Let the debate begin.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Let the debate begin.

Lew


Well, like him or not, he can get people fired up. That's how ministers and
politicians have made their mark, good or bad, for centuries. It does not
have to be good information, just good speech

On Sep 13, 8:03*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

...

Let the debate begin.

Lew

Well, like him or not, he can get people fired up. *That's how ministers and
politicians have made their mark, good or bad, for centuries. *It does not
have to be good information, just good speech

Now... if his team had a better quarterback,,,,,

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Let the debate begin.

Lew

What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons (and
their handlers) tear up the place. Now many people have been scared
spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first priority is
always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the various industry
lobbies that want things to stay just as they are. Considering what a tight
ship they ran during the campaign it's surprising that the administration
has let this get as out of control as it has.

On Sep 13, 1:50*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons (and
their handlers) tear up the place. *Now many people have been scared
spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first priority is
always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the various industry
lobbies that want things to stay just as they are. *Considering what a tight
ship they ran during the campaign it's surprising that the administration
has let this get as out of control as it has.

None of that precludes the fact that The Detroit Lions will suck again
this year.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote :
: Well, like him or not, he can get people fired up. That's how ministers and
: politicians have made their mark, good or bad, for centuries. It does not
: have to be good information, just good speech
:
Hitler had those very same qualities and we know how that ended up.
Any time the general population loses, or chooses not to use, the ability
of critical thinking and healthy skepticism then that society is easy plucking
for wackos of all flavors.
Art

Tom Watson wrote:

Speechless today, Tom?

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"DGDevin" wrote:

What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons
(and their handlers) tear up the place. Now many people have been
scared spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first
priority is always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the
various industry lobbies that want things to stay just as they are.
Considering what a tight ship they ran during the campaign it's
surprising that the administration has let this get as out of
control as it has.

There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.

There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
the job.

With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
interested in bipartisan support?

Must be some reason.

But then again, I'm not a politican.

Lew

On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:59:39 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"DGDevin" wrote:

What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons
(and their handlers) tear up the place. Now many people have been
scared spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first
priority is always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the
various industry lobbies that want things to stay just as they are.
Considering what a tight ship they ran during the campaign it's
surprising that the administration has let this get as out of
control as it has.

There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.

There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
the job.

With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
interested in bipartisan support?

Must be some reason.

But then again, I'm not a politican.

Lew



I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
Government, please get out of my face!!!

On Sep 13, 6:59*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote:
What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons
(and their handlers) tear up the place. *Now many people have been
scared spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first
priority is always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the
various industry lobbies that want things to stay just as they are.
Considering what a tight ship they ran during the campaign it's
surprising that the administration has let this get as out of
control as it has.

There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.

There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
the job.

With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
interested in bipartisan support?

Must be some reason.


In case the whole ****s the bed. Then they have somebody to share the
blame.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:vPerm.2338$tl3.757
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:


"DGDevin" wrote:

What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons
(and their handlers) tear up the place. Now many people have been
scared spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first
priority is always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the
various industry lobbies that want things to stay just as they are.
Considering what a tight ship they ran during the campaign it's
surprising that the administration has let this get as out of
control as it has.

There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.

There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
the job.

With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
interested in bipartisan support?

Must be some reason.

But then again, I'm not a politican.

Lew

I think you know, Lew, that there are some Democrats who are a lot
farther to the right than some Republicans.

But, I don't understand why so many American towns and cities have fire
departments supported by local taxes, whether they have volunteer or
professional firemen. And yet, basic health insurance cannot be paid for
by some kind of involuntary contributions? I really don't make much
difference between the need for me and my family to have fire insurance
and health insurance. But then, I used to be even further left than I am
now. Now, I think that left is fine, but needs to be financially
responsible. Like getting some real oversight over those bankers. After
all, I did buy 100 shares Lehman when they were ~$17 and watched that go
up in smoke ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Phisherman" wrote:

I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.

Not to be a wise ass, but how many Libertarian members of congress are
there?

How is it financially irresponsible?

Government, please get out of my face!!!

When it comes to health care, the government is already involved or
"in your face" as you call it.

Think it is called Medicare/Medicaid, VA, government employees, etc.

BTW, if you don't like the proposals being considered, what are your
suggestions?

Something has to be done.

Lew

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:20:41 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"Phisherman" wrote:

I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.

Not to be a wise ass, but how many Libertarian members of congress are
there?

How is it financially irresponsible?

Government, please get out of my face!!!

When it comes to health care, the government is already involved or
"in your face" as you call it.

Think it is called Medicare/Medicaid, VA, government employees, etc.

BTW, if you don't like the proposals being considered, what are your
suggestions?

Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be for
the proposed plan.


Something has to be done.


Sure, for starters how about reducing the deficit? Balance the
budget? Stop printing money? Following the Constitution? Lots of
things can be done without spending our children's money.


Lew

On 14 Sep 2009 00:07:01 GMT, Han wrote:

I really don't make much
difference between the need for me and my family to have fire insurance
and health insurance.

I don't believe congress is talking about forcing you or me to buy
fire insurance on pain of confiscatory fines. (local fire departments
don't equate to fire insurance, by the way)

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"tom" wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom


Jet vs. Delta

"Han" wrote:

I think you know, Lew, that there are some Democrats who are a lot
farther to the right than some Republicans.

That's why Obama chose a guy from Chicago to be chief of staffG.

And yet, basic health insurance cannot be paid for
by some kind of involuntary contributions?

Just another red herring from the AM radio crowd.

Now, I think that left is fine, but needs to be financially
responsible.

That position has a lot of support including Obama.

Like getting some real oversight over those bankers.

Based on what I'm hearing, they are still running amuck.

Lew

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:sZ-
:


"tom" wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom


Jet vs. Delta




Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?

On Sep 13, 9:03*pm, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:sZ-
:



"tom" wrote in message
....
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? *Tom

Jet vs. Delta

Spruce, Pine, Fir: *Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?

Metric vs Imperial?

On Sep 14, 12:06*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:03*pm, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:





"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:sZ-
:

"tom" wrote in message
....
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? *Tom

Jet vs. Delta

Spruce, Pine, Fir: *Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?

Metric vs Imperial?

Smooth vs Crunchy?

On Sep 14, 12:03*am, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:sZ-
:



"tom" wrote in message
....
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? *Tom

Jet vs. Delta

Spruce, Pine, Fir: *Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?

Poplar or soft maple.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.

There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
the job.

With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
interested in bipartisan support?

Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go along.
A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about losing their
seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what many of their
constituents have been convinced is rampaging socialism.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

BTW, Medicare works quite well, just ask those who have it.

Actually it's a time bomb that will get more powerful as the years pass.
The big secret about Medicare that everyone in Washington already knows is
that it represents many trillions of dollars of unfunded liability. The
current federal deficit is child's play in comparison to what is coming.

On Sep 13, 1:41*pm, Steve Turner
wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:

Speechless today, Tom?

Old Keeter (AKA UA001) trick. From the antifaq:

If you get a blank response from somebody with a Delta tool handle, it
means that YOU HAVE WON the argument!! Those opposed to you have been
rendered speechless. You may now rest on your laurels, as everyone in
the group has conceded to you and agrees with your inanity, sorry, I
meant your well-reasoned views. No need to post to that thread
anymore.

Luigi

Phisherman wrote:

I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
Government, please get out of my face!!!

So how do you feel about various industries including the health insurance
industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost of health insurance
while finding ways to deny coverage to those who need it. They manage to
consume 20% of the money they take in for administrative overhead, at least
several times what it costs in other industrialized nations. Competition is
supposed to drive down prices for consumers, yet the health insurance
industry has achieved the exact opposite. Did you know the health care
industry shifts about a tenth of what you pay for health insurance to cover
their costs in treating uninsured patients? Did you know that despite
spending the most on health care of the 13 wealthiest nations that life
expectancy in America is the lowest of those 13 nations, while infant
mortality is the highest? So who, other than the govt., is supposed to do
something about this? Do you imagine that the insurance companies and drug
companies and so on will voluntarily decide that the pursuit of profit with
no regard to the harm they do cannot continue? Or do you dismiss all this
in the belief that the suffering of tens of millions of your fellow citizens
is simply not your problem, and that there is no way it will ever be your
turn to be told you aren't covered for something your doctor says you need?

"DGDevin" wrote:
Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
socialism.

Maybe it is time for a visit from VitoG.

Sounds like he could limit his time to the senate.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"DGDevin" wrote:
Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
socialism.

Maybe it is time for a visit from VitoG.

Sounds like he could limit his time to the senate.

Lew

Ah so you do subscribe to the Chicago style of politics.

As long as there is a (D) after the office holder of course. If it were
an (R) trying to force that kind of thing through, you'd be screaming
bloody murder.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

DGDevin wrote:

Phisherman wrote:

I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
Government, please get out of my face!!!

So how do you feel about various industries including the health insurance
industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost of health
insurance
while finding ways to deny coverage to those who need it.

You do realize that if you don't like one health insurance company, you
are perfectly free to find another, or to lobby your employer to change
insurers -- if enough employees are having problems, your employer will
most likely listen. If you are denied, nothing stops you from fighting via
the legal system or paying yourself -- that may lead to indebtedness, but
if people are willing to go into debt to get that flat-screen TV or the
newest car, you'd think something that will save their lives would be
viewed as a good investment. If you don't like the price, you can shop
around -- you'd be surprised the prices you can get on medical if you pay
without insurance -- you save a lot of paperwork for the doctors. Do you
think those options would be available if the government runs health care?
How many choices do you have for the motor vehicle department?

i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have now and a
federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health system, there is
nothing more that can be discussed.


They manage to
consume 20% of the money they take in for administrative overhead, at
least
several times what it costs in other industrialized nations. Competition
is supposed to drive down prices for consumers, yet the health insurance
industry has achieved the exact opposite. Did you know the health care
industry shifts about a tenth of what you pay for health insurance to
cover
their costs in treating uninsured patients? Did you know that despite
spending the most on health care of the 13 wealthiest nations that life
expectancy in America is the lowest of those 13 nations, while infant
mortality is the highest?

Did you know that survival rates from cancer are the highest in the United
States compared to other countries, especially those with socialized
medicine? That is a much better measure of health system success than life
expectancy since that is driven strongly by genetics and thus demographics
in some of those countries that are very homogeneous compared to the US.
As far as infant mortality, you also have to examine the definitions that
other nations use.


So who, other than the govt., is supposed to do
something about this?

I'd feel a whole lot better if the government were doing a bang-up job on
the health care programs it already runs. VA? Medicare? Indian Health
Service? Not exactly glowing testimonials. But if we give them the whole
sector, they'll make it work. Yeah, I'm convinced.



Do you imagine that the insurance companies and
drug companies and so on will voluntarily decide that the pursuit of
profit with
no regard to the harm they do cannot continue? Or do you dismiss all this
in the belief that the suffering of tens of millions of your fellow
citizens is simply not your problem, and that there is no way it will ever
be your turn to be told you aren't covered for something your doctor says
you need?



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT), tom
wrote:

On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom

Stain or paint on cherry.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 12:03 am, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:sZ-
:



"tom" wrote in message

...
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom

Jet vs. Delta

Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?


Poplar or soft maple.


Ginger or Maryanne

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Phisherman" wrote:

Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be
for
the proposed plan.

You must have missed it.

Stopping the "waste" in Medicare/Medicaid is one of the sources of
funds to help pay for the new plan.

There's a great argument and recommendation. What is preventing them
from
stopping the waste now? Why should this takeover of 1/6 of the US
economy
have to happen first before waste in Medicare happening now is stopped?
Since Medicare is a government program, why is it that this magical new
program is going to be any less subject to fraud and waste than the
government system already being poorly managed?


Bottom line, the only way they are going to make this save money is by
rationing health care. Somebody is going to decide what treatments are
given and to whom and who gets to "take the pain pill". After all,
someone's spirit and love of life is too subjective to judge, their age
[and political status] is purely objective.

If we do that, where would the Canadians go when they get sick?

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 12:06 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:03 pm, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:





"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:sZ-
:

"tom" wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom

Jet vs. Delta

Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?

Metric vs Imperial?

Smooth vs Crunchy?


rec.woodworking or alt.politics.usa.misc?

On 14 Sep 2009 04:03:43 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:sZ-
:


"tom" wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Let the debate begin.

Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom


Jet vs. Delta




Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?

Any will work as long as you paint the cherry a shade of JOAT yellow.


Regards,
Roy

After reading the subject line, and then seeing who posted it, I was
surprised this took on political overtones.

I have just completed a short but spirited debate with some of my
esteemed colleagues:

"Wet enough or a smooth ride (or glide as I described it), or wet
enough to be good and nasty".

We came to no definitive conclusion either.

No details available, but the conversation was much more interesting
than politics.

Those water slides can be so tricky to judge, dontcha know...

Robert

On Sep 13, 6:59*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.

There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
the job.

With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
interested in bipartisan support?


spread the blame around

Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 13, 1:41 pm, Steve Turner
wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:

Speechless today, Tom?

Old Keeter (AKA UA001) trick. From the antifaq:

If you get a blank response from somebody with a Delta tool handle, it
means that YOU HAVE WON the argument!! Those opposed to you have been
rendered speechless. You may now rest on your laurels, as everyone in
the group has conceded to you and agrees with your inanity, sorry, I
meant your well-reasoned views. No need to post to that thread
anymore.

Luigi

Yeah, I could tell from the context. :-) Funny though; nothing from Tom in nearly two
months and then two empty posts... Kinda got me curious about his mood. :-)

Another thing that intrigued me about the empty posts is that we use them in another group
to represent a moment of silence when somebody has passed.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:57:35 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

"Phisherman" wrote:

Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be
for
the proposed plan.

You must have missed it.

Stopping the "waste" in Medicare/Medicaid is one of the sources of
funds to help pay for the new plan.

BTW, Medicare works quite well, just ask those who have it.

Sure, for starters how about reducing the deficit?

Unless health care costs are reduced, it will be a cold day in hell
when the deficit gets reduced.


Bill Clinton did it. Doubtful Obama will.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:32:04 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Phisherman wrote:

I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
Government, please get out of my face!!!

So how do you feel about various industries including the health insurance
industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost of health insurance


I dont need a president, a cigarette smoker himself, telling me what
kind of insurance I need. Stopping smoking is an excellent way to
prevent disease and reduce health costs.

Phisherman wrote:

Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be for
the proposed plan.


Not to disagree, but sometimes stopping the waste costs more than ignoring
the inefficiency. You can't build a house without making sawdust (unless
you're using mud bricks).

As an example, the IRS doesn't seize someone's house, garnish their wages,
and file suit in federal court over a delinquent tax bill of two dollars!

No, wait...