direct from Florida
 

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_1024.html


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_1024.html



"The government could — and should — prevent subsequent shortages by buying a certain amount of vaccine each year", what heresy is this?

Next thing you'll want the government to fund and operate a health care system, you'll become like the rest of the industrialized world where everyone
can get essential care without going broke. Of course you might have to wait for a bit to get that non life threatening rhinoplasty.

Cheers
Marty

And, Bush knew about the problem years ago, and he did NOTHING. Now,
potentially more people will die from flu then died in the entire Vietnam
war.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_1024.html



"The government could — and should — prevent subsequent shortages by
buying a certain amount of vaccine each year", what heresy is this?

Next thing you'll want the government to fund and operate a health care
system, you'll become like the rest of the industrialized world where
everyone can get essential care without going broke. Of course you might
have to wait for a bit to get that non life threatening rhinoplasty.

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
"The government could — and should — prevent subsequent shortages by
buying a certain amount of vaccine each year", what heresy is this?

Next thing you'll want the government to fund and operate a health care
system, you'll become like the rest of the industrialized world where
everyone can get essential care without going broke. Of course you might
have to wait for a bit to get that non life threatening rhinoplasty.

Actually, the U.S. health care system is far more socialized than
anybody wants to admit. The flu shot is an example of poor managemement,
but for the most part the system works pretty well for both ends of the
spectrum... it puts a heck of a squeeze on the people in the middle though.

For example, you can get a very wide range of treatment & most
inoculations for free at a state run clinic... of course you have to
wait in a long line. You can also get free medical care at any major
hospital emergency room... again, you might have to wait in a long line.
At the opposite end, there is a rising trend for "boutique" health care
offices for people who don't mind paying a lot for service. They even
make house calls... for a price.

However, if you're a middle class schmuck who can't take 3 days off to
go fight the crowds & fill out paperwork at the county health dept, then
too bad for you. I think this will change, as everything tends to come &
go in cycles. But meanwhile the biggest problem is that Americans of
both political stripes seem to fervently believe that there *must* be
such a thing as a free lunch!

Regards
Doug King

"Martin Baxter" wrote
Jonathan Ganz wrote:


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_1024.html

"The government could — and should — prevent subsequent shortages by
buying a certain amount of vaccine each year", what heresy is this?

Next thing you'll want the government to fund and operate a health care
system, you'll become like the rest of the industrialized world where
everyone
can get essential care without going broke. Of course you might have to
wait for a bit to get that non life threatening rhinoplasty.


Or we'll just dump Bush and his prohibition and buy our medicines at
international prices.

DSK wrote:
But meanwhile the biggest problem is that Americans of
both political stripes seem to fervently believe that there *must* be
such a thing as a free lunch!


This is certainly not a perception held exclusively by Americans, indeed it is virulent throughout the world. I know what my health care is costing
me; some of the highest taxes in the free world. On the other hand there does arise a savings in the health care system often overlooked. Our MDs
and hospitals only have one agency to bill, unfortunately that agency being the Government, they can require as much paper work as three or four
insurance companies combined.

Cheers
Marty

That's bullroar...this is not supposed to be a bad flu year and the only
people who need flu shots are the infirm...people are making much more out
of this than what it is....if you have bad lungs to begin with, or a serious
heart condition, or a depleted immune system, then you might have something
to worry about...other than that, you'll get an upper respiratory viral
infection (that's spelled G-O-L-D) and in a week to 10 days it will be over.
Frink fluid, take zinc, and don;t sneeze on your neighbor. And
remember...WASHING YOUR HANDS IS THE BERY BESY PREVENTATIVE FOR
INFLUENZAit beats the shot 100 to 1.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And, Bush knew about the problem years ago, and he did NOTHING. Now,
potentially more people will die from flu then died in the entire Vietnam
war.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_1024.html



"The government could — and should — prevent subsequent shortages by
buying a certain amount of vaccine each year", what heresy is this?

Next thing you'll want the government to fund and operate a health care
system, you'll become like the rest of the industrialized world where
everyone can get essential care without going broke. Of course you might
have to wait for a bit to get that non life threatening rhinoplasty.

Cheers
Marty

So, what you're saying is that Bush knew 2 years ago that this flu season
was going to be mild? Talk about delusional....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katysails" wrote in message
...
That's bullroar...this is not supposed to be a bad flu year and the only
people who need flu shots are the infirm...people are making much more out
of this than what it is....if you have bad lungs to begin with, or a
serious heart condition, or a depleted immune system, then you might have
something to worry about...other than that, you'll get an upper
respiratory viral infection (that's spelled G-O-L-D) and in a week to 10
days it will be over. Frink fluid, take zinc, and don;t sneeze on your
neighbor. And remember...WASHING YOUR HANDS IS THE BERY BESY PREVENTATIVE
FOR INFLUENZAit beats the shot 100 to 1.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And, Bush knew about the problem years ago, and he did NOTHING. Now,
potentially more people will die from flu then died in the entire Vietnam
war.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_1024.html



"The government could - and should - prevent subsequent shortages by
buying a certain amount of vaccine each year", what heresy is this?

Next thing you'll want the government to fund and operate a health care
system, you'll become like the rest of the industrialized world where
everyone can get essential care without going broke. Of course you might
have to wait for a bit to get that non life threatening rhinoplasty.

Cheers
Marty

DSK wrote:
But meanwhile the biggest problem is that Americans of
both political stripes seem to fervently believe that there *must* be
such a thing as a free lunch!


Martin Baxter wrote:
This is certainly not a perception held exclusively by Americans, indeed
it is virulent throughout the world.

Yes, sorry. I didn't mean to claim it for Americans only. I think that
to a large extent it is human nature... if you're a Kipling fan, see
'Road Song of the Bandar-Log.'

DSK

DSK wrote:
DSK wrote:


if you're a Kipling fan, see
'Road Song of the Bandar-Log.'

I am, and have just checked it out, very apropos!

Thanks.

Cheers
Marty

What I'm saying is that Bush really has nothing to do with the flu....I
suppose the reason you ran out of toilet paper was someone's fault (other
than your own) too? Flu happens every year, and yes, there are indicator's
in advance (probably nbot two years but mire than a year) of what is
mutating and how fast.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
So, what you're saying is that Bush knew 2 years ago that this flu season
was going to be mild? Talk about delusional....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katysails" wrote in message
...
That's bullroar...this is not supposed to be a bad flu year and the only
people who need flu shots are the infirm...people are making much more
out of this than what it is....if you have bad lungs to begin with, or a
serious heart condition, or a depleted immune system, then you might have
something to worry about...other than that, you'll get an upper
respiratory viral infection (that's spelled G-O-L-D) and in a week to 10
days it will be over. Frink fluid, take zinc, and don;t sneeze on your
neighbor. And remember...WASHING YOUR HANDS IS THE BERY BESY
PREVENTATIVE FOR INFLUENZAit beats the shot 100 to 1.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And, Bush knew about the problem years ago, and he did NOTHING. Now,
potentially more people will die from flu then died in the entire
Vietnam war.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_1024.html



"The government could - and should - prevent subsequent shortages by
buying a certain amount of vaccine each year", what heresy is this?

Next thing you'll want the government to fund and operate a health care
system, you'll become like the rest of the industrialized world where
everyone can get essential care without going broke. Of course you
might have to wait for a bit to get that non life threatening
rhinoplasty.

Cheers
Marty

In article ,
katysails wrote:
What I'm saying is that Bush really has nothing to do with the flu....I
suppose the reason you ran out of toilet paper was someone's fault (other
than your own) too? Flu happens every year, and yes, there are indicator's
in advance (probably nbot two years but mire than a year) of what is
mutating and how fast.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
So, what you're saying is that Bush knew 2 years ago that this flu season
was going to be mild? Talk about delusional....

He had nothing to do with causing it, although he does make me sick on
a regular basis. Flu happens every year. Bush knew, in advance, that
there was a crisis with respect to companies that manufacture the
vaccine. He was informed that something had to be done to make sure
that the vaccine would be available. He did NOTHING.

There are plenty of suppliers of TP. There are not plenty of suppliers
of vaccine. The government needed to step in and ensure the supply.
The situation has been getting worse for years. It became critical a
couple of years ago. Bush did NOTHING.

That's what I'm saying.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

There you go with THE GOVERNMENT crap again...why don't you find yourself a
nice socialistic or communist country to live in where the government is
everything? Got news for you, there are still people here who do not want
all that governmental intervention....the whole flu shot thing is a
construct...they've got you snowed into thinking that it's a necessity of
life...that you will die without it...this is not the 1930's when
malnutrition was rife, when antibiotics barely existed (sulfa was about it)
and where the life expectancy was somewhere around 62. The chance of an
epidemic here is not probably at all. Get over it. You've been
brainwashed.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katysails wrote:
What I'm saying is that Bush really has nothing to do with the flu....I
suppose the reason you ran out of toilet paper was someone's fault (other
than your own) too? Flu happens every year, and yes, there are
indicator's
in advance (probably nbot two years but mire than a year) of what is
mutating and how fast.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
So, what you're saying is that Bush knew 2 years ago that this flu
season
was going to be mild? Talk about delusional....

He had nothing to do with causing it, although he does make me sick on
a regular basis. Flu happens every year. Bush knew, in advance, that
there was a crisis with respect to companies that manufacture the
vaccine. He was informed that something had to be done to make sure
that the vaccine would be available. He did NOTHING.

There are plenty of suppliers of TP. There are not plenty of suppliers
of vaccine. The government needed to step in and ensure the supply.
The situation has been getting worse for years. It became critical a
couple of years ago. Bush did NOTHING.

That's what I'm saying.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"katysails" wrote in message
...
What I'm saying is that Bush really has nothing to do with the
flu....I
suppose the reason you ran out of toilet paper was someone's fault
(other
than your own) too?


Ganz blamed the President because he ran out of toilet paper? Well,
if he wipes the bull **** off his mouth every time he spews it, I can
see why he ran out.

me

In article ,
katysails wrote:
There you go with THE GOVERNMENT crap again...why don't you find yourself a
nice socialistic or communist country to live in where the government is
everything? Got news for you, there are still people here who do not want
all that governmental intervention....the whole flu shot thing is a
construct...they've got you snowed into thinking that it's a necessity of
life...that you will die without it...this is not the 1930's when
malnutrition was rife, when antibiotics barely existed (sulfa was about it)
and where the life expectancy was somewhere around 62. The chance of an
epidemic here is not probably at all. Get over it. You've been
brainwashed.

Katy, you're not thinking clearly. You can rant all you want, but the
flu shot is essential for certain members of our population. What
gov't intervention are you talking about? Allowing an essential
industry to fail that risks the lives of thousands of people? For the
sake of a "market economy?" Seems rather cold-blooded to me. I hope
you're not going to be using your Social Security, taking public
transportation, are ever in need of an emergency room, or don't care
if you're ripped off by your bank. If you do care about any of those
things, in addition to making sure you have running water, sewers that
work, highways that aren't clogged with potholes, you're going to have
some gov't intervention. Of course, I'm betting you have no problem
with gov't intervention with respect to outlawing abortions. It's one
thing not to save the life of a productive member of the society, but
it's quite another to attempt to preserve the life of a non-viable
fetus while endangering the mother.

I hate to tell you but the flu wiped out millions of Americans, and it
will continue to kill thousands needlessly unless we have some gov't
intervention.

I think you need to get a life, get out more often, and stop allowing
yourself to be brainwashed by people who don't give a rat's ass about
anything or anyone besides themselves. If you want to call me a
socialist or a communist, feel free. I care about my fellow human
beings, and I intend to do everything I can to help others, even if
you refuse to because of some misguided notion about "free
enterprise."



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote:
Ganz blamed the President because he ran out of toilet paper? Well,
if he wipes the bull **** off his mouth every time he spews it, I can
see why he ran out.

Geez Scottie, maybe RB was right about you. You seem obsessed with
toilet humor.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

And if the average hoipoloi didn't clamor for there's there would be enough
fir those sickly individuals....almost every health care worker in the US is
summarily stabbed every year on the off chance they might contract it from a
victim...truth is, handwashing is far more effective a preventative....other
truth is, the flu shot only protects against a very limited number of
strains and there are usually 100 x more out there that it doesn't
protect....it is not a health care panacea....
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katysails wrote:
There you go with THE GOVERNMENT crap again...why don't you find yourself
a
nice socialistic or communist country to live in where the government is
everything? Got news for you, there are still people here who do not want
all that governmental intervention....the whole flu shot thing is a
construct...they've got you snowed into thinking that it's a necessity of
life...that you will die without it...this is not the 1930's when
malnutrition was rife, when antibiotics barely existed (sulfa was about
it)
and where the life expectancy was somewhere around 62. The chance of an
epidemic here is not probably at all. Get over it. You've been
brainwashed.

Katy, you're not thinking clearly. You can rant all you want, but the
flu shot is essential for certain members of our population. What
gov't intervention are you talking about? Allowing an essential
industry to fail that risks the lives of thousands of people? For the
sake of a "market economy?" Seems rather cold-blooded to me. I hope
you're not going to be using your Social Security, taking public
transportation, are ever in need of an emergency room, or don't care
if you're ripped off by your bank. If you do care about any of those
things, in addition to making sure you have running water, sewers that
work, highways that aren't clogged with potholes, you're going to have
some gov't intervention. Of course, I'm betting you have no problem
with gov't intervention with respect to outlawing abortions. It's one
thing not to save the life of a productive member of the society, but
it's quite another to attempt to preserve the life of a non-viable
fetus while endangering the mother.

I hate to tell you but the flu wiped out millions of Americans, and it
will continue to kill thousands needlessly unless we have some gov't
intervention.

I think you need to get a life, get out more often, and stop allowing
yourself to be brainwashed by people who don't give a rat's ass about
anything or anyone besides themselves. If you want to call me a
socialist or a communist, feel free. I care about my fellow human
beings, and I intend to do everything I can to help others, even if
you refuse to because of some misguided notion about "free
enterprise."



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

BTW, there won't be any Social Security...we pay heavily for our own health
insurance, and banks are protected by the FDIC....if you are counting on
Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're really in
sad shape...that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were to be an
assistance...all the money I have put into the SS system has gone to take
care of those that are drawing right now....there won't be the population
necessary to do the same for me when I retire. Public utilities? What are
those? We have a well and a septic field...and there is no public
transportation outside the city limits of Grand Rapids unless you drive to
the Mall to take the bus in...and no commuter trains...so I guess I'm really
not worried about those things..I've never had them so won't miss them.
As far as your abortion diatribe, my opinions do not have anything to do
with government...if the government puts it up for a vote, then as a citizen
I vote and have my say...if it's not to my liking, I have the RIGHT to still
have my say, which you seem to not understand....if a mother's life is in
danger, then there is a necessity for abortion. Over the years I have never
met anyone who had an abortion for that reason. I have known women who had
them for monetary reasons...because they didn't want to wait and give the
baby up for adoption...because they wanted to get back at the man and punish
him...because it was a girl baby and not a boy like they wanted....there are
scenarios where an abortion is the lesser of two evils...those incidences
are not in that category...
As far as getting out, I'm out every day....I read the medical trade
journals for the long term care industry. What you have to remember is that
San Francisco is not the world...it is a very specialized community that
lives quite differently than the rest of us in the US....
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katysails wrote:
There you go with THE GOVERNMENT crap again...why don't you find yourself
a
nice socialistic or communist country to live in where the government is
everything? Got news for you, there are still people here who do not want
all that governmental intervention....the whole flu shot thing is a
construct...they've got you snowed into thinking that it's a necessity of
life...that you will die without it...this is not the 1930's when
malnutrition was rife, when antibiotics barely existed (sulfa was about
it)
and where the life expectancy was somewhere around 62. The chance of an
epidemic here is not probably at all. Get over it. You've been
brainwashed.

Katy, you're not thinking clearly. You can rant all you want, but the
flu shot is essential for certain members of our population. What
gov't intervention are you talking about? Allowing an essential
industry to fail that risks the lives of thousands of people? For the
sake of a "market economy?" Seems rather cold-blooded to me. I hope
you're not going to be using your Social Security, taking public
transportation, are ever in need of an emergency room, or don't care
if you're ripped off by your bank. If you do care about any of those
things, in addition to making sure you have running water, sewers that
work, highways that aren't clogged with potholes, you're going to have
some gov't intervention. Of course, I'm betting you have no problem
with gov't intervention with respect to outlawing abortions. It's one
thing not to save the life of a productive member of the society, but
it's quite another to attempt to preserve the life of a non-viable
fetus while endangering the mother.

I hate to tell you but the flu wiped out millions of Americans, and it
will continue to kill thousands needlessly unless we have some gov't
intervention.

I think you need to get a life, get out more often, and stop allowing
yourself to be brainwashed by people who don't give a rat's ass about
anything or anyone besides themselves. If you want to call me a
socialist or a communist, feel free. I care about my fellow human
beings, and I intend to do everything I can to help others, even if
you refuse to because of some misguided notion about "free
enterprise."



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

katysails wrote:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...

When? As I understand it, the current SS plan is good up into the
2040s... of course that includes a lot of dodges like increasing taxes
on retirement income, raising the benefit age, decreasing benefits, etc etc.

....if you are counting on
Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're really in
sad shape...

Agreed. My advice to anyone looking ahead to retirement is, if you can't
save money now, start eating dog food. 1- it'll help you save and 2-
you'd better get used to the taste.

... that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were to be an
assistance...

That's true. When first begun it was also an excellent dodge for gov't
finances because far more people were paying in than taking out.

... all the money I have put into the SS system has gone to take
care of those that are drawing right now....

Not entirely true... some of it has gone to buy Treasury bonds.

....Public utilities? What are
those? .....I've never had them so won't miss them.

Ever heard that Hank Williams Jr song about how a country boy can
survive? Of course, there's a lot less country nowadays. You're lucky
there has not been so much growth up there... maybe everybody really is
moving down here.


As far as your abortion diatribe, my opinions do not have anything to do
with government...if the government puts it up for a vote, then as a citizen
I vote and have my say...if it's not to my liking, I have the RIGHT to still
have my say, which you seem to not understand....

True. It's a very thorny issue and contrary to what the media might lead
one to believe, there is a wide range of positions and they all have
some moral right. It is also an older issue than many would believe,
abortion has been practiced almost since the dawn of written history and
every civilization has had issues with it in one form or another. It is
a core human issue.



...because it was a girl baby and not a boy like they wanted....there are
scenarios where an abortion is the lesser of two evils...those incidences
are not in that category...

Just tossing out another random fact... one of the population control
measures in China was subsidized abortion (they may still be doing this)
starting back in the 1960s. Because of the perceived desirability of
boys over girls, parents have been aborting more unborn girls. The
result is that the sex ratio of their population is seriously out of
whack. As China gets more prosperous, we will see tens of millions of
Chinese men shopping for brides in other countries.

Of course, the traditional answer to this problem... excess male
population... is war.


As far as getting out, I'm out every day....I read the medical trade
journals for the long term care industry. What you have to remember is that
San Francisco is not the world...it is a very specialized community that
lives quite differently than the rest of us in the US....

Agreed, but then *every* community is different in one way or another.
It seems to be a question of increasing importance... can we get along
well enough to hold a big country together?

Regards
Doug King

I get a letter from SS ,about every six months, with a chart showing
what I'll get at different retirement ages. It's enough to buy dry
dog food, but not the good canned stuff.

Scotty


"DSK" wrote in message
t...
katysails wrote:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...

When? As I understand it, the current SS plan is good up into the
2040s... of course that includes a lot of dodges like increasing
taxes
on retirement income, raising the benefit age, decreasing benefits,
etc etc.

....if you are counting on
Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're
really in
sad shape...

Agreed. My advice to anyone looking ahead to retirement is, if you
can't
save money now, start eating dog food. 1- it'll help you save and 2-
you'd better get used to the taste.

... that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and
FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were
to be an
assistance...

"katysails" wrote in message

And if the average hoipoloi didn't clamor for there's there would be
enough fir those sickly individuals....almost every health care worker in
the US is summarily stabbed every year on the off chance they might
contract it from a victim...truth is, handwashing is far more effective a
preventative....

True indeed. I've resorted to using an alcohol-based hand "sterilizing"
lotion between and during patient visits.

other truth is, the flu shot only protects against a very limited number of
strains and there are usually 100 x more out there that it doesn't
protect....it is not a health care panacea....

The latest word is that a strain called New Zealand # something or other is
the feared edition this year. And the current vaccines are ineffective
against it.

As an aside, many of my patients report getting the flu each year despite
having a flu shot. The whole flu shot morass is almost fraudulent in the
way its hyped by the media.

Max

In article ,
katysails wrote:
And if the average hoipoloi didn't clamor for there's there would be enough
fir those sickly individuals....almost every health care worker in the US is
summarily stabbed every year on the off chance they might contract it from a
victim...truth is, handwashing is far more effective a preventative....other
truth is, the flu shot only protects against a very limited number of
strains and there are usually 100 x more out there that it doesn't
protect....it is not a health care panacea....

And, I never said it was a health care panacea. I said that it's a
prudent step to take in preventing a lot of dying. Even the gov't,
which you seem to want to have nothing to do with, says that.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
katysails wrote:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...we pay heavily for our own health
insurance, and banks are protected by the FDIC....if you are counting on

People have been saying that for 40 years. My mother gets SS, as did
my father and most of their friends. Do they rely on it completely?
No. But, it's an important part of their retirement. They deserve
it. They paid for it.

Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're really in
sad shape...that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were to be an
assistance...all the money I have put into the SS system has gone to take
care of those that are drawing right now....there won't be the population
necessary to do the same for me when I retire. Public utilities? What are
those? We have a well and a septic field...and there is no public

Don't you know? I guess next time you're in a car accident and have to
go to an emergency room or you have to dial 911 and no one answers,
you'll figure it out. Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless? Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

transportation outside the city limits of Grand Rapids unless you drive to
the Mall to take the bus in...and no commuter trains...so I guess I'm really
not worried about those things..I've never had them so won't miss them.
As far as your abortion diatribe, my opinions do not have anything to do
with government...if the government puts it up for a vote, then as a citizen
I vote and have my say...if it's not to my liking, I have the RIGHT to still
have my say, which you seem to not understand....if a mother's life is in
danger, then there is a necessity for abortion.

But that's the point. The right-wing fanatics are not interested in
the life of the mother. They would ban all abortions for all reasons.

Over the years I have never
met anyone who had an abortion for that reason. I have known women who had
them for monetary reasons...because they didn't want to wait and give the
baby up for adoption...because they wanted to get back at the man and punish
him...because it was a girl baby and not a boy like they wanted....there are
scenarios where an abortion is the lesser of two evils...those incidences
are not in that category...

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake? She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby? What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything? Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people. That's what you don't seem to
understand.

As far as getting out, I'm out every day....I read the medical trade
journals for the long term care industry. What you have to remember is that
San Francisco is not the world...it is a very specialized community that
lives quite differently than the rest of us in the US....

I don't live nor do I work in SF. Neither is GR. So do you.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

And that's only if you retire making the same or more than you are now...if
you get laid off and start making minimum wage just watch those numbers
change!
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
I get a letter from SS ,about every six months, with a chart showing
what I'll get at different retirement ages. It's enough to buy dry
dog food, but not the good canned stuff.

Scotty


"DSK" wrote in message
t...
katysails wrote:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...

When? As I understand it, the current SS plan is good up into the
2040s... of course that includes a lot of dodges like increasing
taxes
on retirement income, raising the benefit age, decreasing benefits,
etc etc.

....if you are counting on
Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're
really in
sad shape...

Agreed. My advice to anyone looking ahead to retirement is, if you
can't
save money now, start eating dog food. 1- it'll help you save and 2-
you'd better get used to the taste.

... that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and
FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were
to be an
assistance...

:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...we pay heavily for our own
health
insurance, and banks are protected by the FDIC....if you are counting on

People have been saying that for 40 years. My mother gets SS, as did
my father and most of their friends. Do they rely on it completely?
No. But, it's an important part of their retirement. They deserve
it. They paid for it.

I'm not saying they didn't pay for it....take a poll, Jon...the majority of
the US actuially believes that they are going to be taken care of by the
government...Social Security and Medicare...in their old age....they do not
have savings...they have very little equity in their homes because they buy
second mortgages and home equity loans...many have gone to reverese
mortgages to get by....

Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're really in
sad shape...that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and
FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were to be an
assistance...all the money I have put into the SS system has gone to take
care of those that are drawing right now....there won't be the population
necessary to do the same for me when I retire. Public utilities? What
are
those? We have a well and a septic field...and there is no public

Don't you know? I guess next time you're in a car accident and have to
go to an emergency room or you have to dial 911 and no one answers,
you'll figure it out.

Figure what out? That the 6K I shell out of my pocket (my portion of my
emplyer's plan) and the 20% deductible and the co-pay and my check book pay
the bill? I've got that all figured out.

Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless?

We are not speaking of those individuals who honestly cannot get by in life.
They, of course, should be provided for. However, there are many on our
Social Service rosters who take advant5age of the system. I can tell you of
about 15 young ladies who are screwing the system as we speak...so if I know
20, then you probably know a few, too, as does most everyone. And I'm tired
of opaying for them. I speak monthly with FIA reps here in MI reporting on
my employee's wages....I know exactly what's going on. Yes, we do have
young ladies that need the assistance, but when I see someone who is
recieiving all kinds of government perks walking down the hall with her
camera cell phone, wearing $200.00 Nikes, and driving an SUV that gets at
best 15 mpg while receiving that assistance it makes my blood boil.

Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

If course not, but we're not talking about them, are we? We're talking
about Joe the Average American.


transportation outside the city limits of Grand Rapids unless you drive to
the Mall to take the bus in...and no commuter trains...so I guess I'm
really
not worried about those things..I've never had them so won't miss them.
As far as your abortion diatribe, my opinions do not have anything to do
with government...if the government puts it up for a vote, then as a
citizen
I vote and have my say...if it's not to my liking, I have the RIGHT to
still
have my say, which you seem to not understand....if a mother's life is in
danger, then there is a necessity for abortion.

But that's the point. The right-wing fanatics are not interested in
the life of the mother. They would ban all abortions for all reasons.

Nom they wouldn't. Just as Doug pointed out, there are various scenarios of
what people will accept and not accept. The problem is the slippery slope
thing....where do you draew the line?

Over the years I have never
met anyone who had an abortion for that reason. I have known women who
had
them for monetary reasons...because they didn't want to wait and give the
baby up for adoption...because they wanted to get back at the man and
punish
him...because it was a girl baby and not a boy like they wanted....there
are
scenarios where an abortion is the lesser of two evils...those incidences
are not in that category...

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake?

Yes. I would. She is culpable. She must learn how to take care of what
whe has brought into the world or she must give the baby up for adoption.

She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby?

Yes. There are programs available. And there are plenty of infertile
couples who want that baby.

What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything?

Grasping here, Jon. The chances of preganancy in those cases is probably
very slight. But then you get to the lesser of two evils thing. That's one
of the gray areas.


Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people.

It's not yours or mine individual wills but the combined wills of many
people.


That's what you don't seem to
understand.

Oh, I understand quite well. You want it all your way. And everyone else
is wrong.

As far as getting out, I'm out every day....I read the medical trade
journals for the long term care industry. What you have to remember is
that
San Francisco is not the world...it is a very specialized community that
lives quite differently than the rest of us in the US....

I don't live nor do I work in SF. Neither is GR. So do you.

Many people don't die of the flu anymore. Relatively few do, or have, for
decades. Get your facts straight.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katysails wrote:
And if the average hoipoloi didn't clamor for there's there would be
enough
fir those sickly individuals....almost every health care worker in the US
is
summarily stabbed every year on the off chance they might contract it from
a
victim...truth is, handwashing is far more effective a
preventative....other
truth is, the flu shot only protects against a very limited number of
strains and there are usually 100 x more out there that it doesn't
protect....it is not a health care panacea....

And, I never said it was a health care panacea. I said that it's a
prudent step to take in preventing a lot of dying. Even the gov't,
which you seem to want to have nothing to do with, says that.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
katysails wrote:
I'm not saying they didn't pay for it....take a poll, Jon...the majority of
the US actuially believes that they are going to be taken care of by the
government...Social Security and Medicare...in their old age....they do not
have savings...they have very little equity in their homes because they buy
second mortgages and home equity loans...many have gone to reverese
mortgages to get by....

I believe you. This is an education problem that the government should
take a major responsible role for, but that doesn't mean we should
scrap it.

Figure what out? That the 6K I shell out of my pocket (my portion of my
emplyer's plan) and the 20% deductible and the co-pay and my check book pay
the bill? I've got that all figured out.

Figure out that someday you or a loved one will need the gov't
intervention to live. I hope it doesn't happen, but it has happened to
me. It's easy to claim to be self-reliant; it's another to actually be
so.

Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless?

We are not speaking of those individuals who honestly cannot get by in life.
They, of course, should be provided for. However, there are many on our
Social Service rosters who take advant5age of the system. I can tell you of

There are many, but not as many as you think. They said that about
welfare mom's. Sure there are a few who screw the system. That will
always be true. That doesn't mean there is something so wrong with the
system that it can't be fixed. Bush wants to scrap many of the gov't
ensured protections that we have. SS is just one of them he would like
to errode.

about 15 young ladies who are screwing the system as we speak...so if I know
20, then you probably know a few, too, as does most everyone. And I'm tired
of opaying for them. I speak monthly with FIA reps here in MI reporting on
my employee's wages....I know exactly what's going on. Yes, we do have
young ladies that need the assistance, but when I see someone who is
recieiving all kinds of government perks walking down the hall with her
camera cell phone, wearing $200.00 Nikes, and driving an SUV that gets at
best 15 mpg while receiving that assistance it makes my blood boil.

Yes, I'm sick of them two. Why don't you report them? Again, most of
the time, the vast majority of the time, people who are being helped
by gov't assistance need that help.

Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

If course not, but we're not talking about them, are we? We're talking
about Joe the Average American.

No. The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the
minority. That's been codified for centuries.

Nom they wouldn't. Just as Doug pointed out, there are various scenarios of
what people will accept and not accept. The problem is the slippery slope
thing....where do you draew the line?

Exactly. Where do you draw the line. IMHO, the line is between the
woman, her god, and the doctor. The gov't has no business
interferring, yet the right-wingers insist on it. Why?

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake?

Yes. I would. She is culpable. She must learn how to take care of what
whe has brought into the world or she must give the baby up for adoption.

No. She's a child. Children are not responsible for their
actions. That's just cold-hearted and mean. Why is it necessary to
ruin her life and probably the life of the child after it's born? So
you can feel good about your paycheck or your morality??

She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby?

Yes. There are programs available. And there are plenty of infertile
couples who want that baby.

Really? Well, that's news to me? Do you really think most people are going
want a baby from a 15 year old child from a broken home, a minority,
who hasn't even gotten out of high school, and who might be doing drugs
during the pregnancy?

What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything?

Grasping here, Jon. The chances of preganancy in those cases is probably
very slight. But then you get to the lesser of two evils thing. That's one
of the gray areas.

Not really. So, you're saying that you can't get pregnant if you're a
virgin and your uncle rapes you? You call it a grey area, but how does
this child get through the system if she has to inform her father, the
guy who raped her, that she's requesting an abortion? There is always
the lessor of two evils. I'm not in favor of abortion. I'm just in
favor of the woman's right to make the decision, and not have some
"official" do it for her.

Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people.

It's not yours or mine individual wills but the combined wills of many
people.

The vast majority of people in this country support a woman's right to
choose. Yet, the Bush administration and other right-wing groups are
attempting to get around those wishes... it's something like 80% I
believe.

That's what you don't seem to
understand.

Oh, I understand quite well. You want it all your way. And everyone else
is wrong.

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.





--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

I can't get laid off, I sleep with the boss.

Scotty

"katysails" wrote in message
...
And that's only if you retire making the same or more than you are
now...if
you get laid off and start making minimum wage just watch those
numbers
change!
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
I get a letter from SS ,about every six months, with a chart
showing
what I'll get at different retirement ages. It's enough to buy
dry
dog food, but not the good canned stuff.

Scotty


"DSK" wrote in message
t...
katysails wrote:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...

When? As I understand it, the current SS plan is good up into the
2040s... of course that includes a lot of dodges like increasing
taxes
on retirement income, raising the benefit age, decreasing
benefits,
etc etc.

....if you are counting on
Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're
really in
sad shape...

Agreed. My advice to anyone looking ahead to retirement is, if
you
can't
save money now, start eating dog food. 1- it'll help you save and
2-
you'd better get used to the taste.

... that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and
FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they
were
to be an
assistance...

I'm not saying they didn't pay for it....take a poll, Jon...the majority
of
the US actuially believes that they are going to be taken care of by the
government...Social Security and Medicare...in their old age....they do
not
have savings...they have very little equity in their homes because they
buy
second mortgages and home equity loans...many have gone to reverese
mortgages to get by....

I believe you. This is an education problem that the government should
take a major responsible role for, but that doesn't mean we should
scrap it.

Once again, no culpability.....


Figure what out? That the 6K I shell out of my pocket (my portion of my
emplyer's plan) and the 20% deductible and the co-pay and my check book
pay
the bill? I've got that all figured out.

Figure out that someday you or a loved one will need the gov't
intervention to live. I hope it doesn't happen, but it has happened to
me. It's easy to claim to be self-reliant; it's another to actually be
so.

If it comes to that, then I hope I die....but I doubt it will come to
that....you see, uinstead of a cell phone and vehicles that cost a bundle to
drive, and trading up to a newer bigger house every year, we've pauid all
our bills, own our vehicles and boat free and clear and put our money away
so that that will never happen. My son jokes about Mom's room at his house,
but if I can help it, that will never be. If it comes to that, then at
least there will be something that we've provided to take care of me.


Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless?

We are not speaking of those individuals who honestly cannot get by in
life.
They, of course, should be provided for. However, there are many on our
Social Service rosters who take advant5age of the system. I can tell you
of

There are many, but not as many as you think. They said that about
welfare mom's. Sure there are a few who screw the system. That will
always be true. That doesn't mean there is something so wrong with the
system that it can't be fixed. Bush wants to scrap many of the gov't
ensured protections that we have. SS is just one of them he would like
to errode.

about 15 young ladies who are screwing the system as we speak...so if I
know
20, then you probably know a few, too, as does most everyone. And I'm
tired
of opaying for them. I speak monthly with FIA reps here in MI reporting
on
my employee's wages....I know exactly what's going on. Yes, we do have
young ladies that need the assistance, but when I see someone who is
recieiving all kinds of government perks walking down the hall with her
camera cell phone, wearing $200.00 Nikes, and driving an SUV that gets at
best 15 mpg while receiving that assistance it makes my blood boil.

Yes, I'm sick of them two. Why don't you report them?

I have. Repreatedly. It does nop good. I have employees from the Goodwill
OJT that work wonderfully until their contract with OJT is met and then they
start to call in and shirk....so we end up having to terminate them...and
then in 3 months they're hired at the nursing home next door on the same OJT
project...I've seen this happen 3 times in the past 2 years...

Again, most of
the time, the vast majority of the time, people who are being helped
by gov't assistance need that help.

Nope. The government needs to help them not need help. They need to make
them culpable for their actions. They need to learn the consequences of
making bad choices.


Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

If course not, but we're not talking about them, are we? We're talking
about Joe the Average American.

No. The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the
minority. That's been codified for centuries.

To protect, not to enable bad behavior and foster slothfullness and
entitlement.


Nom they wouldn't. Just as Doug pointed out, there are various scenarios
of
what people will accept and not accept. The problem is the slippery slope
thing....where do you draew the line?

Exactly. Where do you draw the line. IMHO, the line is between the
woman, her god, and the doctor. The gov't has no business
interferring, yet the right-wingers insist on it. Why?

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake?

Yes. I would. She is culpable. She must learn how to take care of what
whe has brought into the world or she must give the baby up for adoption.

No. She's a child.

Young women of 15 are not children in this day and age, and probably weren't
in any day and age.

Children are not responsible for their
actions.

The age of reason begins around the age of 7. Moral conciousness is
developed before then. And yes, children are and should be held resposible
for their actions. You really need a good dose of Jim Fay and Love and
Logic. Good thing you don't have kids,..they'd be a royal mess.

That's just cold-hearted and mean.

Bleeding heart liberal...responsible for most of the social ills of the
present because you don't realize that people, children included, must be
responsible for their actions.

Why is it necessary to
ruin her life and probably the life of the child after it's born? So
you can feel good about your paycheck or your morality??

My paycheck and morality have nothing to do with it. How many young women
who've had abortions have you talked to? They are usually consymed with
guilt for years and years afterwards and regret what they did.


She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby?

Yes. There are programs available. And there are plenty of infertile
couples who want that baby.

Really? Well, that's news to me? Do you really think most people are going
want a baby from a 15 year old child from a broken home, a minority,
who hasn't even gotten out of high school, and who might be doing drugs
during the pregnancy?

Yep. There are tons of people out there waiting for those babies and they
cry themselves to sleep every night because there isn't one for them. Go
check the lists at the adoption agencies. Lots of people who are waiting
and waiting and waiting. And BTW, my sister adopted 4 of those kinds of
children. And now she's fostering 3 more, so don;'t tell me there aren't
people out there. My cousin in MN has fosterd and adopted, also. Maybe you
need to start running with a different crowd if you haven't met any of those
kind of folks.

What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything?

Grasping here, Jon. The chances of preganancy in those cases is probably
very slight. But then you get to the lesser of two evils thing. That's
one
of the gray areas.

Not really. So, you're saying that you can't get pregnant if you're a
virgin and your uncle rapes you?

No I didn't say that. Now you're getting totally ridiculous.

You call it a grey area, but how does
this child get through the system if she has to inform her father, the
guy who raped her, that she's requesting an abortion?

She informs the school guidance couselor, Protective Services, the
police...she emancipates herself. rather than educate about abortion,
educate on how to take care of yourself.


There is always
the lessor of two evils. I'm not in favor of abortion. I'm just in
favor of the woman's right to make the decision, and not have some
"official" do it for her.

Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people.

It's not yours or mine individual wills but the combined wills of many
people.

The vast majority of people in this country support a woman's right to
choose.

As do I. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the action is wrong and
immoral. And it doesn't mean that I still don't have the right to my
opinion or the right to voice my opinion.


Yet, the Bush administration and other right-wing groups are
attempting to get around those wishes... it's something like 80% I
believe.

If that were so, the issue would be settled. And the 80% would not vote for
Bush.


That's what you don't seem to
understand.

Oh, I understand quite well. You want it all your way. And everyone else
is wrong.

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.

Ah, but what about those minority rights? You seem to have forgotten about
them quite conveniently.

You and I will never agree on anything political, Jon, so I'm ending this
discussion because I like you way too much to argue with you further. You
want to talk about sailing, that's fine with me, but this foes nowhere.







--

Ah, are you being coerced? Quid pro quo.... You could prosecute her and get
her for damages...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
I can't get laid off, I sleep with the boss.

Scotty

"katysails" wrote in message
...
And that's only if you retire making the same or more than you are
now...if
you get laid off and start making minimum wage just watch those
numbers
change!
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
I get a letter from SS ,about every six months, with a chart
showing
what I'll get at different retirement ages. It's enough to buy
dry
dog food, but not the good canned stuff.

Scotty


"DSK" wrote in message
t...
katysails wrote:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...

When? As I understand it, the current SS plan is good up into the
2040s... of course that includes a lot of dodges like increasing
taxes
on retirement income, raising the benefit age, decreasing
benefits,
etc etc.

....if you are counting on
Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're
really in
sad shape...

Agreed. My advice to anyone looking ahead to retirement is, if
you
can't
save money now, start eating dog food. 1- it'll help you save and
2-
you'd better get used to the taste.

... that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and
FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they
were
to be an
assistance...

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Oct 2004 15:57:14 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

There are many, but not as many as you think. They said that about
welfare mom's.

Yes, and "they" were right. Notice how the welfare rolls have been declining
since it stopped being a program to pay teenagers to stay home and make
babies?

Who do you think supported that and pushed for it... all the
while trying to make it as fair as possible?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Oct 2004 15:57:14 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Do you really think most people are going
want a baby from a 15 year old child from a broken home, a minority,
who hasn't even gotten out of high school, and who might be doing drugs
during the pregnancy?

LOL. If that weren't coming from a self-described liberal it would be
immediately denounced as racial stereotyping. There are some things one
simply can't say, even if true.

So, you think crack babies are a funny subject? There's nothing AT ALL
racist in what I said. I used a COMMA not an AND you idiot.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Oct 2004 15:57:14 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.

Strangely, I agree with you on that one. I think this is one of those things
that was intended to be decided by the political process at the State level.
If I were a legislator I'd probably vote to impose no restrictions on
abortion. Experience indicates that I'd probably be in the minority in that
view. Unfortunately, the issue has largely been decided by the nine wise men
at the federal level.

Yes, and the Bush administration is seeking to remove the protection
that came about from Roe v. Wade.

I don't agree at all that it should be decided at a state
level. States were the proponents of racism and brutality.
It took Federal action to begin to put an end to it.

The vast, vast majority of people support a woman's right to
choose to have or not have an abortion.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
I believe you. This is an education problem that the government should
take a major responsible role for, but that doesn't mean we should
scrap it.

Once again, no culpability.....

Huh? What are you talking about?

Figure out that someday you or a loved one will need the gov't
intervention to live. I hope it doesn't happen, but it has happened to
me. It's easy to claim to be self-reliant; it's another to actually be
so.

If it comes to that, then I hope I die....but I doubt it will come to
that....you see, uinstead of a cell phone and vehicles that cost a bundle to
drive, and trading up to a newer bigger house every year, we've pauid all
our bills, own our vehicles and boat free and clear and put our money away
so that that will never happen. My son jokes about Mom's room at his house,
but if I can help it, that will never be. If it comes to that, then at
least there will be something that we've provided to take care of me.

It'll never happen?? You mean needing emergency help and not being
able to ask for it?

I would say tongue-in-cheek that I hope you do to, but I'm not going
to. I'm not a mean person.

I have. Repreatedly. It does nop good. I have employees from the Goodwill
OJT that work wonderfully until their contract with OJT is met and then they
start to call in and shirk....so we end up having to terminate them...and
then in 3 months they're hired at the nursing home next door on the same OJT
project...I've seen this happen 3 times in the past 2 years...

If you actually want to report someone, it will make a difference
and it will have a positive result. To whom did you report them...

the time, the vast majority of the time, people who are being helped
by gov't assistance need that help.

Nope. The government needs to help them not need help. They need to make
them culpable for their actions. They need to learn the consequences of
making bad choices.

The VAST majority of people who receive gov't assistance NEED that
assistance. What bad choices are you talking about? Being born to a
crack mom? Having an inferior education because there are minimal
property taxes to support the schools? Or are you going to rely on
gov't intervention in the form of the underfunded "no child behind"?

No. The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the
minority. That's been codified for centuries.

To protect, not to enable bad behavior and foster slothfullness and
entitlement.

There has certainly been some of that, but that doesn't obsolve us
from helping nevertheless.

Young women of 15 are not children in this day and age, and probably weren't
in any day and age.

This sounds like pedofilia to me. They are certainly children, just as
boys of that age are. They do not have good judgement generally,
although some do. I suppose you support executing children also?

Children are not responsible for their
actions.

The age of reason begins around the age of 7. Moral conciousness is
developed before then. And yes, children are and should be held resposible
for their actions. You really need a good dose of Jim Fay and Love and
Logic. Good thing you don't have kids,..they'd be a royal mess.

Begins. But, doesn't mature until much later. So, you're saying that
it's ok for an 11 year old to be seduced by someone your age, and then
hold the 11 year old responsible for their actions????

That's just cold-hearted and mean.

Bleeding heart liberal...responsible for most of the social ills of the
present because you don't realize that people, children included, must be
responsible for their actions.

How responsible? How much more should we heap on kids? This position
of yours makes you sound like a monster. Quit digging. The hole is
plenty deep.

Why is it necessary to
ruin her life and probably the life of the child after it's born? So
you can feel good about your paycheck or your morality??

My paycheck and morality have nothing to do with it. How many young women
who've had abortions have you talked to? They are usually consymed with
guilt for years and years afterwards and regret what they did.

I suspect more than you have, but that's not the point. Women who give
up their baby for adoption are also riddled with guilt. Some women do
it relatively easily... some are traumatized. In any case, it should
not be YOUR decision. It should be between the woman, her doctor, and
her god. The state shouldn't be invovled.

Really? Well, that's news to me? Do you really think most people are going
want a baby from a 15 year old child from a broken home, a minority,
who hasn't even gotten out of high school, and who might be doing drugs
during the pregnancy?

Yep. There are tons of people out there waiting for those babies and they
cry themselves to sleep every night because there isn't one for them. Go
check the lists at the adoption agencies. Lots of people who are waiting
and waiting and waiting. And BTW, my sister adopted 4 of those kinds of
children. And now she's fostering 3 more, so don;'t tell me there aren't
people out there. My cousin in MN has fosterd and adopted, also. Maybe you
need to start running with a different crowd if you haven't met any of those
kind of folks.

Oh poor rich women. How about how those poor children feel when forced
to give birth to a baby born of a rape from their father? No sympathy
for them I see. Your sister is a saint, but that's not the norm.

Not really. So, you're saying that you can't get pregnant if you're a
virgin and your uncle rapes you?

No I didn't say that. Now you're getting totally ridiculous.

Well, not in so many words, but you did say that a child should be
held responsible for all mistakes no matter the effect on her or
anyone else.

She informs the school guidance couselor, Protective Services, the
police...she emancipates herself. rather than educate about abortion,
educate on how to take care of yourself.

Haha.. good one. And, the Bush administration would force the couselor
or the police to notify the rapist that she's pregant, even if that
person is her father. What's wrong with educating people about all the
options? According to you, that's just too much evil.

The vast majority of people in this country support a woman's right to
choose.

As do I. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the action is wrong and
immoral. And it doesn't mean that I still don't have the right to my
opinion or the right to voice my opinion.

Voice it, fine. But don't think you can legislate your
morality. That's my objection to what the Bu****s are doing!

Yet, the Bush administration and other right-wing groups are
attempting to get around those wishes... it's something like 80% I
believe.

If that were so, the issue would be settled. And the 80% would not vote for
Bush.

Not necessarily. For most people, that's not the end all and be all of
the issues at hand. And, the issue is settled, unless Bush appoints
conservative, anti-choice judges to the Court.

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.

Ah, but what about those minority rights? You seem to have forgotten about
them quite conveniently.

What about their rights? Do you now consider yourself an oppressed
minority? My bleeding heart goes out to you....

You and I will never agree on anything political, Jon, so I'm ending this
discussion because I like you way too much to argue with you further. You
want to talk about sailing, that's fine with me, but this foes nowhere.

Ah, you want to end the discussion, because you're caught in your own
bull****. I guess you finally realized that the hole you dug is deep
enough. Not quite deep enough to hide your crap in, but deep enough
for you to feel good about yourself.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
katysails wrote:

[huge snip]

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.

Ah, but what about those minority rights? You seem to have forgotten about
them quite conveniently.

Since Jon wants people to follow the rule of law and respect the
majority view, Jon supports capital punishment.

PDW

katysails wrote:

Many people don't die of the flu anymore. Relatively few do, or have, for
decades. Get your facts straight.

Well 36,000 a year is less than die on the highway.

Cheers
Marty

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
katysails wrote:

Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, ....

That's not true.

Without getting into the theory(s) of capitalism let me simply observe that
it is driven by profits and that true supply vs demand profits are maximized
when more people are buying than are involved in making a product. Also, and
perhaps more important, automation has steadily eroded the need for labor
and without labor's paychecks there are less sales and fewer profits.
Against this background and in a depression it was deemed wise to reduce the
workforce without reducing the number of consumers and that the reduction
was best done by keeping children out of the work force and by encouraging
oldsters to retire sooner in order to preserve available jobs for the people
raising families.

Consider, in the 1930s and before, an 8th grade education was more than
adequate. My grandmother had that and had learned math thru the equivalent
of Calc 101, read the classics, was learned in history, and taught school
herself. It is no accident that it now takes at least two years of college
to reach that level of education, meaning that kids enter the workforce five
or more years later. Similarly, most of us who survive child rearing and
middle age could work well into our 70s but are encouraged (required?) to
retire a decade sooner.

And who pays the bill? Why the younger workers and capitalists who profit
from it, of course.

Is that why FDR invented Social Security? ... Naw, it bought him two more
terms.

"katysails" wrote ...

Maybe you
need to start running with a different crowd if you haven't met any
of those
kind of folks.

They won't let gay couples adopt children.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article
,
katysails wrote:

[huge snip]

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority
view.

Ah, but what about those minority rights? You seem to have
forgotten about
them quite conveniently.

Since Jon wants people to follow the rule of law and respect the
majority view, Jon supports capital punishment.

And President Bush !

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
In article ,
katysails wrote:

[huge snip]

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.

Ah, but what about those minority rights? You seem to have forgotten about
them quite conveniently.

Since Jon wants people to follow the rule of law and respect the
majority view, Jon supports capital punishment.

I used to, but now I don't. I think it's much more cruel to force
someone to live in a tiny cell for the rest of their life.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."