just playing holier than thou.

Hawke

Why do women need more reproductive rights than men? Also, I'm not talking
about taking away their rights, just taking away the taxpayer having to pay
for their right to be careless sexually. With the complexity of the
Healthcare bill, why the hurry to get it passed, why not be more concerned
to get it right than get it passes? All we need are more bad laws we can't
change. Like if someone is stealing your stuff on your property, they can
sue you if they get hurt in the process, I don't understand how any law like
that can stand but it does.

RogerN

On 3/24/2010 5:41 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 3:56 AM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 6:31 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...

snip
/
/And maybe not.
/
/Today's passing of the health bill tells you what November will be.
/
/TMT

Is Obama going to bribe voters too? Can I get an airport in my yard?

RogerN

I don't know what you're complaining about. I can just imagine what you'd
be like if you were a Democratic congressman. You'd be doing the same
thing the rest of them did when they realized the president couldn't pass
health care without them. You'd make him give you whatever you wanted for
your vote. In your case it would be about depriving women of their
reproductive rights. I'm sure you'd drive a hard bargain to get what you
wanted too. But since it's someone else and not you in that position you
cry about how bad it is. You would do the same thing if you were in their
place. You're just playing holier than thou.

Hawke

Why do women need more reproductive rights than men?

Because they have more to lose when reproduction occurs than men do. All
a man may contribute to producing is a teaspoon of semen while women
have to carry a baby inside them for 9 months, and that's a lot of
hassle. I think that alone gives them a bigger stake in the game.


Also, I'm not talking
about taking away their rights, just taking away the taxpayer having to pay
for their right to be careless sexually.

You're assuming that anyone wanting an abortion was sexually careless.
That may not be the case. Also, women have reproductive rights but if
they are too poor to exercise them then they don't really have the
right. Meaning only people with money have the right. The government has
backstopped women so they all get the right.


With the complexity of the
Healthcare bill, why the hurry to get it passed, why not be more concerned
to get it right than get it passes?

It took a year to pass the bill, which is a long time. Especially when
you consider we already debated the issue in 1993. The choice has been
there for decades. It was just a matter of the political strength to
pass it. Democrats finally had the power to do it and that is why they
pushed it through. Besides, saying what's the hurry was just a phony
argument made by the republicans to try to stop it. It was not done in a
hurry.


All we need are more bad laws we can't
change.

Bad laws are something we don't want to have, for sure. But despite what
you may have heard all laws can be changed including this one. It will
be changed too but the main thing is the power of the insurance
companies has been blunted and it may finally come to being controlled.
That is a big improvement.

Like if someone is stealing your stuff on your property, they can
sue you if they get hurt in the process, I don't understand how any law like
that can stand but it does.


You don't understand the law. There is no penal code in those cases
that's broken. It's a civil matter where one citizen sues another and
it's called a tort. Only if the thief can make a compelling case that
something the property owner did caused damage to him can he win money.
Stealing is a public wrong, a crime. If a man is in the process of
committing a crime and he gets injured he may, and that is not certain.
He may be able to win a lawsuit against the property owner. But he must
prove something the property owner did caused his harm. That's not easy
to do. Most people on a jury don't like to reward thieves any more than
you do but on rare occasions they will. It's the difference between a
public wrong and a private one.

Hawke

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:52:24 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 3/24/2010 5:41 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 3:56 AM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 6:31 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...

snip
/
/And maybe not.
/
/Today's passing of the health bill tells you what November will be.
/
/TMT

Is Obama going to bribe voters too? Can I get an airport in my yard?

RogerN

I don't know what you're complaining about. I can just imagine what you'd
be like if you were a Democratic congressman. You'd be doing the same
thing the rest of them did when they realized the president couldn't pass
health care without them. You'd make him give you whatever you wanted for
your vote. In your case it would be about depriving women of their
reproductive rights. I'm sure you'd drive a hard bargain to get what you
wanted too. But since it's someone else and not you in that position you
cry about how bad it is. You would do the same thing if you were in their
place. You're just playing holier than thou.

Hawke

Why do women need more reproductive rights than men?

Because they have more to lose when reproduction occurs than men do. All
a man may contribute to producing is a teaspoon of semen while women
have to carry a baby inside them for 9 months, and that's a lot of
hassle. I think that alone gives them a bigger stake in the game.


Also, I'm not talking
about taking away their rights, just taking away the taxpayer having to pay
for their right to be careless sexually.

You're assuming that anyone wanting an abortion was sexually careless.
That may not be the case. Also, women have reproductive rights but if
they are too poor to exercise them then they don't really have the
right. Meaning only people with money have the right. The government has
backstopped women so they all get the right.


With the complexity of the
Healthcare bill, why the hurry to get it passed, why not be more concerned
to get it right than get it passes?

It took a year to pass the bill, which is a long time. Especially when
you consider we already debated the issue in 1993. The choice has been
there for decades. It was just a matter of the political strength to
pass it. Democrats finally had the power to do it and that is why they
pushed it through. Besides, saying what's the hurry was just a phony
argument made by the republicans to try to stop it. It was not done in a
hurry.


All we need are more bad laws we can't
change.

Bad laws are something we don't want to have, for sure. But despite what
you may have heard all laws can be changed including this one. It will
be changed too but the main thing is the power of the insurance
companies has been blunted and it may finally come to being controlled.
That is a big improvement.

Like if someone is stealing your stuff on your property, they can
sue you if they get hurt in the process, I don't understand how any law like
that can stand but it does.


You don't understand the law. There is no penal code in those cases
that's broken. It's a civil matter where one citizen sues another and
it's called a tort. Only if the thief can make a compelling case that
something the property owner did caused damage to him can he win money.
Stealing is a public wrong, a crime. If a man is in the process of
committing a crime and he gets injured he may, and that is not certain.
He may be able to win a lawsuit against the property owner. But he must
prove something the property owner did caused his harm. That's not easy
to do. Most people on a jury don't like to reward thieves any more than
you do but on rare occasions they will. It's the difference between a
public wrong and a private one.

Hawke


And, by the same token, even though the court declines to convict an
individual for the crime of murder he can be sued in civil court for
the essentially same (alleged) act and be convicted.

In that case they don't execute him though, they just bankrupt him :-)

John B.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 5:41 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 3:56 AM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 6:31 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...

snip
/
/And maybe not.
/
/Today's passing of the health bill tells you what November will be.
/
/TMT

Is Obama going to bribe voters too? Can I get an airport in my yard?

RogerN

I don't know what you're complaining about. I can just imagine what
you'd
be like if you were a Democratic congressman. You'd be doing the same
thing the rest of them did when they realized the president couldn't
pass
health care without them. You'd make him give you whatever you wanted
for
your vote. In your case it would be about depriving women of their
reproductive rights. I'm sure you'd drive a hard bargain to get what you
wanted too. But since it's someone else and not you in that position you
cry about how bad it is. You would do the same thing if you were in
their
place. You're just playing holier than thou.

Hawke

Why do women need more reproductive rights than men?

Because they have more to lose when reproduction occurs than men do. All a
man may contribute to producing is a teaspoon of semen while women have to
carry a baby inside them for 9 months, and that's a lot of hassle. I think
that alone gives them a bigger stake in the game.

The woman carries a baby inside for 9 months but the man pays child support
for 18+ years. Does the woman have a choice to opt out of being a parent?
Yes! Does the man have an equivalent choice? No! Does the baby, the only
innocent party, that was conceived by no act of it's own have any right to
life? Not according to some. Do you care to be fair? Add a law that any
man not wanting to have a child after getting a woman pregnant, can pay the
cost of an abortion and not be held responsible in any way for that child.
For the price of an abortion a man should be as free from the
responsibilities of being a parent as a woman can.

Also, I'm not talking
about taking away their rights, just taking away the taxpayer having to
pay
for their right to be careless sexually.

You're assuming that anyone wanting an abortion was sexually careless.
That may not be the case. Also, women have reproductive rights but if they
are too poor to exercise them then they don't really have the right.
Meaning only people with money have the right. The government has
backstopped women so they all get the right.

If a man is too poor to pay child support, are you equally concerned with
his rights?

With the complexity of the
Healthcare bill, why the hurry to get it passed, why not be more
concerned
to get it right than get it passes?

It took a year to pass the bill, which is a long time. Especially when you
consider we already debated the issue in 1993. The choice has been there
for decades. It was just a matter of the political strength to pass it.
Democrats finally had the power to do it and that is why they pushed it
through. Besides, saying what's the hurry was just a phony argument made
by the republicans to try to stop it. It was not done in a hurry.

I would hope it would be a good enough bill that the majority would want it,
not requiring political strength. After all, after it is law the people are
stuck with it, the politicans will have much better insurance and benefits.

All we need are more bad laws we can't
change.

Bad laws are something we don't want to have, for sure. But despite what
you may have heard all laws can be changed including this one. It will be
changed too but the main thing is the power of the insurance companies has
been blunted and it may finally come to being controlled. That is a big
improvement.

Yes that is, people at work was talking about sometimes they can buy
medicines themselves for less money that the co-pays on their insurance.
The insurance companies have their "Networks" where the doctors mark stuff
up 25% and give them a 15% discount and they think they are saving money.
They hastle, negotiate, and otherwise are slow paying the bills, so the
doctors all know to charge extra to the insurance so they get the money they
want plus extra for the insurance companies BS.

Like if someone is stealing your stuff on your property, they can
sue you if they get hurt in the process, I don't understand how any law
like
that can stand but it does.


You don't understand the law. There is no penal code in those cases that's
broken. It's a civil matter where one citizen sues another and it's called
a tort. Only if the thief can make a compelling case that something the
property owner did caused damage to him can he win money. Stealing is a
public wrong, a crime. If a man is in the process of committing a crime
and he gets injured he may, and that is not certain. He may be able to win
a lawsuit against the property owner. But he must prove something the
property owner did caused his harm. That's not easy to do. Most people on
a jury don't like to reward thieves any more than you do but on rare
occasions they will. It's the difference between a public wrong and a
private one.

Hawke

I guess that's how it is but I don't think I should be obligated to make my
home safe for robbers. I have a well next to the driveway, if someone is
here to rob me and they fall in, I'll throw them a rope! Hope they don't
mind the anchor on the other end! Anyway Hawke, we may disagree on many
things but at least you seem to be reasonable and that's is good in my
opinion.

RogerN

Why do women need more reproductive rights than men?

Because they have more to lose when reproduction occurs than men do. All a
man may contribute to producing is a teaspoon of semen while women have to
carry a baby inside them for 9 months, and that's a lot of hassle. I think
that alone gives them a bigger stake in the game.

The woman carries a baby inside for 9 months but the man pays child support
for 18+ years. Does the woman have a choice to opt out of being a parent?
Yes! Does the man have an equivalent choice? No! Does the baby, the only
innocent party, that was conceived by no act of it's own have any right to
life? Not according to some. Do you care to be fair? Add a law that any
man not wanting to have a child after getting a woman pregnant, can pay the
cost of an abortion and not be held responsible in any way for that child.
For the price of an abortion a man should be as free from the
responsibilities of being a parent as a woman can.

My view is that the woman has more rights at the beginning when she has
to carry the baby but after that it's a fifty fifty deal. Both parties
are equally responsible for their child. I do agree that it isn't fair
that if the woman doesn't want to have the child she gets what she wants
but if the man doesn't want he child it's still her decision. That's not
fair but I don't know how you would make it fair.



Also, I'm not talking
about taking away their rights, just taking away the taxpayer having to
pay
for their right to be careless sexually.

You're assuming that anyone wanting an abortion was sexually careless.
That may not be the case. Also, women have reproductive rights but if they
are too poor to exercise them then they don't really have the right.
Meaning only people with money have the right. The government has
backstopped women so they all get the right.

If a man is too poor to pay child support, are you equally concerned with
his rights?

Yep. Plenty of times guys get screwed by the women who make them pay
through the nose for the kids and then the woman winds up with the money
for herself when it's really supposed to be for child support. But the
truth is most men are cheapskates when it comes to paying for their kids
if the marriage fails. Most never pay what they should for their kids
and that leaves many kids to grow up both poor and without a father.
That's not fair either.


With the complexity of the
Healthcare bill, why the hurry to get it passed, why not be more
concerned
to get it right than get it passes?

It took a year to pass the bill, which is a long time. Especially when you
consider we already debated the issue in 1993. The choice has been there
for decades. It was just a matter of the political strength to pass it.
Democrats finally had the power to do it and that is why they pushed it
through. Besides, saying what's the hurry was just a phony argument made
by the republicans to try to stop it. It was not done in a hurry.

I would hope it would be a good enough bill that the majority would want it,
not requiring political strength. After all, after it is law the people are
stuck with it, the politicans will have much better insurance and benefits.

Politicians are members of the elite of society. As such they will
always have it better than most of us. So do the rich. It's a two tiered
world where the rich and elite get everything and the regular Joe gets
the left overs. Welcome to life on earth.


All we need are more bad laws we can't
change.

Bad laws are something we don't want to have, for sure. But despite what
you may have heard all laws can be changed including this one. It will be
changed too but the main thing is the power of the insurance companies has
been blunted and it may finally come to being controlled. That is a big
improvement.

Yes that is, people at work was talking about sometimes they can buy
medicines themselves for less money that the co-pays on their insurance.
The insurance companies have their "Networks" where the doctors mark stuff
up 25% and give them a 15% discount and they think they are saving money.
They hastle, negotiate, and otherwise are slow paying the bills, so the
doctors all know to charge extra to the insurance so they get the money they
want plus extra for the insurance companies BS.

If you are a regular Joe they get you coming and going. The best you can
do is try to find leaders to help you that are honest and will actually
represent your wants and needs. That's not easy. But it's up to you as
an individual to do the work to make it so you aren't a completely easy
mark for the sharks.


Like if someone is stealing your stuff on your property, they can
sue you if they get hurt in the process, I don't understand how any law
like
that can stand but it does.


You don't understand the law. There is no penal code in those cases that's
broken. It's a civil matter where one citizen sues another and it's called
a tort. Only if the thief can make a compelling case that something the
property owner did caused damage to him can he win money. Stealing is a
public wrong, a crime. If a man is in the process of committing a crime
and he gets injured he may, and that is not certain. He may be able to win
a lawsuit against the property owner. But he must prove something the
property owner did caused his harm. That's not easy to do. Most people on
a jury don't like to reward thieves any more than you do but on rare
occasions they will. It's the difference between a public wrong and a
private one.

Hawke

I guess that's how it is but I don't think I should be obligated to make my
home safe for robbers. I have a well next to the driveway, if someone is
here to rob me and they fall in, I'll throw them a rope! Hope they don't
mind the anchor on the other end! Anyway Hawke, we may disagree on many
things but at least you seem to be reasonable and that's is good in my
opinion.

RogerN


Let me tell you, the number of times a thief can sue and win when he's
committing a crime is so rare you wouldn't believe it. It makes
headlines but almost never can a guy rob you and still have a case to
sue you. That's why it's news when it happens. I wouldn't worry about
being sued by any robbers if I was you. Unless you are setting up man
traps for people when you leave your home. That would be a different
story. As for disagreeing with you don't feel like you're alone.
Sometimes I even disagree with my own mother. I like debating issues
with people not bickering. I know we have things we don't agree on but
I'm sure there are plenty of things we do agree on too. As long as we
can have a good interchange of ideas even when we disagree then that is
a good thing in my book. Take care.

Hawke