Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.

Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.

Must be a good bill.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.

Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.

Must be a good bill.


Last count, Baucus has one vote for his bill.

Right now, with the Kennedy seat vacant, the Democrats can't break a
filibuster (they still need 60 votes and there are only 59 Democrats).
Interestingly, if another Democrat dies - leaving them with 58 - they'll
only need 58 votes to invoke cloture.

Pray for the continued breathing of Robert Byrd.

And naturally, they get to count the communist, Liberian and so forth as
Democrats... all non-Republican.

Martin

HeyBub wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.

Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.

Must be a good bill.


Last count, Baucus has one vote for his bill.

Right now, with the Kennedy seat vacant, the Democrats can't break a
filibuster (they still need 60 votes and there are only 59 Democrats).
Interestingly, if another Democrat dies - leaving them with 58 - they'll
only need 58 votes to invoke cloture.

Pray for the continued breathing of Robert Byrd.

Gee, I thought Bob died a few years ago. He must be 90+?

HeyBub wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.

Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.

Must be a good bill.


Last count, Baucus has one vote for his bill.

Right now, with the Kennedy seat vacant, the Democrats can't break a
filibuster (they still need 60 votes and there are only 59 Democrats).
Interestingly, if another Democrat dies - leaving them with 58 - they'll
only need 58 votes to invoke cloture.

Pray for the continued breathing of Robert Byrd.

When I was an obnoxious teen, bitching about how screwed up
things were, the adults would ask "And your proposed solution
for correcting the problem is . . .?"

Opposing something is very easy.
Fixing something you think isn't working - well that takes a lot
more time and effort.

When opposing a change one must always consider the price
of doing nothing. The uninsured get medical treatment when
it's an emergency. And emergency room costs are multiples
of the cost of doctor visits before things get critical - and
really expensive.

The other thing to be aware of is which industries and which
lobbyists are opposing the change, what ever the proposed
change is, and examine their reason(s) for that opposition. I'm
willing put money on the it's not for altruistic reasons.

And if you've ever had a "problem" with your health insurance
company, especially if it's a life threatening thing, be aware that
it's in THEIR best interest for you to die - before they have to
expend any money on you. At least with the government you
CAN try and get your elected congress person and senator
to look into your problem. With an insurance company - your
screwed - AFTER you probably have spent months on the phone
talking to someone in a Call Center - in Pakistan or the Philipines
or Honduras - who may or may not speak english.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a
house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.

For just one minute, why don't you try substituting "FREEDOM" in place of
your continual healthcare attacks?

Because in all honesty, many people who face serious difficulties with their
healthcare view it NO DIFFERENTLY than a direct limitation of their freedom.
I KNOW this to be fact. And, it has the exact same effect. Unfortunately,
you don't have the imagination or intelligence to realize that. You take
advantage of your right to freedom by continually whining how much it costs
you. I wonder how you'd deal with it if that part of your freedom was
removed?

Pathetic little wimp. Can you sink any further?

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a
house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.

For just one minute, why don't you try substituting "FREEDOM" in place of
your continual healthcare attacks?

Because in all honesty, many people who face serious difficulties with their
healthcare view it NO DIFFERENTLY than a direct limitation of their freedom.
I KNOW this to be fact. And, it has the exact same effect. Unfortunately,
you don't have the imagination or intelligence to realize that. You take
advantage of your right to freedom by continually whining how much it costs
you. I wonder how you'd deal with it if that part of your freedom was
removed?

Pathetic little wimp. Can you sink any further?




Your "freedom" is not such thing. It's at the expense of another citizen.
Your "free" healthcare means someone else has less money for their own
family's needs. My worldview is not built on stealing, yours is. My
worldview isn't dependent on impoverishing other people. Your's is.
I don't ask third parties in government to do my stealing. You do.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

BULL****! Freedom costs money. It costs more money that it would ever cost
for a national healthcare service. It costs citizen's money. And, freedom
costs lives. Armed forces who fight overseas to preserve the American way of
life. Local police forces, National Guard. Where EXACTLY do you think the
money comes from to pay for those services?

Are you really so self absorbed that you can't see that?

Your "freedom" is not such thing. It's at the expense of another citizen.
Your "free" healthcare means someone else has less money for their own
family's needs. My worldview is not built on stealing, yours is. My
worldview isn't dependent on impoverishing other people. Your's is.
I don't ask third parties in government to do my stealing. You do.

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in
:

And naturally, they get to count the communist, Liberian and so forth
as Democrats... all non-Republican.


Since when do Liberians get to vote here?

Michael Kenefick wrote:
Gee, I thought Bob died a few years ago. He must be 90+?

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Born in 1917. He is ~92.

The real answer is remove bureaucratic impediments to interstate
competition among private healthcare providers, put a feedback
loop in place to punish the ambulance chasers that manufacture
insane legal claims, and inch the government *out* of healthcare
entirely in the next 25 years or so.



Jeffrey Skilling may be looking for work, once he is paroled.

You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a
house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.

--


Tim, how old is your mother? Is she on Medicare? Why is she entitled to
it?

People who paid into the existing system have a reasonable right to
expect they will get back what they put in. But the system today
pays out far, far more than the recipients every put in. The system
is iniquitous and should never have been implemented in the first place -
it is a ponzi scheme the like of which Madoff would only have dreamed.
The way you get out of it is by diminishing benefits 4% per year for the
next 25 years until it is gone entirely. Retire today, get full benefits
for life. Retire next year, get 96% benefits, and so on.

This is bad logic: The government screwed up social services for the last
60
years - let's have them do more of it.


If it never should have been implemented, then urge your mother to swear it
off, and you pay for her healthcare out-of-pocket.

Put your money where you mouth is.

To extend the Madoff analogy, as long as you're sure you'd get YOUR money
back (with 11% interest of course), it's ok to invest with him, even if you
knew he was a phony?

I doubt you or your mother will ever put into Medicare what you'll take out.
So isn't it hypocritical to participate in the program?

Are you funding your own healthcare needs for your retirement?

On Sep 18, 12:17*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snip]

Out on a week-end pass, Tim?

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
have to (politely) ask for voluntary charity. If that fails, I'll
become fertilizer a bit earlier than I'd like.

Do us all a favour and move that time line up substantially, will you? With
all the bull**** you spew you're likely to exfoliate everybody else in
rec.woodworking long before you manage to do the same to yourself.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Defending the borders benefits everyone more-or-less equally. Stealing
from some citizens to give to others harms freedom. Your kind of
"freedom" only exists because you are diminishing another person's
freedom.

The kind of freedom I'm talking about is much more involved and costly than
your trivial reference to it as border control. It consists of the society
you live in that permits fools like you to spout your crap. That freedom
costs money. It's the money for police forces that let you walk the streets
without being attacked. It's also the money involved in hiring the people to
legislate the laws that tolerate people like you. It's even the
infrastructure that takes your garbage away and paves the streets you drive
on.

As usual, you're such a useless twit, that I keep finding myself drawn into
your rhetoric. One day perhaps, you might find yourself somewhere that you
can make a real contribution. But, it's certainly not rec.woodworking where
you've contributed absolutely nothing in several years of showing everybody
what an selfish, whining, little ass you are.

On Sep 18, 1:32*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snip]

Out on a week-end pass, Tim?

No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...

Go on then...stop dragging your ass in here...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:32 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snip]
Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...

Go on then...stop dragging your ass in here...


Aw how cute, you and your life partner Upscale missed me ...

Isn't in interesting how some, who are offended by remarks, simply want the
speaker to shut up? Or go away? Or want his wife to feed him lots of pork
chops so he'll die of a heart attack?

In history, exile, shunning, ostracism, and the like were often employed for
those who violated the norms of society or arrayed themselves against the
political order.

On Sep 18, 6:38*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:32 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snip]
Out on a week-end pass, Tim?
No, just thought I'd go slummin' ...

Go on then...stop dragging your ass in here...

Aw how cute, you and your life partner Upscale missed me ...

Isn't in interesting how some, who are offended by remarks, simply want the
speaker to shut up? Or go away? Or want his wife to feed him lots of pork
chops so he'll die of a heart attack?

In history, exile, shunning, ostracism, and the like were often employed for
those who violated the norms of society or arrayed themselves against the
political order.

Like Guantanamo?

Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
predictable as it is.

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
rigidity in your though process.

Like Guantanamo?


Isn't that a salad? Wait...oh never mind. I'm thinking of guacamole.

Robatoy wrote:

Isn't in interesting how some, who are offended by remarks, simply
want the speaker to shut up? Or go away? Or want his wife to feed
him lots of pork chops so he'll die of a heart attack?

In history, exile, shunning, ostracism, and the like were often
employed for those who violated the norms of society or arrayed
themselves against the political order.

Like Guantanamo?

Pretty much, except there are those who advocate integrating the Gitmo
Guests into Mr Rogers neighborhood.

In my view, that's carrying the anti-exile mindset a bit too far.

On Sep 18, 7:30*pm, "Perry Aynum" wrote:
Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
predictable as it is.

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
rigidity in your though process.

Oh fur chrissakes don't get him fomenting....

On Sep 18, 12:07*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
battle.

Sorry, Dave. As you have noticed, this is primarily a coffee clatch
of experts that get together and exchange their expert opinions on
politics and economics.

Few are woodworkers, and it is pretty much the same guys every time
that adamantly expressed their opinions backed by furious googling to
make sure they get it right. They rail out at an unjust world that
doesn't understand how things should be (according to them, anyway).

You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.

Robert

On Sep 18, 10:02*pm, "
wrote:



opinions backed by furious googling

That just cracked me up....

On Sep 18, 10:46*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 18, 7:30 pm, "Perry Aynum" wrote:
Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
predictable as it is.

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
rigidity in your though process.

Oh fur chrissakes don't get him fomenting....

I love you man ...

L'shana tova, tikatevu

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
rigidity in your though process.

By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
hating, socialist *******s that attempt to debate him, right?

No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
his posts for him :-).

But I may be unfair to Tim - he may have changed - I haven't read his
posts in a long time.

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

Perry Aynum wrote:
Tim, thanks for being a good sport and sharing your opinion with us,
predictable as it is.

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
rigidity in your though process.

By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
hating, socialist *******s that attempt to debate him, right?

I guess thats better than simply calling him a "useless twit", or a
"misguided douche-nozzle"...

Well, different words anyway...

--
Jack
Got Change: USA ===== USSA!
http://jbstein.com

wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:07 am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
battle.

You would be better to killfile the posters, not the posts.

Yes, that is the only way to go. Most ARE woodworkers though, but here
is a short list to get him started:

JBStein
Robotoy
Upscale
Lew Hodgett
Larry Blanchard
Andrew Barss
Han
J.Clark
Tom Watson
DGDevin
Charlieb
Morris Dovey
Perry Aynum
Scott Lurndal
Buck Turgidson
Douglas Johnson
Chris Friesen
Tom Veatch
Tim Daneliuk
Phisherman
Mark & Juanita
HeyBub
Ed Pawlowski
CW

I may of missed a few that haven't posted in the last 2 weeks, and I may
have skipped a couple that do post political on occasion but not enough
to bother with, or just not in last 2 weeks. I didn't include those that
only post off topic about non-political things like food, recipes and so
on. Everyone listed has participated in an off topic politcal thread in
the last 2 weeks. Anyone I excluded or included that doesn't like it...
try harder.

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a
certain rigidity in your though process.

By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding,
freedom hating, socialist *******s that attempt to debate him, right?

No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
his posts for him :-).



Well, yeah. Morality is absolute and there are only so many ways to describe
it. Liberalism is, however, situational and there are millions of ways to
fashion the explanation. It's the difference between:

1. Thou shalt not murder, and
2. Killing someone should be avoided execpt in the following cases:
a. When the subject is an abusive spouse,
b. When the subject is a potentially abusive spouse
c. When the subject is someone the potentially abusive spouse knew
d. When the subject is the sexual partner of a spouse
e. When the subject is the potential sexual partner of a spouse
f. When the subject is a fetus,
g. When the subject is a potential fetus,
h. When the subject is a child molester (but not by the state),
i. When the subject might be a child molester (but not by the state)
j. When there is no difference between the subject and the aggrieved
(race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, ability to speak Lithuanian,
etc.)
...

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
battle.

So my proposed solution is that every post about anything to do with
your ****ed-up country's political and financial system that is causing
so much grief world-wide that isn't directly related to woodworking be
labeled with [USA-POLITICAL-CRAP] in the subject line so that those of
us who are outside the US and/or just wanting to see mostly wooddorking
posts here (yeah, I know... good luck!) can filter this bull**** with
some ease.

Of course this proposal is futile, so don't even bother responding...

Thanks for the opportunity to vent.

You're welcome.

You have my sympathies - if not my active support. I've wondered from
time to time whether we (the entire group) talk about politics too much
or not enough.

Less would lower traffic, but probably not have much effect on the
number of woodworking posts - and more might lead to improved consensus
on issues that affect us all. (Yeah, it'd be appropriate to use a
different forum, but I don't think that's likely to happen.)

I suppose we could also tag posts as to METRIC/IMPERIAL and
NEANDER/NORM/CNC content as well...

:-T

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a
certain rigidity in your though process.

By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding,
freedom hating, socialist *******s that attempt to debate him, right?

No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
his posts for him :-).



Well, yeah. Morality is absolute and there are only so many ways to
describe it. Liberalism is, however, situational and there are millions of
ways to fashion the explanation. It's the difference between:

1. Thou shalt not murder, and
2. Killing someone should be avoided execpt in the following cases:
a. When the subject is an abusive spouse,
b. When the subject is a potentially abusive spouse
c. When the subject is someone the potentially abusive spouse knew
d. When the subject is the sexual partner of a spouse
e. When the subject is the potential sexual partner of a spouse
f. When the subject is a fetus,
g. When the subject is a potential fetus,
h. When the subject is a child molester (but not by the state),
i. When the subject might be a child molester (but not by the state)
j. When there is no difference between the subject and the aggrieved
(race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, ability to speak
Lithuanian, etc.)

I guess Dickey Cheney is more liberal than I thought. He's fashioned
one or two explanations to suit his situation(s).

Dave in Houston

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:34:07 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Well, yeah. Morality is absolute and there are only so many ways to
describe it.

Funny, I thought the Christians, the Muslims, and the Buddhists had at
least 3 different takes on that "absolute" you claim :-).

The ayatollahs believe in an "absolute" morality too. It's just
different than yours.

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:13:51 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

You may want to work on mental agility, as you seem to have a certain
rigidity in your though process.
By that you mean he doesn't ever agree with the bottom feeding, freedom
hating, socialist *******s that attempt to debate him, right?

No, he means Tim is so predictable that almost anyone here could write
his posts for him :-).

Yeah, Tim and everyone else. Who has an opinion that changes to the
point of being unpredictable?

But I may be unfair to Tim - he may have changed - I haven't read his
posts in a long time.

Fairness has little to do with it. Opinions do not change with the
wind, unless you're an air head.

--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors ===== Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com

Morris Dovey wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:

Well, I keep killing the off-topic threads about US politics that
people insist on forcing upon the wreck, but it seems to be a losing
battle.

You have my sympathies - if not my active support. I've wondered from
time to time whether we (the entire group) talk about politics too much
or not enough.

Less would lower traffic, but probably not have much effect on the
number of woodworking posts - and more might lead to improved consensus
on issues that affect us all. (Yeah, it'd be appropriate to use a
different forum, but I don't think that's likely to happen.)

Nope, not going to happen. The best thing to do is filter everyone that
posts off topic questions if you insist on eliminating all off topic
messages. You will not have to spend much time reading though, as most
contributors, not all, but most contribute on all sorts of off topic
stuff. My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not
interested in. There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue
with those who are interested enjoying themselves. I enjoy hearing what
my fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
woodwork.

I suppose we could also tag posts as to METRIC/IMPERIAL and
NEANDER/NORM/CNC content as well...

Every message has a subject, not much trouble to skip the subjects you
find not interesting. Pretty sure thats a prime reason for having a
subject, an ability to sort by subject, and a mouse.


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

Jack Stein wrote:

My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not
interested in. There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue
with those who are interested enjoying themselves. I enjoy hearing what
my fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
woodwork.

Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlation
between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engagement
in non-woodworking discussions.

I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broadened
my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
important problems.

I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(s)
when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight in
progress.

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

On Sep 20, 2:43*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not interested
in. *There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue with
those who are interested enjoying themselves. *I enjoy hearing what my
fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
woodwork.

Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlation
between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engagement
in non-woodworking discussions.

I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broadened
my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
important problems.

I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(s)
when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight in
progress.

Based on what I've read this week, I am going to start filtering myself ....

Brilliant idea and long overdue.

On Sep 20, 3:27*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
My personal feeling is I can easily skip anything I'm not interested
in. *There is plenty I'm not interested in, but have no issue with
those who are interested enjoying themselves. *I enjoy hearing what my
fellow woodworkers have to say on a variety of subjects, even on
woodwork.
Me, too. I've found it interesting that there seems to be a correlation
between the kinds of woodworking people do and their mode of engagement
in non-woodworking discussions.
I've also found that exposure here to differing viewpoints has broadened
my perspectives, and helped me recognize some of the complexities and
difficulties in finding 'cut and dried' answers to (what I think are)
important problems.
I'm inclined to not filter posters, but do start ignoring sub-thread(s)
when discussion becomes rancorous or non-constructive - for the same
reasons I'd choose not to walk into a saloon where there's a barfight in
progress.
Based on what I've read this week, I am going to start filtering myself ...

Brilliant idea and long overdue.

I'm sorry I cannot see the post to which you're responding ...


Self filtration, in excess, can lead to blindness.