O/T: What's Next?
 

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Again, you've no idea about my personal behaviors in this regard.
Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the
misery of other and have - even recently -refused to do so.
But a poor man stealing from a rich man is just as dishonorable
as the reverse situation. We are either people of principle
or we can abandon all notion of civil behavior.

Again, it comes down to your logical inadequacies to understand. Health care
professionals are paid and paid well, just not to the excessive standards

According to you. However, you are not smart enough to know whether
that is *enough*. Enough to cause more people to enter the field?
pursue research? make major breakthroughs? You've written
the number you've made up on an imaginary blackboard and said, "That is
enough." Just who appointed you and your ilk to decide what
the "enough" number is? Can I do the same for your profession? Say
you're a home builder. Pretty much everyone needs shelter in some
form. I say you're not allowed to make more than $5 CN / hour.
Is that OK with you? Would it be OK with your if we all voted on it
and agreed to that number. After all, shelter is "intrinsically linked
to life" as you like to preach.

you'd like to see. The problem is that you don't see the right to health and
life as being intrinsically linked. You are not a person of principal,

You do not have a "right" to steal. I do not steal and object to your
doing so. That makes me principled.

you're a person of greed, taking what you can get and screw everyone else. I

You are very wrong. I am happy to help those in need. Just not with
your gun to my head demanding the power over my wallet because you've
anointed yourself as my better and appointed yourself the czar of what's
good for everybody.

don't have to know you personally to make that statement, anybody can see
just by your words what kind of person you are.

Sputtering ... another evidence of a failed argument.


Sure, you might have made the occasional contribution here and there, but
you'd only have done it entirely for personal benefit thinking all along
that it might get you something more tangible than just a good feeling.

I will not discuss my charitable actions because: a) It's none of
your business and b) Talking about it takes all the fun out of
doing such things anonymously.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Demonstrating yet another outcome of all socialist schemes - they lead
to some form of slavery. Why not just let the students pay their own
way and then use the education they paid for as they wish. There is
no theft, no slavery, and no mob rule.

You really aren't too bright are you? If doctors had to pay their entire
tuition without society's help (ie. the government), there would be
extremely few of them around. Transfer that notion to most every profession
and we'd still be living in the dark ages with a few powerful and educated
while the rest living short lives in serfdom.

May I suggest, "Economics In One Lesson" by Hazlitt, followed by
"The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek, followed by "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand.
These three giants should be able to purge your mind of such irredeemable
silliness.


It's long been known that the highest level a society can attain is balanced
by that level attained by the least disadvantaged. Whether you like it or

Known by whom and demonstrated how? (And no, you saying so, doesn't make
it true.)

not, society and it's values are the reason that you live at the level you
do today. You might call much of it socialism, but it's been proven many

I live like I do today for three reasons:

1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am grateful
to God.

2) I was granted access to a nation that places (or used to anyway)
the individual ahead of the group. I am grateful to the USA.

3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class.
I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but Sparky,
I *earned* every bit of it.


times the greater number that benefit from those values the longer society
will survive. What you advocate ends up in a pure dictatorship where the
only value is might makes right.


Actually, your beloved collectivism is what leads to dictatorship, not
my rational individualism.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Please explain to me where this "right" comes from? Does a doctor
not have a "Right" to their time and effort? How about a drug
researcher? A nurse? Why do the rights of the "poor" trump those
of everyone else in the society?

All those people get paid and paid well. They enjoy an exalted position in
our society both monetarily and socially. They just don't get paid to your
greedy standards. The poor trump nothing.

Game-Set-Match - you ran out of rational ideas and started the

Wrong again. It's impossible to argue the point because you're entirely
incapable of the difference between the giving of health care and the giving
of a physical object like a car. To you, they're both the same when it comes
to value and that's why you're emotionally and logically unequipped to
differentiate between the two. That makes you an asshole. I'm not calling
you a name, I'm just stating a fact.

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Again, you've no idea about my personal behaviors in this regard.
Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the
misery of other and have - even recently -refused to do so.
But a poor man stealing from a rich man is just as dishonorable
as the reverse situation. We are either people of principle
or we can abandon all notion of civil behavior.

Again, it comes down to your logical inadequacies to understand. Health care
professionals are paid and paid well, just not to the excessive standards
you'd like to see. The problem is that you don't see the right to health and
life as being intrinsically linked. You are not a person of principal,
you're a person of greed, taking what you can get and screw everyone else. I
don't have to know you personally to make that statement, anybody can see
just by your words what kind of person you are.

Sure, you might have made the occasional contribution here and there, but
you'd only have done it entirely for personal benefit thinking all along
that it might get you something more tangible than just a good feeling.

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Demonstrating yet another outcome of all socialist schemes - they lead
to some form of slavery. Why not just let the students pay their own
way and then use the education they paid for as they wish. There is
no theft, no slavery, and no mob rule.

You really aren't too bright are you? If doctors had to pay their entire
tuition without society's help (ie. the government), there would be
extremely few of them around. Transfer that notion to most every profession
and we'd still be living in the dark ages with a few powerful and educated
while the rest living short lives in serfdom.

It's long been known that the highest level a society can attain is balanced
by that level attained by the least disadvantaged. Whether you like it or
not, society and it's values are the reason that you live at the level you
do today. You might call much of it socialism, but it's been proven many
times the greater number that benefit from those values the longer society
will survive. What you advocate ends up in a pure dictatorship where the
only value is might makes right.

O/T: What's Next?
 

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
grateful
to God.

3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class.
I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but Sparky,
I *earned* every bit of it.

Really? And next you're going to claim that your family didn't help you out
at all with your education. They didn't contribute one cent, they didn't
give you food and shelter. You left home at the tender age of fifteen and
never received any sort of help from them after that.

I already stipulated that my family was part of my success - and that
this was gift, not by my merit. This is not collectivism in any form,
it is family. It is not built on ripping off my fellow citizens.


Then you attended college. You paid ALL the tuition out of your own pocket.
You never received any sort of subsidy or student loan while you were in
college.

I went to private undergrad and grad school without taking a dime of
tax money and without debt. How? I worked multiple jobs in college
and got excellent grades thereby earning *private* financial aid.
In fact, my undergrad program was so enlightened that the entire
school *refused* ANY public/tax money into their school. They
(properly) saw it as corrupting of education and their ability to
teach as they saw fit.

I did, however, miss the following classes in the aforementioned
school, "Why Capitalism Sucks 101", "How To Whine For What You
Have Not Earned 201", and "Everyone's A Victim 400".




You earned every bit if it?
BULL****! YOU WERE SUPPORTED ALL THE WAY BY THAT COLLECTIVIST SYSTEM YOU'RE
NOW CRITICISING.

You are silly assuming that everyone is weak and needs
to be "helped" by government. Again - not a single dime of tax
money passed through my checkbook at any point in my education.
That's what happens when you work hard ...


And by the way, exactly what kind of education was it? A number of times
you've been unable to differentiate between "your" and "you're). Whatever
king of education, apparently you scored in the lower percentile.

I was in the upper 5% of the SATs, got a full ride *private* scholarship
to undergrad, then went to work for a *private* company that
paid a portion of my graduate school on the condition that I maintain
excellent grades - I got straight As, and ended up teaching in that
same school between Masters and Ph.D. work (the latter I did not finish).

Oh, and I grew up very poor in a single parent family and we NEVER
took welfare or public aid ... we *worked*. Oh, and English is
my second written/read language. Any more stereotypes you'd like
me to demolish before you concede that you have no defensible position
here?


Government handouts are for the terminally lazy for the most part.
There are a few folks for whom this does not apply - and there is
more than enough private charity to help those people out.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:42:27 -0700, Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies or
everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is the medical
providers themselves and the drug companies that have increased medical
costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the past few decades.
Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like the true problem.

I think we agree here. But while the greed of doctors varies by
individual, the greed of stockholders in drug companies and for-profit
hospitals seems to peg the meter every time.

We had two non-profit hospital groups (and four hospitals) here. One of
the groups just got bought out by the one of the biggest for-profit
hospital chains in the country. They swear, attest, and affirm that
neither the costs or the standard of care will be affected by the sale.
Wanna' bet? I'll report back in a few years.

O/T: What's Next?
 

B A R R Y wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Good heavens! How much more regulation can we stand!? After Enron,
Sarbanes-Oxley should have prevented anything like happened to Lehman
what with all of its reporting requirements, transparency, and data
collection
down to the smallest project. How much more intrusive do things have to
get?

From a non-paritisan standpoint:

In 1999, Glass-Steagal was repealed. This law from the 1930's
distinctly separated commercial and investment banking. Phil Grahmm (R)
sponsored it, Clinton signed it. Grahmm soon became a banking lobbyist.

In 2007, The "uptick rule" was eliminated in the US stock markets. This
allows hedge funds to grossy short stocks, in some cases greatly hurting
the market cap of a company.

These should be re-regulated.

Re-instating those two regulations seems to make some sense, particularly
the need to eliminate naked short-selling.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

O/T: What's Next?
 

Upscale wrote:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Utter nonsense. People at or below the poverty line get medical care
on a regular basis in the US without regard for their ability to pay.

And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US,
you have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little
closer.


Ah, I think I see the difference of opinion here. You think that you
get "free" medical care. Somebody, somewhere is paying for that care --
the money has to be coming from someone. That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more. At some
point, the people paying more eventually give up and either bail out from
the system by emigrating somewhere else or start letting the state take
care of them also.


.... snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
grateful
to God.

3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class.
I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but Sparky,
I *earned* every bit of it.

Really? And next you're going to claim that your family didn't help you out
at all with your education. They didn't contribute one cent, they didn't
give you food and shelter. You left home at the tender age of fifteen and
never received any sort of help from them after that.

Then you attended college. You paid ALL the tuition out of your own pocket.
You never received any sort of subsidy or student loan while you were in
college.

You earned every bit if it?
BULL****! YOU WERE SUPPORTED ALL THE WAY BY THAT COLLECTIVIST SYSTEM YOU'RE
NOW CRITICISING.

And by the way, exactly what kind of education was it? A number of times
you've been unable to differentiate between "your" and "you're). Whatever
king of education, apparently you scored in the lower percentile.

O/T: What's Next?
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I live like I do today for three reasons:

1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
grateful to God.

I would suggest that additional gratitude might be appropriate - to
those who contributed every single medical advance that made it possible
for your parents' family lines to survive and converge to produce you.

2) I was granted access to a nation that places (or used to anyway)
the individual ahead of the group. I am grateful to the USA.

If you're talking about the USA, then you declare yourself an ungrateful
misfit. Yes we value the individual, but from our very beginnings we
have recognized that the price of keeping our ideals is paid _always_ by
individuals. The best summation I can think of at the moment is that
this entire country expects you to, if the situation ever arose, throw
yourself on the grenade that comes through the window to protect those
around you. You only seem grateful when there's no cost to you.

3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle
class. I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but
Sparky, I *earned* every bit of it.

From the way you whine, you show that not only do you not understand
the magnificence of the gifts you have received - but that you are so
clueless and conceited that you actually believe that a single lifetime
might ever be enough to actually *earn* all the benefits bestowed upon you.

Actually, your beloved collectivism is what leads to dictatorship,
not my rational individualism.

From the evidence of your words, your "rational individualism" is a
delusion in which the only individual to be valued is yourself.

You live like you do today because more people than you could ever count
created the global, cultural, societal, and community contexts within
which you live your life.

I suspect your contribution is relatively microscopic.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Ah, I think I see the difference of opinion here. You think that you
get "free" medical care. Somebody, somewhere is paying for that care --
the money has to be coming from someone. That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.

Up to a point, I agree with you. But, looking at it from Tim's extremely
warped point of view, everybody who receives that paid for health care is
stealing it. As far as he's concerned, they're all low level cheats, drug
addicts with AIDS, or hope to live for the rest of their lives on social
handouts.

Tim seems to believe everybody in that state is eminently content to stay
that way. Let me tell you, nobody wants to live their life that way. Having
had a disability for almost thirty years, I can tell you categorically that
it stinks. Nobody in those conditions likes it. As a peer support volunteer
with the Canadian Paraplegic Organization I know for sure fact that
everybody I counselled and supported hated being in that state and most
often, did what they could to get out of it.

I hated it so much that I used that health assistance "I stole" to stay
healthy enough so I could go back to school with education assistance "I
stole". Then I got a job and became a contributing, working taxpayer again.
That's the final scenario. Society supported me health-wise and
education-wise until I was again able to again become a contributing member
of society.

Which scenario is preferable? Supported by society health-wise but also
contributing back to society or just subsisting while contributing nothing.
There really is only one answer and it certainly is not anything remotely
close to what Tim thinks.

O/T: What's Next?
 

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I live like I do today for three reasons:

1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am
grateful to God.

I would suggest that additional gratitude might be appropriate - to
those who contributed every single medical advance that made it possible
for your parents' family lines to survive and converge to produce you.

My progenitors largely made it to these shores without much, if any,
medical care. They survived largely by grit and hard work. As recently
as 40 years ago, a regular doctor visit was a dream in the corners
of my family's lineage.

However, *I* have directly benefited from those aforementioned
medical advances. Funny thing about that medicine - it came
from *profit motivated* drug companies and doctors trying
maximize their incomes. These are the very things that you
collectivists decry, but they are the only mechanisms know
to man (to date anyway) that actually work to produce innovation
and real human progress.

But, no. We see - in this very thread - intellectual drooling
complaining about doctors who make "too much" and medicine become a
"business". Yeah, its really terrible. Lifespans are increasing,
problems like heart disease, diabetes, many forms of cancer,
congenital defects, and a a host of other problems that once killed
people in the relative youth are now managed or even cured. But that's
not good enough, is it? We have to make sure that the instruments of
this progress - the doctors, nurses, researchers, scientists and drug
companies are thwarted at every turn. Why? Because they make too much
money. The fact that they're smarter, work harder, and are
proportionally far greater contributors to all of our lives is
*exactly* what collectivists hate because they themselves are no such
thing and are incapable of any meaningful lives in their own right.




2) I was granted access to a nation that places (or used to anyway)
the individual ahead of the group. I am grateful to the USA.

If you're talking about the USA, then you declare yourself an ungrateful
misfit. Yes we value the individual, but from our very beginnings we

I shall do no such thing. It takes a particularly perverse misreading
of US political and intellectual history to come to any such conclusion.
The very foundations of this nation were built in opposition to the
Leviathan of the state and to the promotion of the individual and
his liberty. I can provide references if you doubt this. I can
even explain the big words.

have recognized that the price of keeping our ideals is paid _always_ by
individuals. The best summation I can think of at the moment is that

On this we agree - liberty isn't free and requires free citizens
to be prepared to defend it. "No one wants to fight, but somebody
has to know how." Unfortunately, it is not the threat from without
that dooms us today. It is the cancerous collectivist perversion that
characterizes today's political debate that will be our undoing.
No terrorist, no armed enemy, no military assault will ever be
as dangerous as the citizens demanding more "free" things from
their own government. Our founders said as much.

this entire country expects you to, if the situation ever arose, throw
yourself on the grenade that comes through the window to protect those
around you. You only seem grateful when there's no cost to you.

You are deeply mistaken. If and when I were called upon to defend
liberty by force or by argument I would do so. And that's what I am
doing - the the most evident threat, the collectivist sewage that
permeates our culture - needs to be exposed for the fraud and danger
it represents to us all. But I wouldn't (and am not) doing it for the
collective good you so adore. I would (and am) doing it because it is
in my own self-interest to defend liberty. When millions of citizens
do this - defend liberty in their own interest - you get a great and
prosperous nation. When millions of citizens sit around demanding
government rescue them from their own choices, the circumstances of
their lives, the misfortunes that befall all of us, you get Soviet
Russia.



3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle
class. I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but
Sparky, I *earned* every bit of it.

From the way you whine, you show that not only do you not understand the
magnificence of the gifts you have received - but that you are so
clueless and conceited that you actually believe that a single lifetime
might ever be enough to actually *earn* all the benefits bestowed upon you.

I have only one lifetime. Whether it is sufficient to "earn" what I
was given is irrelevant - I can't - no one can. But that doesn't
automatically therefore demand that I sacrifice liberty on the altar
of big government, collectivist drooling, and mindless self-sacrifice
that is erected as the ideal. The greatest way to pay back my debt
and show my gratitude is to leave a free society in my wake, not
enfranchise the political classes as they buy votes by handing out
money and goods taken my force and theft.


Actually, your beloved collectivism is what leads to dictatorship,
not my rational individualism.

From the evidence of your words, your "rational individualism" is a
delusion in which the only individual to be valued is yourself.

No, "rational individualism" is an individualism that recognizes
that all of us cannot be free unless *each* of us is individually
free. This means we produce law to thwart fraud, force, and threat,
leaving each of us to act "rationally" in our own self interest
in all other cases. Part of that self-interest is to *voluntarily*
help each other as we are able. It is in none of our self-interest
to outsource the job to a overweening government that takes from some
to give to others in a blind, mechanical, and often evil way. But that
takes brains, hard work, a moral center - qualities that the
collectivists despise, because it thwarts their relentless quest
for power.


You live like you do today because more people than you could ever count
created the global, cultural, societal, and community contexts within
which you live your life.

This is largely false. I live like I do today because this is the one
and only nation in recorded history that made individual liberty
primary, and the state a servant of the individual. All collectivist
enterprises throughout history devolved into despotic and oppressive
rule by the few - at least the major ones did. It is only because the
US was built on the primacy of the individual this has not yet
happened here. Sadly, so many beneficiaries of this very system - like
you - aren't happy with the results and want to institute the very
collective schemes that have destroyed the lives of "more people than
you could ever count."


I suspect your contribution is relatively microscopic.

As is yours. As is pretty much everyone's. But - like all apologists
for collectivism - you skip to a bogus conclusion: "Since I can only
do a very small bit as a free person, I shall sacrifice my liberty
on the altar of the collective." The largest collectivist schemes
in human history - the grand, eloquent (and evil) plans to
collectivize society for the "common good", did not remotely
contribute to the human experience what us free "microscopic"
contributors have managed to do in something less than 300 years.
That won't stop you though, will it? Instead of celebrating
your individuality and liberty that makes it possible, you'll
focus on your "microscopic" contribution, and decide that it's
better to be a slave than to make that small contribution.

You don't like my ideas? Fine. Then you don't much like Locke, Hume,
Hobbes, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Paine, and De Tocqueville. They're
not *my* ideas. They're the ideas of a bunch of brilliant
Enlightenment-era thinkers, who had that bad habit of not trusting
government much. That why they argued for the individual above the
state, a small and limited government, rule of law, and personal
responsibility. It's a modern tragedy that those of you who most
benefit from this, dismiss them so flippantly because you need
protection from yourselves.


Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, et al did not run around mumbling
stupid platitudes like "It takes a village" or "If we can just
save one child" or "It's for the greater good". They wrote
in some great detail about the nature of a free nation begins
with a free individual. Too bad they're so out of date these
days ...

Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
(and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
your liberty at the hands of the state. Oh, you don't know
that's what you're asking for, but it is. I just hope to
have checked out by then ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

Have you ever for one minute stopped to listen to yourself? By your claims
of success solely by your own hands, you are a Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama and
Jimmy Carter Jr. combined or a liar of outlandish proportions. I'm finished
with this conversation and your self admiration society. It's impossible to
reason with such a stunted intellect as you seem to have. You might be smart
in some areas, but in regards to your fellow man, you're nothing but a
greedy, selfish con artist. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in dire
physical health because with your view of life, you'd be emotionally
incapable of coping.

Still out of ideas I see. I have calmly responded to your personal
attack, vulgar language, and hyperbole because nothing flushes out
the complete lack of content in arguments like yours more than letting
you speak for yourself. Just to help you understand the big
concepts he

1) I made it quite clear that I succeeded by many means, a good part
of which were *outside* my own hands. I also expressed my
gratitude. Something you did at no point in this debate. Apparently,
your fellow citizens *owe* you what you got from them. I'm sure
they'd be thrilled to see your deep appreciation for it.

2) I have refused to take your bait and talk about just how much and
how I practice charity. It's none of your business now or ever.
I do not answer to you in this (or any other) matter and I can't
help it if you have such a low opinion of your fellow man that the
only way you can imagine good things happening is if you have to
steal to get them to happen. Some (most?) of us actually believe
that charity is a noble and powerful thing and live our lives
accordingly. Oh, and I *never* want to be seen as
the equivalent of Jimmy Carter - a man who never met a despotic
dictator he didn't love. He is a prima facia example of
collectivist political scum.

3) My intellect - however small or large - isn't on trial here.
I've not made it a topic of discussion because - again - it is
a personal matter that is none of your business. What is on
trial is your inability to argue your position without personal
attack - a sure sign you cannot defend your ideas with reason and
logic. If it makes you feel better ... nobody can ... they're
really bad ideas.

4) Does is strike you as even slightly incongruous that you - the
self-proclaimed defender of mankind, the downtrodden, and
protector of all that is human - is wishing disease upon me?

Like I said, Game-Set-Match - you have lousy ideas, can't defend them,
and are personally rude. In short, you are the perfect collectivist...


When are you voting yourself into sainthood?



I'm not sufficiently self-loathing and personally inadequate
to require that much approval from others. Your mileage may
vary.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

Have you ever for one minute stopped to listen to yourself? By your claims
of success solely by your own hands, you are a Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama and
Jimmy Carter Jr. combined or a liar of outlandish proportions. I'm finished
with this conversation and your self admiration society. It's impossible to
reason with such a stunted intellect as you seem to have. You might be smart
in some areas, but in regards to your fellow man, you're nothing but a
greedy, selfish con artist. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in dire
physical health because with your view of life, you'd be emotionally
incapable of coping.
======================================

I am happy to voluntarily contribute to causes the help the genuinely
underprivileged

My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen
and give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high
ground.

Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the misery of other
and have - even recently -refused to do so.

You are very wrong. I am happy to help those in need.

I went to private undergrad and grad school without taking a dime of tax
money and without debt.

I will not discuss my charitable actions because: a) It's none of your
business and b) Talking about it takes all the fun out of doing such things
anonymously.

I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class
===================================
When are you voting yourself into sainthood?

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
4) Does is strike you as even slightly incongruous that you - the
self-proclaimed defender of mankind, the downtrodden, and
protector of all that is human - is wishing disease upon me?

Read again. As usual, one of your biggest problems is that you read what you
want to see, not what's actually written. You're so caught up in yourself
that you're incapable of seeing anything but your own words.

When are you voting yourself into sainthood?

I'm not sufficiently self-loathing and personally inadequate
to require that much approval from others.

Of course not. You're your own self indulgent cheering section that believes
your own lies. It's called self delusion Tim and you're a master at it.

'nite.

O/T: What's Next?
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

nothing of substance

Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.

Good luck with that...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

O/T: What's Next?
 

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote:

................................................. .....................

Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
to simplify the house keeping function?

Gets to be a little much to still have to ignore this guy after
blocking him.


Lew

O/T: What's Next?
 

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:42:27 -0700, Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

What I don't understand is why it is the Gov. or insurance companies
or everybody but who are often treated as the villains when it is
the medical providers themselves and the drug companies that have
increased medical costs by at least 3X the inflation rate for the
past few decades. Profiteering at the expense of the ill seems like
the true problem.

I think we agree here. But while the greed of doctors varies by
individual, the greed of stockholders in drug companies and for-profit
hospitals seems to peg the meter every time.

Actually the problem goes well past industry greed......standards of care
add greatly to the cost as well.....My daughter as a CNA (for several years)
while working for a temp service would often be hired to sit with
emotionally disturbed hospitalized individuals. The hospital would pay her
$15-18 per hour and the temp service markup, simply to watch (all night)
these disturbed patients(easier than hiring their own people but not
cheaper). While indeed the patient was troubled and/or a suicide risk
.......a dollar sleeping pill would have done as much good. Compare $300(12hr
shift) for labor or $1.00 for effectively the same care. Naturally the
hospital didn't care all that much since they could charge $2000 or so for
the bed.

The public and medical employees as well demand new shiny buildings with
marble, expensive carpets and often spacious "new" offices. Additional quasi
and questionable medical services including chiropractors have crept into
many health plans.

There has also been a determined effort via the schools to limit doctors and
nurses entering the profession....aside from the public statements made in
1996 by some national medical association about a fear of a doctor surplus
and the need to limit entry. My daughter spent 3 years trying to get into a
registered nurse program with a 3.5 GPA and three other nursing certificates
including a CNA, phlebotomy and ER certification....she finally made it into
a program this fall 200 miles away.

Malpractice insurance as well is a serious problem and/or cost and not all
that difficult to control...bad doctors get removed and reasonable standards
for expected care are established.....8 years ago I was initially diagnosed
with stage 4 cancer, after 4 months of extraordinary pain (morphine didn't
work much) and multiple procedures they settled on Retroperitoneal fibrosis.
By that time I had lost 50lbs and was very near deaths door....much of
medicine is not a exact science nor should we expect it to be, incidentally
I didn't sue. Rod








We had two non-profit hospital groups (and four hospitals) here. One
of the groups just got bought out by the one of the biggest for-profit
hospital chains in the country. They swear, attest, and affirm that
neither the costs or the standard of care will be affected by the
sale. Wanna' bet? I'll report back in a few years.

O/T: What's Next?
 

In article , Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

nothing of substance

Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.

Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim
points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its
merits.

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Sep 23, 7:22*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

nothing of substance

Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.

Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim
points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its
merits.

...and so the Vulture lands on what he thinks is a wounded snack....but
fails to see the trip-wire.

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Sep 23, 4:28*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote:
................................................. .....................

Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
to simplify the house keeping function?

Gets to be a little much to still have to ignore this guy after
blocking him.

Lew

Michael Johnson (a well established musician) and I were driving down
the road and he was sharing the joy he was experiencing in life after
having come face-to-face with both the monsters of alcoholism (and
music industry executives G). He said something to me that day that
I have carried with me for those last 20 years. He said: "Robbie, an
alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex."

When I read Tim Daneliuk's posts, I am somehow reminded of that. I
detect an insecurity wrapped up in blankets of highly skilled
verbosity, a serious indication of over-achievement and a deep desire
to be loved. Tim feels the constant need to prove something,
regardless of its validity. But, as an independent observer and level-
headed 'collectivist' (a word which bears much hate, usually used by
previous iron-curtain survivors ) I recommend we all give Tim a group
hug.

r

O/T: What's Next?
 

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 4:28 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote:
.................................................. ....................
Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
to simplify the house keeping function?

Gets to be a little much to still have to ignore this guy after
blocking him.

Lew

Michael Johnson (a well established musician) and I were driving down
the road and he was sharing the joy he was experiencing in life after
having come face-to-face with both the monsters of alcoholism (and
music industry executives G). He said something to me that day that
I have carried with me for those last 20 years. He said: "Robbie, an
alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex."

When I read Tim Daneliuk's posts, I am somehow reminded of that. I
detect an insecurity wrapped up in blankets of highly skilled
verbosity, a serious indication of over-achievement and a deep desire
to be loved. Tim feels the constant need to prove something,
regardless of its validity. But, as an independent observer and level-
headed 'collectivist' (a word which bears much hate, usually used by
previous iron-curtain survivors ) I recommend we all give Tim a group
hug.

r


Awwwwwwwwwwww ... will I catch anything communicable?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

nothing of substance

Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.


You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
dirt throwing.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
4) Does is strike you as even slightly incongruous that you - the
self-proclaimed defender of mankind, the downtrodden, and
protector of all that is human - is wishing disease upon me?

Read again. As usual, one of your biggest problems is that you read what you
want to see, not what's actually written. You're so caught up in yourself
that you're incapable of seeing anything but your own words.

You're right, I apologize. I read through that part of that post
too quickly.


When are you voting yourself into sainthood?

I'm not sufficiently self-loathing and personally inadequate
to require that much approval from others.

Of course not. You're your own self indulgent cheering section that believes
your own lies. It's called self delusion Tim and you're a master at it.

Name a single lie I've uttered here. You manners are execrable. A
difference of opinion is not a lie. Demonstrate a single "self
delusion" I've demonstrated. A difference of opinion is not a
delusion. Identify any self-indulgence on my part. A difference
of opinion does not make one self-indulgent.

Face it. You have no argument to support *your* opinions. You have
some vague mushy ideas propped up with your touching story of
personal achievement in the face of adversity from which you leap
to defend the raiding of other people's wallets. When confronted
by the essence of *your* argument, you get first defensive, then
vulgar, then outright rude. I'm not the one who is swinging blindly
with both fists here. You are. See if you can figure out why ...


'nite.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Doug Miller wrote:

Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim
points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its
merits.

Merits??? You're right - I can't.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

nothing of substance

Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.

You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
dirt throwing.

Au contraire - what I don't like is wasting time.

Your woodworking question is...?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

nothing of substance

Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated
navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by
raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.

You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
dirt throwing.

Au contraire - what I don't like is wasting time.

That's clearly false - you are a regular Wreck participant.


Your woodworking question is...?


Oh... the things I could say here...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.

If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:44:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
dirt throwing.

I also find I have no meaningful counterpoint to those who reject
evolution and dismiss every bit of evidence supporting it as God's little
joke. I'm sure you won't see the parallel to yourself here, but others
will.

I'm going to try very hard not to get drawn into replying to your posts in
the future. But given prior evidence, you'll undoubtedly post something
so outlandish that I can't resist :-).

O/T: What's Next?
 

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:44:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You ought to ponder the notion that because something is incoherent
to *you* does not make it generally incoherent. You are also
being dishonest. There's nothing I've said that's incoherent,
you understand it pretty well. You just don't *like* it, don't have
a meaningful counterpoint, and have to resort to school yard
dirt throwing.

I also find I have no meaningful counterpoint to those who reject
evolution and dismiss every bit of evidence supporting it as God's little
joke. I'm sure you won't see the parallel to yourself here, but others
will.


I don't know how. But just to make it clear to you: I do not reject
evolution as a mechanism out of hand. I reject the blind worship of
science as being the only way we can know truth. I also reject the
science worshipers who insist that strong science removes the need for
any kind of God. But I don't, as I say, reject evolution. I merely
question how well established it really is, given the *religious*
fervor of its staunch defenders.

I'm going to try very hard not to get drawn into replying to your posts in
the future. But given prior evidence, you'll undoubtedly post something
so outlandish that I can't resist :-).

You can't help yourself, I know ...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[bandwidth snip]

Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
(and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
your liberty at the hands of the state. Oh, you don't know
that's what you're asking for, but it is. I just hope to
have checked out by then ...


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the people" Tim. In reading your postings, I get the picture of a
frightened person who has circled his personal wagon and is waiting for
the "we the people" to come and burn it down.

Should the collectivist/socialist democrats win in Nov. where will you
go to live?

sigh,
jo4hn

O/T: What's Next?
 

Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the
benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing
those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.

Your paranoia is showing.

Might be able to cover it if you change the way you comb your hair.

Lew

O/T: What's Next?
 

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.

If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.


Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.

Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, jo4hn wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[bandwidth snip]



Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
(and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
your liberty at the hands of the state. *Oh, you don't know
that's what you're asking for, but it is. *I just hope to
have checked out by then ...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the people" Tim. *In reading your postings, I get the picture of a
frightened person who has circled his personal wagon and is waiting for
the "we the people" to come and burn it down.

Should the collectivist/socialist democrats win in Nov. where will you
go to live?

* * * * sigh,
* * * * jo4hn



Canada??

snort, chuckle, guffaw
r

O/T: What's Next?
 

jo4hn wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[bandwidth snip]

Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you
(and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of
your liberty at the hands of the state. Oh, you don't know
that's what you're asking for, but it is. I just hope to
have checked out by then ...


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the people" Tim. In reading your postings, I get the picture of a
frightened person who has circled his personal wagon and is waiting for
the "we the people" to come and burn it down.

You need to read more than the Preamble. You need to read the whole
document and a good explanation of what it means - every piece of it.
"We the people" was never meant to be "We the people will tell you
the individual what you can- and cannot do." It was intended to
mean "We the people are setting up a government to protect our
*individual* liberties." I guess they don't teach much American
political history any more.


Should the collectivist/socialist democrats win in Nov. where will you
go to live?


To WHICH collectivist do you refer? Both are horrible choices. Either
will be lying when they swear to "Defend And Uphold The Constitution
of The United States" - a document they've either never understood,
or just intentionally ignore. Living near Chicago and being
painfully aware of Obama's actual past, I will say that he is
the more revolting of the two for one particular reason: He
has the worst possible political friends - corrupt politicians,
scummy supporters, and violent radical retreads from the 1960s.
Have a look at the New Yorker article (the one with the Obama
fist bump cover) for all the gory details. Obama may be
personally a nice enough fellow - I have no idea - but he is
a professional scoundrel and political whore of the worst kind.
He makes McCain look like a saint.


Where am I going - nowhere. I'm content to live my years out on
the strands of liberty that still exist in this country. But that
won't stop me from pointing out the many violations of our laws
and our freedoms that so many people (including a depressing number
of 'Wreckers) demand. The thwarting of evil always requires loud
counterpoint.

Liberty is almost never first and foremost lost by attacks from
outside. Liberty is lost when its recipients fail to defend it.
This whole misbegotten thread demonstrates the level of personal
depravity, dishonesty, and greed people will defend to get
what they want. They call it "rights" or "doing the right thing"
or "serving the community", but it's none of the above. Collectivism
is fundamentally evil, destroys freedom, enfranchises political
scoundrels, and decimates lives. There are dozens of examples,
but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
"free" healthcare ...



sigh,
jo4hn

T

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Sep 23, 12:35*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

*That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.

If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. *I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. *Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. *But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.

Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.

Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
entirely *legally*. *In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors. *So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing. *Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act. *I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
off... do we try to talk them out of it?

How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
don't want protection? Or do you?

O/T: What's Next?
 

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.

Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
off... do we try to talk them out of it?

Yes we do (if we're decent people). What we don't do is pick
up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights
to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for
our "charity". Get the difference?


How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
don't want protection? Or do you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the
very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict
in matters of fraud, force, and threat. That is necessary to maintain
a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty.
Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of
protecting the liberty of the citizens. Handing out other people's
money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not
part of defending liberty. Get the difference?




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

O/T: What's Next?
 

In article , Morris Dovey wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim
points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its
merits.

Merits??? You're right - I can't.

I meant, you should be defending *your* position on its merits. If it had any,
you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.

O/T: What's Next?
 

On Sep 23, 1:33*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. *I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. *Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. *But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.

Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
entirely *legally*. *In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors. *So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing. *Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act. *I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk * *
PGP Key: * * * *http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
off... do we try to talk them out of it?

Yes we do (if we're decent people). *What we don't do is pick
up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights
to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for
our "charity". *Get the difference?

Of course I get the difference because it is not the same argument.
Straw man with a hint of red herring. Now I'm supposed to go chasing
you curve ball? Naaa.. I'm a bit more aware of that tactic of yours.



How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
don't want protection? Or do you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the
very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict
in matters of fraud, force, and threat.

How kind of you to allow that much. So if a plague were to sweep the
country, too bad, so sad, we all die? It wouldn't be cool for medical
professionals to organize and force people to get immunized, right? Do
you get the difference?

*That is necessary to maintain
a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty.
Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of
protecting the liberty of the citizens.

But not, under any circumstances would a universal medical solution be
allowed, right?
The CDC, a tax funded set up, is fraudulent?


*Handing out other people's
money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not
part of defending liberty. *Get the difference?

You know I get the difference. You seem to have trouble deciding at
what point life and liberty are separated.

But enough of your decoy arguments, that's okay in chess, but I'm not
very good at chess.