On Sep 23, 4:48*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

As your application of the 'bull**** baffles brains' method is well
known now, it cannot be dealt with by a rational person.
Your elementary school debate tactics are as painfully transparent as
Stein's ****ed-through panties. He forgets to take them down before he
sits down to pee.
Seeing that you have nothing else to offer, either in constructive or
creative manner, I will now concentrate on getting Stein in a lather.
He's a lot of fun. Not stale like you, Tim.

I feel left out. Sniff.

Call it special consideration. Two friends of mine are/were cops. One
made it to Deputy Chief here in Sarnia. Photographed Angela's and my
wedding, after all he had shot some crime scenes before... He's
retired now. The other works financial crimes for the OPP. Very
interesting thing he's got there.

On Sep 23, 1:33*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I guess not being able to enrage me diminishes your energy considerably.
Good! *BTW, I found you some help:

* *http://imgur.com/8Jur5.png


Thanks for the link. I'll waste no time clicking on it.
I suppose there is a possibility that it is funny, as you have
demonstrated in the past that somehere, deep-down, amongst the rubble
of misguided insanity, there lies a sense of humour.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:53:26 -0500, krw wrote:

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family
employer plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for
premiums).

There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
benefit plan he won't have employees.

There IS a parallel universe! One where theory works out in practice.

Some of us may be in a trade or profession that allows changing jobs at
will, but most folks don't have that choice. Especially in a market
where there's 100 applicants for every job opening.

I was one of the lucky ones until I retired. But even then I found that
it became more and more difficult as I got older. After 50 it was almost
impossible.

As an example, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 50 year old retail
sales clerk whose employer has just cut benefits. You inquire about
openings at other stores and get responses like "you're overqualified" or
"we're looking for a trainee". You check into buying your own insurance
for yourself and family and find it would cost more than your housing and
food. Are you "free"?





--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:30:48 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.

It's worse than that. The Republicans rate saving the environemnt,
increasing workplace safety, providing a living wage, etc., below making
money. "You can't do ......, it'll cut my profits." What do they care,
they'll be dead by the time the **** hits the fan.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
"DGDevin" writes:
HeyBub wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
[...]

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
words, **** out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
when in that situation, any easy slogans?

In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.

scott

Nooooow I understand: The rest of us should pay for the kind of healthcare you
want so you can work in a place that you like and be free of "resentment".
What a marvelous worldview...


what a remarkable strawman. I'm really struggling to see how you
can translate what I said into what you said.

HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
I merely provided a short list of
folks that post off topic when someone else suggested filtering names
rather than subjects. I may have correctly noted that filtering names
would be much easier than filtering subjects.

Then your list may need some tuning. I have NEVER started an off-topic
conversation (except maybe a humorous one or two and so labeled). On the
other hand, I don't let some things go unchallenged either.

My list of names had nothing to do with people that START off topic
conversation. The list was of people that PARTICIPATE in off topic
conversation, and you are definitely on the list.

Filtering only the person that started an off topic thread would get him
nowhere.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Scott Lurndal wrote:

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.

Yeah, that's OLD for sure. The absolute last way to provide individual
freedom is by empowering government. Neither todays Dems nor Repubs
have any plan on reducing government. You seem to be lost in left wing,
socialist ******* drivel that is today the domain of both Democratic AND
Republican parties.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:30:48 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.

It's worse than that. The Republicans rate saving the environemnt,
increasing workplace safety, providing a living wage, etc., below
making money. "You can't do ......, it'll cut my profits." What do
they care, they'll be dead by the time the **** hits the fan.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In my view, it's pitiful that an employer has to pay $56/hour to a worker
AND put up signs that say "Do not put finger in the saw."

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:53:26 -0500, krw wrote:

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much,
much more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may
not be able to afford it (note that the current figure for the
average family employer plan is $13k per year between the employer
and employee for premiums).

There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
benefit plan he won't have employees.

There IS a parallel universe! One where theory works out in practice.

Some of us may be in a trade or profession that allows changing jobs
at will, but most folks don't have that choice. Especially in a
market where there's 100 applicants for every job opening.

I was one of the lucky ones until I retired. But even then I found
that it became more and more difficult as I got older. After 50 it
was almost impossible.

As an example, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 50 year old
retail sales clerk whose employer has just cut benefits. You inquire
about openings at other stores and get responses like "you're
overqualified" or "we're looking for a trainee". You check into
buying your own insurance for yourself and family and find it would
cost more than your housing and food. Are you "free"?

Uh, yeah...

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
"DGDevin" writes:
HeyBub wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
What cracks me up is folks upset at the notion of some govt.
bureaucrat telling them which sort of health care they'll be allowed
to have as if the same damn thing doesn't happen today with insurance
company bureaucrats. I had an MRI awhile back and the hospital
wouldn't give me an appointment until they'd heard from the insurance
company. Ditto with appointments with specialists and so on, it all
requires approval from some guy in a cubicle a thousand miles away.
[...]

Here's the difference: If you don't like the way your insurance
company treats you - and your observation tends to imply that
direction - you're free to change insurance companies!
Horsecrap. My wife and I have employer-provided insurance, but if we left
that coverage I'd be one of those "pre-existing condition" cases, in other
words, **** out of luck. There was a documentary on PBS not long ago that
mentioned the CEO of Kaiser Permanente is in the same boat--uninsurable
outside company coverage. Got any facile advice on what people should do
when in that situation, any easy slogans?
In their mind, you should just change employers. People like Tim, and
Robots like HeyBub (who is too ashamed of his positions to post with
his real name) think people are just resources that get slotted in
wherever they are needed; whereas most people actually get jobs that
they _like_, and resent being reslotted for whatever reason or being
treated as interchangable parts in some vast machine.

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.

scott
Nooooow I understand: The rest of us should pay for the kind of healthcare you
want so you can work in a place that you like and be free of "resentment".
What a marvelous worldview...


what a remarkable strawman. I'm really struggling to see how you
can translate what I said into what you said.

I read what you wrote, no more. You opined that people don't like being slotted becayse
it makes them resentful - this in the context of a nationalized healthcare debate.
What I said is the logical conclusion of all the above...

Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or owning a flatscreen
TV. Insisting that your neighbors pay for it is no different than forcing them to
pay your mortgage. In this case "neighbors" mostly means younger people picking up
the tab for older people. The young people mostly don't need insurance but will
be forced to do so under any government mandated plan - it's the only way to pickup
the tab for the elders that don't want to spend their own money on healthcare. There
simply are not enough wealthy people to fleece to pay for it all. Sadly, almost every
liberal I know - including the relatively smart ones - cannot or will not do math and
thus believes you can legislate magic into existence in the face of all economic
reality. Wait until you see every 18 year old having to both sign up for the draft
AND buy insurance they don't need. You'll see a level of "resentment" that will
curl your hair ...

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:30:48 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

It's the old Repubs favor the freedom of business to do whatever they
want, and Dems favor the freedom of individuals to do whatever they
want.

It's worse than that. The Republicans rate saving the environemnt,
increasing workplace safety, providing a living wage, etc., below making
money. "You can't do ......, it'll cut my profits." What do they care,
they'll be dead by the time the **** hits the fan.


There is a big leap of faith here in your statement that is baldly
wrong. The proposals of the left do not "save the environment",
"increase workplace safety", "provide a living wage", or any such
other thing. They are nothing more than cheap political theatrics
to buy votes from the sub-literate moochers exemplified by ACORN
and its minions. The honest way to accomplish this is to reform
tort laws to do two things:

1) Make silly law suits punishingly expensive for the attorneys
bringing.

2) Make it easier for the average person to bring suit when there
is a legitimate claim for things like poor workplace safety.

These two things are very difficult to get right simultaneously,
but at least it is remotely possible. There is NO hope of using
law to legislate these charming little experiments in social engineering
fairly. Every single one of the things you cite benefits some people to
the detriment of other, except in principle, environmental laws. The problem
with those is that the government always gets them wrong - go look at what's
happening in the San Joachin valley today for an example of what happens
when the lunatic left pantheists are put in charge of the EPA.

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

On Sep 23, 3:45*am, "Upscale" wrote:
You feel free to question my integrity by calling me evil and a thief solely
based on the fact that I benefit from country wide universal health care. I
know it's all you have.

I just want it on the record that I am quite happy that Upscale can
benefit from the taxes I pay to support universal health care, and
that I actually would not mind all that much to pay more if it
improved my fellow citizen's access to health care.

He is in no way stealing from me, no more than anyone who benefits
from a program that we the people, in our wisdom or lack thereof, have
voted in favour of through our duly elected representatives.

On Sep 23, 3:22*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
I suspect that most of them are actively living out their lives as our
current crop of politicians.
One Americanadian (Ignatieff) is trying to become PM.
I'm no Harper fan, but IggyPop is no alternative.

I agree. I've never be remotely interest in the Conservatives, but the
'leaders' of the Liberals for the past several years have been lacking in
everything I'd consider necessary to be a leader of our country.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1299104/

;-)

Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:45 am, "Upscale" wrote:
You feel free to question my integrity by calling me evil and a thief solely
based on the fact that I benefit from country wide universal health care. I
know it's all you have.

I just want it on the record that I am quite happy that Upscale can
benefit from the taxes I pay to support universal health care, and
that I actually would not mind all that much to pay more if it
improved my fellow citizen's access to health care.

He is in no way stealing from me, no more than anyone who benefits
from a program that we the people, in our wisdom or lack thereof, have
voted in favour of through our duly elected representatives.


How about the likely millions of your fellow citizens that do not share
your eleemosynary spirit? It's one thing to volunteer to help - most
all of us have done that in one way or another in our lives. It's
quite another to be forced to do so by law.

Thought Experiment: Assume there was no national healthcare in your
nation. Would you willingly send part of your paycheck to people you
do not know, are not in your circle of family and/or friends, and otherwise
strangers? I say the answer based on the charitable giving in the US
and Canuckistan is a resounding *YES*. People DO like caring for others.
Upscale and others that share his worldview act as if in the absence of
government force there would no help available at all. It's utterly
false. In actual fact, when people have more money in their pocket, they
give more to charity. The real reason that charity-at-the-point-of-a-gun
is so popular is twofold:

- There bulk of the citizenry gets more out of social mooching programs than
they put in. They've been taught that taking something that is not yours
is wrong unless they take from people that are rich. Since there are way
more poor- and middle-class people than wealthy ones, mooching almost always
manages to pass. The current US debate on healthcare is not a mooching vs.
no-mooching debate. It is a debate about *what kind* of mooching and whether
or not the existing moochers will win or lose in the proposed changes.

- The political creatures love mooching programs because they can: A) Buy
votes with them and B) Attempt social engineering that suits them.

All in all, social programs are an unholy mess. I applaud your willingness
to help your fellow man. I share that with you. What I do not share is
a willingness to have some malignant politician decide for me just who should
get what I've worked for and how much. I want to make that kind of call
for myself...

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

On Sep 24, 10:01*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
*I applaud your willingness
to help your fellow man. *I share that with you. *What I do not share is
a willingness to have some malignant politician decide for me just who should
get what I've worked for and how much.

wait for it.....

*I want to make that kind of call for myself...

I would think it safe to assume that the only people who might benefit
from that help would be those who have the same ****ed up outlook as
he does.... after you kiss his ring.

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I applaud your willingness
to help your fellow man. I share that with you. What I do not share is
a willingness to have some malignant politician decide for me just who should
get what I've worked for and how much.

wait for it.....

I want to make that kind of call for myself...

I would think it safe to assume that the only people who might benefit
from that help would be those who have the same ****ed up outlook as
he does.... after you kiss his ring.

Wrong. I have happily contributed to people that absolutely hate my worldview.

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

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Wrong. I have happily contributed to people that absolutely hate my
worldview.

Right! Sounds entirely believable to me. Internally, you whine and groan and
hate giving anything to anybody without recompense and spend most of your
waking moments verbalizing it here where you make zero contribution. But,
outside when dealing with the general public, you give put on a different
face and give of yourself monetarily and enjoy doing it.

The explanation is obvious. You suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder
at the simplest level and schizophrenia and the worst level. I vote for the
schizophrenia. You're too ****ed up to be anything else.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

eleemosynary


You are a selfish *******.

Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
forced to contribute to the common good.

If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Sep 25, 6:12*am, Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:01:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
eleemosynary

You are a selfish *******.

Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are
forced to contribute to the common good.

If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.

Regards,

Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Uh-oh.. Tom said 'ass'. My be some kinda fukkin librul....

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or
owning a flatscreen TV.

You overlook:

* The Community Redevelopment Act which made it easy for anyone, even those
without a job, to own a home.
* The "Cash for Clunkers" program to help some to buy a car.

I understand "A TV in Every Pot Act" is being drafted.

Your government at work.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
If you like, I'll be happy to send you a photo of myself so you can
actually see the individual that occupies most of your waking thoughts
and dreams.


They do enough jerking off to your writing, don't give them a picture to
go along with it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:12:58 -0500, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:53:26 -0500, krw wrote:

Second, non-employer sponsored plans will cost the employee much, much
more than the employer sponsored plan; and the employee may not be able
to afford it (note that the current figure for the average family
employer plan is $13k per year between the employer and employee for
premiums).

There is more than one employer. If you don't like you're benefits
package you are free to look elsewhere. If the employer has a crappy
benefit plan he won't have employees.

There IS a parallel universe! One where theory works out in practice.

In this case, theory and practice are the same.

Some of us may be in a trade or profession that allows changing jobs at
will, but most folks don't have that choice. Especially in a market
where there's 100 applicants for every job opening.

Find another. No one is owed a living, or anything else.

I was one of the lucky ones until I retired. But even then I found that
it became more and more difficult as I got older. After 50 it was almost
impossible.

Crap. I'm 57 and just started a new job a year ago, after retiring
once.

As an example, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 50 year old retail
sales clerk whose employer has just cut benefits. You inquire about
openings at other stores and get responses like "you're overqualified" or
"we're looking for a trainee". You check into buying your own insurance
for yourself and family and find it would cost more than your housing and
food. Are you "free"?

Any more strawmen you'd like to enlist in your dreams?

HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or
owning a flatscreen TV.

You overlook:

* The Community Redevelopment Act which made it easy for anyone, even those
without a job, to own a home.
* The "Cash for Clunkers" program to help some to buy a car.

I understand "A TV in Every Pot Act" is being drafted.

Your government at work.

I'm waiting for a Granite Countertop in every Kitchen Act. And the rip
off prices they charge and obscene profits they make for this rock today
is pure greed. I'm thinking no more than $5 a square foot would be more
reasonable than the $100+ the greedy capitalist pigs charge now.

--
Jack
Got Change: uh uh uh ========= um um um!
http://jbstein.com

On Sep 29, 8:35*am, Jack Stein wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or
owning a flatscreen TV.

You overlook:

* The Community Redevelopment Act which made it easy for anyone, even those
without a job, to own a home.
* The "Cash for Clunkers" program to help some to buy a car.

I understand "A TV in Every Pot Act" is being drafted.

Your government at work.

I'm waiting for a Granite Countertop in every Kitchen Act. *And the rip
off prices they charge and obscene profits they make for this rock today
is pure greed. *I'm thinking no more than $5 a square foot would be more
reasonable than the $100+ the greedy capitalist pigs charge now.

Don't forget to add Granite installers to Tim Geitner's list of
government controlled incomes.