"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e3 @4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57

wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House
passed their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of
work left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think
it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by
2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue
on the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the
issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health
care, so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is a
hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn
down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the
majority of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a
single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they
can have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private
industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the
back room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those
****ED UP laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The
Feds should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and
curing a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on
our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar because
Bush invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up
with resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even
that was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault. Everything
was perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in
Bosnia, look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not
the one who signed the bill to let banks be brokerage houses.
Something that had worked well after the 1929 crash. I hope you did
better reading on your patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.
Bosnia... we did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men
for nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to
interfere. And Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for
600 years. Let Europe take care of the problem if needed, was their
playground. How many billions we waste there? And we are still there.


Bush promoted the clusterfk, but ok. Somalia was a mistake, but
thousands of our troops didn't die. "any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind").

We saved lives in Bosnia, and it was necessary to "interfere" in ethnic
cleansing. We should have intervened in Rwanda and we should intervene
in Darfur. Don't forget that WW2 started in the region.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why should we interfere in Bosnia because of ethic cleansing? Ruwanda
was a lot better place to interfere. Bosnia has had Albanians cleansing
Serbs and Serbs cleansing Albanians for centuries. But the Albanians
seem to have the upper hand in all the years. They ran death camps for
the NAZI and even some of the Germans were grossed out by the gusto that
they went about the job. Are we the police department for Europe?


Besides the second question (answer is no), I'm not sure what point
you're trying to make. We saved lives there. The intervention worked.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Did we save lives? Maybe. They are still killing Serbs now that Bosnia
is non serb. Still not our place to go in. If you argue it is because of
ethnic cleansing, then you have to say Iraq is a good war, and we should
be there. Saddam was trying to ethnic cleanse Kurds.

?? Did you not listen to the news? Give me a break.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but the justification to attack Iraq was not, as
you well know, his human rights abuses. It was all about non-existent WMDs.

--
Nom=de=Plume