anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

you subscribe to the theory that the one who dies with the
most toys wins?

dave

Brian Elfert wrote:

otforme (Charlie Self) writes:


Everyone is supposed to get a "family" wage from day one? Maybe after 6 years
in college.


It's a ludicrous concept, IMO.


I seem to recall an old idea, "work your way up", that may have gone by the
boards now.


I'm 32 years old now. It wasn't until I was 28 years old that I really
made enough money to support myself. I doubled my salary at age 29 so I
could easily support a family now.

There were years after college that I was only taking home $500 or $600 a
month after taxes. At age 29 I sold a business for 6 figures and got a
new higher paying job.

I lived through a lot of lean years to get where I am now with a new
house, RV, and a new car.

Brian Elfert

anyone work for -> OT
 

In article ,
says...
Mark wrote:

Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
is a hallmark of a true Liberal.

You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
founded by liberals using liberal principles.

liberals, not statists. Your views are statist, not liberal in the
classical sense. You don't espouse individual liberty for anything
other than personal gratification or moral depravity.


That's all pretty much dead now, but I think its worth keeping the ideas
floating around in case somewhere else others want to live with the rule
of law and rights granted to individuals rather than what is going on
now.


Yep, pretty much dead now, you can't critcize the sitting president
(see your comment below) without dire reprisals, you can't worship where
you please, you can't travel anywhere within this country without
government permission. [Note to the irony impaired, the prior was
sarcasm]

Let's look at your other statements above, " ... want to live with the
rule of law" Actually, those who founded this country wanted to be able
to live with a minimum of laws and controls and set up the constitution
accordingly. Your modern definition of liberal seeks to impose more and
more laws to limit individual freedoms to engage in commerce or
industry, to regulate political speech by limiting the ability to air
political speech more than 90 days before an election unless you are a
member of a specific protected group (i.e. a politician running for
office or a member of the press). Not at all what the founders had in
mind. "... and rights *granted* to individuals" The founders are
spinning in their graves over that one. The fundamental thought in the
Constitution and even before that, the Declaration of Independence, was
that individuals are *endowed* with inalienable rights and that
repressive governments take away those God-given individual rights. The
constitution does not *grant* individual rights, it affirms them and
limits the governments ability to take away those rights.

The things you are decrying as removing freedoms are actually laws
that were enacted to make sure that those seeking to really destroy
those freedoms and most likely yourself. The laws you are indirectly
referring to are directly aimed at the groups who are seeking to destroy
the way of life you claim we have already lost and help prevent those
groups from being successful in their quest.



When you mention evasion, I can't help but think of Bush. He has done it
his whole life and it is working pretty well for him.


Just can't avoid adding those little hate-Bush digs, can you?

--

"There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a
mischevious ingredient in government, and provision should be made to
prevent its ascendency." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams

anyone work for -> OT
 

In article m,
says...
In article ,
says...
Mark wrote:

Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
is a hallmark of a true Liberal.

You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
founded by liberals using liberal principles.

liberals, not statists. Your views are statist, not liberal in the
classical sense. You don't espouse individual liberty for anything
other than personal gratification or moral depravity.


That's all pretty much dead now, but I think its worth keeping the ideas
floating around in case somewhere else others want to live with the rule
of law and rights granted to individuals rather than what is going on
now.


Yep, pretty much dead now, you can't critcize the sitting president
(see your comment below) without dire reprisals, you can't worship where
you please, you can't travel anywhere within this country without
government permission. [Note to the irony impaired, the prior was
sarcasm]

Let's look at your other statements above, " ... want to live with the
rule of law" Actually, those who founded this country wanted to be able
to live with a minimum of laws and controls and set up the constitution
accordingly. Your modern definition of liberal seeks to impose more and
more laws to limit individual freedoms to engage in commerce or
industry, to regulate political speech by limiting the ability to air
political speech more than 90 days before an election unless you are a
member of a specific protected group (i.e. a politician running for
office or a member of the press). Not at all what the founders had in
mind. "... and rights *granted* to individuals" The founders are
spinning in their graves over that one. The fundamental thought in the
Constitution and even before that, the Declaration of Independence, was
that individuals are *endowed* with inalienable rights and that
repressive governments take away those God-given individual rights. The
constitution does not *grant* individual rights, it affirms them and
limits the governments ability to take away those rights.

The things you are decrying as removing freedoms are actually laws
that were enacted to make sure that those seeking to really destroy
those freedoms and most likely yourself
are thwarted. [Dang, hate it when I do that]
The laws you are indirectly
referring to are directly aimed at the groups who are seeking to destroy
the way of life you claim we have already lost and help prevent those
groups from being successful in their quest.



When you mention evasion, I can't help but think of Bush. He has done it
his whole life and it is working pretty well for him.


Just can't avoid adding those little hate-Bush digs, can you?

--

"There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a
mischevious ingredient in government, and provision should be made to
prevent its ascendency." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams

anyone work for -> OT
 

Mark & Juanita writes:

Your modern definition of liberal seeks to impose more and
more laws to limit individual freedoms to engage in commerce or
industry, to regulate political speech by limiting the ability to air
political speech more than 90 days before an election unless you are a
member of a specific protected group (i.e. a politician running for
office or a member of the press).

What I'd like is to see the entire electoral process reduced to 90 days.
Period. Nominate and elect. Screw this nonsense now: try to watch news or
sports, and here's some fumblewit telling you how great he'll be at a job no
sane many would want.

Actually, those who founded this country wanted to be able
to live with a minimum of laws and controls and set up the constitution
accordingly.

Within reason. It is in the interpretation of that within reason that problems
arise. No one group or philosphical concept has the entire answer and all of
those I've checked are wrong on significant areas.

We now have the most repressive government we've had since the '50s, yet the
guy and gal on the street thinks it's a good thing, that government is doing
what it can to protect us. Not so. The current growing tendency to think that
growth of government is a good thing is frightening to anyone, Liberal or
Conservative, who takes time to think. Government in its growth phase is not
benign. But, then, when you read the "man on the street" responses in polls and
articles, it's a wonder things aren't worse than they are. Regardless of
agreement or disagreement, the lack of thought that goes into most responses is
astonishing. We can probably be grateful that no more than about 50% of the
populace bothers to vote.

Charlie Self
"Adam and Eve had many advantages but the principal one was that they escaped
teething." Mark Twain

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article , Brian
Elfert wrote:

My insurance rate actually barely increased at my last renewal in
December.

With NO tickets or accidents, my two commercial vehicle policies
increased 25% two weeks before the 800% announcement. And I had to pay
the usual $150 brokerage fee as well on top of the new premiums. They
are gouging thieves.

Gerry

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article , Brian
Henderson wrote:

These union assholes think that they're special and deserve benefits
that NO ONE ELSE GETS!

Plenty of people get benefits. Why are union members assholes for
wanting benefits? Or, are they assholes because you don't like unions?

These people are basically unskilled labor but they think they
deserve as much money as people who spent 12 years in college.

Those 12 years have cost the taxpayers A LOT MORE than they cost the
grads. Their "sacrifice" was their choice so they could sit in an
office instead of a factory floor.

The unskilled labour you mention work just as hard as anyone else. It's
just that society has decreed that they should earn so much less. The
sad part is that many times the work they do is more important to
society than the college types. Unfortunately, the college types are
the ones who are setting the policies in society as to value of work.

$10 is pretty decent money for not really doing anything, isn't it?

Look up instead of down for a change. There are many people *up* the
food chain getting a lot more than $10 for just as much nothing.
Politicians come to mind quickly.

The people who end up at Walmart aren't employable at $50k. Most of
them are lucky they can get hired anywhere at all.

That's an unfair comment. Most of them *can't* do any better because
MOST of the jobs created or available these days are parttime McJobs.
There are even your college types out there with no work available who
have to take on these retail, near-minimum-wage jobs or drive taxis
because of the lack of real jobs.

It's ridiculous to claim that they deserve more money because they
aren't making enough in an unskilled job to buy a new BMW.

Why do you feel the need to ridicule unskilled labour's need for a fair
wage? They are *NOT* asking for a new BMW.

BTW, maybe you need to drop the term "unskilled" from your vocabulary.
Some of those jobs at the "bottom end" take more skill than you
realise.

Gerry

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article , Brian
Elfert wrote:

Where is my subsidized health care? Why should transit workers get
subsidized health care when the taxpayers paying their wages don't get the
same?

Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
"subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".

TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
universal, public health care system.

Get angry at those private (and government) parasites instead of people
at the bottom of the food chain trying to better their conditions.

Gerry

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

"G.E.R.R.Y." writes:

Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
"subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".

TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
universal, public health care system.

Canada has a universal health care system. There are Canadians who come
to USA and pay cash for health care as the waits are so long in Canada.

I'm guess Canada is trying to save too much money with their universal
health care system.

Universal health care would probably work in the USA if congress funded it
properly. If health care is nationalized, politicians will always look at
cutting health care as way to save money.

Brian Elfert

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!



"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote:

In article , Brian
Elfert wrote:

Where is my subsidized health care? Why should transit workers get
subsidized health care when the taxpayers paying their wages don't get the
same?

Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
"subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".

TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
universal, public health care system.

Get angry at those private (and government) parasites instead of people
at the bottom of the food chain trying to better their conditions.

Gerry

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

Brian Elfert responds:

TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
universal, public health care system.

Canada has a universal health care system. There are Canadians who come
to USA and pay cash for health care as the waits are so long in Canada.

The waits are long in Canada, or so I'm told, on some kinds of "health" ca
cosmetic plastic surgery and similar procedures. Voluntary surgery may often
take a long time, but my understanding is that there is little or no back-up in
necessary procedures.

I'm guess Canada is trying to save too much money with their universal
health care system.

Probably not. The Canadian government, like all governments, has its problems
and inherent injustices, but I have not heard that many bad things about
Canadian health care.

Universal health care would probably work in the USA if congress funded it
properly. If health care is nationalized, politicians will always look at
cutting health care as way to save money.

You mean the way they look at underfunding defense requests?

Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article L,
"Grant P. Beagles" wrote:

Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!

Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
(some would disagree, of course):

a) Most Canadians think our health care system is broken
b) The huge majority of Canadians think it is vastly better then our
neighbours to the south.

Canadian politics are night and day from American politics. I get sucked
into reading these diatribes on politics here; just can't help myself.
It is sort of like watching an accident. In Canada, we generally expect
out politicians to be somewhat corrupt, a little dim and a few other
things. Afterall, if they were smart and corrupt, they would be CEOs.
Better pay and more power. Basic Canadian voting strategy, outside of
Alberta:
a) Vote for the lesser evil. There is no good guy.
b) If you cannot determine (a), vote for the guy least likely to screw
things up. This is probably the most common case. We strongly reward
pollies who do the minimum possible to stay in power.
c) If you cannot determine (b), vote for the current guy. Better the
devil you know then the demon you don't.

I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.

Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
around with an intern and lied about it. We wouldn't expect him to be
honest about it. Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
of the same religion.

Canadian political discussion:
Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
Guy B) "Yeah."
Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"

But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
then you could blink. It is sacred.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

"Grant P. Beagles" wrote in
message RCIAL...
Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!

Well, as a bona fide Canadian, I can only speak from a selfish point of
view. I'm glad we have the health care that we do have. My health issues
have mandated my using our health system extensively and I figure that
there's dozens and dozens of other countries where if I'd have been a
resident, I would have died years ago. Here, I'm alive and thriving with my
own business. I might well have done the same down in the US, but my
understanding is that getting full health assistance in the US means that
you're too poor to pay for any of it, so then it's free, otherwise you're on
the hook for vast amounts of money.

Of course, if you've got the cash, then better/faster medical assistance is
at hand, up here or down there, but that's the same with most everything in
our North American society.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

Brian Elfert asks:

Why should any health care system pay for cosmetic plastic surgery unless
required due to accident or injury?

Isn't cosmetic platic surgery always a cash only type of health care
option

Well, I dunno. A few years ago, a guy in Roanoke was trying to collect money,
while castigating his health insurance company for not paying, for experimental
treatment for his wife's cancer. I can understand the desparation that drives
such a desire, but with absolutely no known chance of success, should all the
other policyholders be forced to bear that expense?

As I recall, he did collect the necessary $150,000 plus from the community, but
the treatment didn't work, or if it did,it gave her six months of extra life
(possibly extra).

But I'd guess some cosmetic surgeries are more apt to be covered than others,
as you say, starting with accident and injury types and going on to those that
might improve quality of life. I might better have said "non-life threatening"
conditions take longer to treat.

Just as they do in the U.S. in many parts of our "voluntary" pay system.

But it probably takes longer to line up something like non-critical knee
replacement surgery, joint clean-up for arthritic conditions (which some
surgeons don't approve of anyway), and similar surgeries, while treatment for a
broken leg is going to be immediate.

I'd actually like to find some more information on this and may go do so. It
doesn't much matter to me (Medicare and VA cover my needs pretty well for the
moment), but my curiosity is piqued. I am more than slightly certain that
Canadian nationalized medical care gets a bad rap which I do not hear when I
question Canadians. But maybe they haven't been in the position of using our
marvelous U.S. health care system, where an insured knee surgery costs $1800 or
less, and the hospital, surgeon and gas passer bills the uninsured patient a
total of almost $9000. And the surgeon mildly screws up the procedure, so the
joint has to be re-done 4 years later.



Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

Paul Kierstead responds:

Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
around with an intern and lied about it. We wouldn't expect him to be
honest about it. Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
of the same religion.

Yes, well there are those of us who feel pretty much the same way down here.
It's the Catch 22, though, that enough emphasis on that kind of thing created
enough expense and stir that people will be screaming about the results, such
as they were, for decades, when, of course, the basic thing was a guy lying
about screwing around so his wife and kid wouldn't find out...in his case, that
he was still at it.

Politicians who espouse any religion at all except in church make my skin
crawl, whilst my eyeballs start searching to see if that pin stripe is covering
red skin and horns with a tail curled up the back of the jacket. I guess cowboy
boots will do to cover the cloven hooves.

Canadian political discussion:
Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
Guy B) "Yeah."
Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"

But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
then you could blink. It is sacred.

One could wish.

Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

Upscale writes:


Of course, if you've got the cash, then better/faster medical assistance is
at hand, up here or down there, but that's the same with most everything in
our North American society.


Or any other.

Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

Canada has a universal health care system. There are Canadians who come
to USA and pay cash for health care as the waits are so long in Canada.

The waits are long in Canada, or so I'm told, on some kinds of "health"
ca
cosmetic plastic surgery and similar procedures. Voluntary surgery may
often
take a long time, but my understanding is that there is little or no
back-up in
necessary procedures.

A friend in Vancouver BC needed a back operation. He could barely walk and
was in a lot of pain. It was considered non-critical and he was put off at
least three times over a two year period. He was contemplating coming to
the US and paying himself. Last time surgery was scheduled in Canada he
died before the date. He said this was common in the system.

I'm insured and have no worries of that. Good family coverage in the US is
$550 to $900/month. Kind of pricey for a low to medium wage earner that
does not have it as a job benefit.
Ed

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article pmkierst-93C092.14383309042004
@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
says...
In article L,
"Grant P. Beagles" wrote:

Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!

Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
(some would disagree, of course):

.... snip

I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.

Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
around with an intern and lied about it.

Most of us in the US wouldn't have cared either except that said
politician lied about it while under oath while testifying in a trial
accusing him of having sexually harrassed another woman. Funny thing
was that prior to that time, sexual harrassment was a huge cause celebre
among his side of the aisle, leading to huge lawsuits, the resignation
of a couple of politicians on the other side of the aisle, and serving
as a rallying cry against "evil CEO's and others in authority" using
such harassment to dominate their subordinates among that side of the
aisle until *he* was accused of said act. Then the same people who were
ready to "burn the witches" when they were CEO's were all of a sudden
throwing their backs out flip-flopping around to come to his defense.


We wouldn't expect him to be
honest about it.

Not even in a legal proceeding?

Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
of the same religion.

Canadian political discussion:
Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
Guy B) "Yeah."
Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"

But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
then you could blink. It is sacred.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

We wouldn't expect him to be
honest about it.

Not even in a legal proceeding?


A politician LIED?!?!

OH MY GOD !!!!!!!!

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:54:40 GMT, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

In article pmkierst-93C092.14383309042004
,
says...
In article L,
"Grant P. Beagles" wrote:

Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!

Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
(some would disagree, of course):

... snip

I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.

Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
around with an intern and lied about it.

Most of us in the US wouldn't have cared either except that said
politician lied about it while under oath while testifying in a trial
accusing him of having sexually harrassed another woman. Funny thing
was that prior to that time, sexual harrassment was a huge cause celebre
among his side of the aisle, leading to huge lawsuits, the resignation
of a couple of politicians on the other side of the aisle, and serving
as a rallying cry against "evil CEO's and others in authority" using
such harassment to dominate their subordinates among that side of the
aisle until *he* was accused of said act. Then the same people who were
ready to "burn the witches" when they were CEO's were all of a sudden
throwing their backs out flip-flopping around to come to his defense.


some, maybe. certainly not all. what I saw most of from the liberal
community was disgust and a sense of betrayal.






We wouldn't expect him to be
honest about it.

Not even in a legal proceeding?

Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
of the same religion.

Canadian political discussion:
Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
Guy B) "Yeah."
Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"

But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
then you could blink. It is sacred.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:54:40 GMT, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

In article pmkierst-93C092.14383309042004
,
says...
In article L,
"Grant P. Beagles" wrote:

Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!

Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
(some would disagree, of course):

... snip

I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.

Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
around with an intern and lied about it.

Most of us in the US wouldn't have cared either except that said
politician lied about it while under oath while testifying in a trial
accusing him of having sexually harrassed another woman. Funny thing
was that prior to that time, sexual harrassment was a huge cause celebre
among his side of the aisle, leading to huge lawsuits, the resignation
of a couple of politicians on the other side of the aisle, and serving
as a rallying cry against "evil CEO's and others in authority" using
such harassment to dominate their subordinates among that side of the
aisle until *he* was accused of said act. Then the same people who were
ready to "burn the witches" when they were CEO's were all of a sudden
throwing their backs out flip-flopping around to come to his defense.


some, maybe. certainly not all. what I saw most of from the liberal
community was disgust and a sense of betrayal.


Certainly the ones that would have been expected to have expressed
outrage in the past were guilty of this, in particular, those over in
the NOW gang who were lambasting and crucifying corporate figures and
politicians like Bob Packwood were not only silent, but actually vocally
defending the actions. What was most telling was that those who had a
voice and the ear of the media (as well as the media itself) did not
express that disgust or sense of betrayal, but rapidly fell in line
with, "it was only sex, everybody lies about sex" and "it was his
private life, it shouldn't matter".

I certainly believe that others who had previously supported that
administration but did not have a public voice did have the feelings you
indicate above. It would not surprise me that rank and file voters and
others would have felt this sense of betrayal. What was disappointing
(or confirming, depending upon one's viewpoint) was the public support,
the media push that villified those who were pursuing the perjury
charges, and lack of public condemnation.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article , Brian
Elfert wrote:

There are Canadians who come to USA and pay cash for health care as
the waits are so long in Canada.

Watch out for the corporate/media propaganda! In the last few weeks, I
have undergone blood work, cardiogram, carotid echo cardiogram, CT
scan, and followup GP dicussions on test results. ALL of this work was
done virtually immediately. The ONLY delays were in scheduling around
my weird availability. Don't believe all you read.

Corporate America wants no part of public health care. The corporate
world up here are lobbying trying to get their hands on all that creamy
taxpayer money. Remember, the two biggest sources of untapped MEGA
bucks are health care and education. Some corporations must get all
moist just dreaming about them.

Gerry

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article m,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

snip...on some guy who lied about fooling around with an intern...

We wouldn't expect him to be
honest about it.

Not even in a legal proceeding?

I can recall very few times I ever heard a fellow canadian differentiate
between "life" and "court". In all those cases, as far as I can recall,
it was that a defendant would be expected to lie in court, as after all
the whole point of pleading not guilty is to keep your ass out of
trouble. Note that I am not saying they felt that all people lie in
court, just that you can't believe what a defendant says. And that you
would be a moron for not lying if you can get away with it. Beating "the
man" (especially taxes) is somewhat of a sport in Canada, particularly
in some areas like the province I was brought up in (Newfoundland).

People in Canada (or at least an awful lot of them) really did think
that it was just sex. And it is still at least somewhat taboo to probe
politicians private lives too closely here, unless the politician makes
a point of it. Most keep their private lives, including religion,
family, etc, very private and that is respected for the most part.

Pretty funny. One of our politician hopefuls, Stockwell Day (party
leader who couldn't shut his mouth when he should and got the boot from
his own party) was, by Canadian standards, extreme right wing. He went
the the US of A to meet Newt and hopefully swap notes and get some
synergy. He talked in management speak a lot when he wasn't sounding
like an idiot. Anyway, when he returned he looked somewhat in shock and
didn't say much at all. I expect Newt thought this "right-wing" canuck
was a pinko-commie.

This might give you some idea of why Dubya's "approval" rating in canada
approaches zero. The mouse often measures such things when he lives by
an elephant. The party in power (Liberal, but actually centrist in
position currently) had to threaten its members to keep them from bad
mouthing dubya (they kept calling him a moron amongst other things)
cause it was making weak relations even worse.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:01:31 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
wrote:

Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
"subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".

The reason taxpayers don't get the same is because taxpayers have to
live in the real world. Businesses can't afford to spend money left
and right, they have to make a profit and they have to offer
comparable benefits and pay to their competitors. In cases like the
bus drivers or the dock workers from the strike last year in
California, these are government jobs and the unions see government
jobs as bottomless money pits. Unions want their employees to have
superior income and benefits (mostly so more people will be come union
members).

It just doesn't work that way. Everyone has to compete and a company
can only afford to pay what they can pay.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:35:08 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
wrote:

In article , Brian
Henderson wrote:
These union assholes think that they're special and deserve benefits
that NO ONE ELSE GETS!

Plenty of people get benefits. Why are union members assholes for
wanting benefits? Or, are they assholes because you don't like unions?

No, they tried to get free healthcare, not only for the employee, but
for their entire family. They were one of the last industries where
completely free healthcare existed and the grocery companies were
still offering very low-cost payments for their employees under the
new proposed agreement. The unions felt that their employees
shouldn't have to pay a penny, that they should somehow be special and
above every other industry.

The unskilled labour you mention work just as hard as anyone else. It's
just that society has decreed that they should earn so much less. The
sad part is that many times the work they do is more important to
society than the college types. Unfortunately, the college types are
the ones who are setting the policies in society as to value of work.

They earn what they deserve, which frankly isn't a whole lot. Most of
them could be replaced by self-checkout machines quite easily.

That's an unfair comment. Most of them *can't* do any better because
MOST of the jobs created or available these days are parttime McJobs.
There are even your college types out there with no work available who
have to take on these retail, near-minimum-wage jobs or drive taxis
because of the lack of real jobs.

Most of them simply aren't qualified to do any better. They do not
have the education or experience necessary to do better. They can
gain said experience through hard work, but they do need to start at
the bottom.

It's too bad so many people aren't willing to start at the bottom and
move up, they want to start at the top.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article , Brian
Henderson wrote:

the unions felt that their employees shouldn't have to pay a penny,
that they should somehow be special and above every other industry.

That's rubbish. There are many industries that get free healthcare
benefits.

They earn what they deserve, which frankly isn't a whole lot. Most of
them could be replaced by self-checkout machines quite easily.

That's exactly the point that I was making. Society has decided who
makes what and that a lot of the pay rates are way out of whack with
so-called professionals. You personally seem to think that they are
worth almost nothing whereas I think politicians, lawyers, and many
other "professions" should be worth a lot less than they are paid.
That's my personal opinion.

Most of them simply aren't qualified to do any better. They do not
have the education or experience necessary to do better. They can
gain said experience through hard work, but they do need to start at
the bottom.
It's too bad so many people aren't willing to start at the bottom and
move up, they want to start at the top.

They're already at the bottom. I also think that education is highly
overrated as a criterion for determining pay levels. I am sorry that
you seem to see something intrinsically wrong with people who have very
little wanting more from a society that rewards some others obscenely.

Corporations, big business executives, and politicians who control
society with their bottom-line mentality all have a vested interest in
keeping poor people poor. They don't have much buying power or
political savvy. Witness the widening gap in North America between the
working poor and the wealthy especially in the last thirty years or so.

The people at the bottom end are not your enemy. Don't let TPTB
propagandise you into thinking that they are.

Gerry

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:27:30 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
wrote:

That's rubbish. There are many industries that get free healthcare
benefits.

Really? Name one that provides 100% health coverage for not only the
employee but the employees entire family. That means the employee
doesn't pay one penny in health co-pay or insurance costs.

We'll wait.

anyone work for Lowe's or Home Depot?
 

In article , Brian
Henderson wrote:

Really? Name one that provides 100% health coverage for not only the
employee but the employees entire family. That means the employee
doesn't pay one penny in health co-pay or insurance costs.

We'll wait.

Sorry, you had some problem with the 100% figure. While I'm sure there
are people who do have 100% coverage, I can't name any off the top of
my head but there are MANY who come *very* close. So, I guess you *can*
**** farther than me.

Some get 80% or 90% paid by the employer and the insured employees pay
the difference, but the WHOLE families are also covered. There is
usually a $50 or a $75 deductible on the first medical event of the
year. Certain levels of dentist, orthodontist, and optical coverage are
included. Teachers and civil servants are some that come easily to
mind. Auto workers among others have first-rate benefits as well. All
of the above also have good retirement benefits packages.

There, you didn't have to wait too long.

Gerry