On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:25:51 -0500, Nathan Branden
wrote this crap:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:47:39 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:21:00 -0500, Nathan Branden
wrote this crap:

In my long stays at Fort Sill, Fort Gordon, Fort Lewis, Fort Knox,
Fort, Bragg, Fort Cambell, etc., etc., etc., we ALWAYS discussed
politics. Most military personnell are very conservative.


The Army stays in "Forts" which implies a defensive posture. The USMC
stays in "Camps" which implies constant movement on the offensive.


Bzzzzt! Wrong answer,dumbass!

I am a retired military officer, and after spending more than twenty
years in the military, I am somewhat of an expert.

"Forts," are permanant facilities. "Camps," are temporary.
The Army has plenty of camps. One of the most famous is Camp Perry,
where the NRA National Rifle Matches take place.


You
are right that politics is a big topic in the military, especially
amongst the more educated commissioned officers. I was a junior
officer in the USMC until I got promoted to the Navy Seals.

NB


Wrong again, dumbass. Nobody gets promoted to the Navy Seals. If you
were an officer in the USMC, you would have to have a College degree.
That would make you one of the educated commissioned officers.

I am calling you a liar.


It is obvious you are an Army type who has never read Clausewitz. I

You just ****ed me off. My copy of Clausewitz is highlighted, and
there are notes on every page. As is my copy of Sun Tzu, and War
Commentaries of Caesar. And many other books in my library.

shot at Camp Perry with a Stoner rifle along with my Seal Squadron.
After 20 years what rank did you have? Ensign?


Ensign? Ensign? Ensign?

You have proved yourself a fool!

There are no Ensigns in the Army!





This post is 100% free of steroids

Your not only a SCHMUCK but a MORON TOO.

and severely mentally challenged...."Forts" DOES imply a defensive posture
and reflects The Army's American History. Defensive Forts Built across
America during it's expansion

"Camps" DOES imply constant movement on the offensive and reflects the
Marine Corp's History!


"Horvath" wrote in message
. com...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:21:00 -0500, Nathan Branden
wrote this crap:

In my long stays at Fort Sill, Fort Gordon, Fort Lewis, Fort Knox,
Fort, Bragg, Fort Cambell, etc., etc., etc., we ALWAYS discussed
politics. Most military personnell are very conservative.


The Army stays in "Forts" which implies a defensive posture. The USMC
stays in "Camps" which implies constant movement on the offensive.


Bzzzzt! Wrong answer,dumbass!

I am a retired military officer, and after spending more than twenty
years in the military, I am somewhat of an expert.

"Forts," are permanant facilities. "Camps," are temporary.
The Army has plenty of camps. One of the most famous is Camp Perry,
where the NRA National Rifle Matches take place.


You
are right that politics is a big topic in the military, especially
amongst the more educated commissioned officers. I was a junior
officer in the USMC until I got promoted to the Navy Seals.

NB


Wrong again, dumbass. Nobody gets promoted to the Navy Seals. If you
were an officer in the USMC, you would have to have a College degree.
That would make you one of the educated commissioned officers.

I am calling you a liar.





This post is 100% free of steroids

On Jul 2, 9:21 am, Nathan Branden wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:06:07 -0400, Horvath
wrote:





On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:30:13 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote this crap:

No liberals in the USMC.

NB

In my admittedly short stays at Parris Island, ITR, Camp Lejuene
Amtrack pad, Camp Pendelton's Oceanside Amtrack pad, and Quantico, VA,
I don't remember ever discussing or hearing discussed, anyone's
position along the conservative, liberal, continuum. Of course it was
a long time ago.

Frank

In my long stays at Fort Sill, Fort Gordon, Fort Lewis, Fort Knox,
Fort, Bragg, Fort Cambell, etc., etc., etc., we ALWAYS discussed
politics. Most military personnell are very conservative.



This post is 100% free of steroids

The Army stays in "Forts" which implies a defensive posture. The USMC
stays in "Camps" which implies constant movement on the offensive. You
are right that politics is a big topic in the military, especially
amongst the more educated commissioned officers. I was a junior
officer in the USMC until I got promoted to the Navy Seals.

NB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are so full of **** it's coming outta your ears.

Joe

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:03:34 GMT, "
wrote this crap:

Your not only a SCHMUCK but a MORON TOO.

and severely mentally challenged...."Forts" DOES imply a defensive posture
and reflects The Army's American History. Defensive Forts Built across
America during it's expansion

"Camps" DOES imply constant movement on the offensive and reflects the
Marine Corp's History!


Please explain to me why Camp Perry, and Camp Lejune have never moved.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:57:11 -0500, Nathan Branden
wrote this crap:


I graduated from West Point along with a good number of other fine
Marines. My major was ROTC in which I have a degree. I have a master's
degree in amphibious and littoral warfare and did my thesis on key
overlooked elements of the "forward from the sea" doctrine.


Ooops. I see my mistake. You are a Marine Corps graduate of West
Point, who majored in ROTC, and was promoted to Navy Seal.

I had no idea. You are obviously much superior to me.

I had you pegged as an ordinary dumbass.


If you were cognizant of even the slightest military history you would
know that "Ensign" is indeed a rank in the army and has been used for
hundreds of years.


On behalf of all the Ensigns in the Army, I will step back now.

You win.





This post is 100% free of steroids

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:52:41 -0700, Joe
wrote this crap:


The Army stays in "Forts" which implies a defensive posture. The USMC
stays in "Camps" which implies constant movement on the offensive. You
are right that politics is a big topic in the military, especially
amongst the more educated commissioned officers. I was a junior
officer in the USMC until I got promoted to the Navy Seals.

NB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are so full of **** it's coming outta your ears.

Joe


Don't post to him anymore. Maybe he'll go away.

I don't want to mess with a West Point graduate who was a Marine Corps
Officer, and was promoted to the Navy Seals. He's way too good for
me. He was obviously a worthy ensign in the army.






This post is 100% free of steroids

WOW HORVATH.............. TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE EH????



"Horvath" wrote in message
. com...
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:57:11 -0500, Nathan Branden
wrote this crap:


I graduated from West Point along with a good number of other fine
Marines. My major was ROTC in which I have a degree. I have a master's
degree in amphibious and littoral warfare and did my thesis on key
overlooked elements of the "forward from the sea" doctrine.


Ooops. I see my mistake. You are a Marine Corps graduate of West
Point, who majored in ROTC, and was promoted to Navy Seal.

I had no idea. You are obviously much superior to me.

I had you pegged as an ordinary dumbass.


If you were cognizant of even the slightest military history you would
know that "Ensign" is indeed a rank in the army and has been used for
hundreds of years.


On behalf of all the Ensigns in the Army, I will step back now.

You win.





This post is 100% free of steroids

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
om...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:19:08 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:




"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:llnd831ecb0q0593eei9dsbv6dh7nhl0bk@4ax .com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:48:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"

wrote:




"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:mntc83d9rodko0301h8hdoag3e5llnpa0h@4 ax.com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:02:01 -0000, thunder

wrote:




On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:36:25 -0700, Bart wrote:





What's the problem with government health systems?

What's more important, continued support for a private health care
system,
or American jobs? It seems
to be overlooked that our health care system costs upwards of 15%
GDP,
while those countries with
universal health care spend @10% GDP. That extra 5% is the reason
is
the
reason our automotive
sector is fleeing north, expanding operations in Canada, while
curtailing
them here. In a global economy,
5% extra cost puts us at a considerable economic disadvantage.
Ignore
that at your peril.


All manufacturing is fleeing, not just automotive, and health care
cost is a major driver. I know, I've been there. But universal
health care is not the answer.

Just recently, at a medical school close to my home, the state
legislature mandated to the board of higher education that the
number
of seats be increased. There is a very large supply of eligible
candidates, many don't get in. It is the AMA's very sucessful,
long
standing attempt to control the supply side, keeping fee schedules
very high.




That's just job losses. Let's not consider the lower life
expectancy
and
higher infant mortality our health
system provides.

Our health care system doesn't have anything to do with this. It
is a
matter of lifestyle choices. Want a lower infant mortality rate?
how
about a lower rate of teen mothers on drugs and alcohol. Want a
longer life expectancy? How about everyone get off your buns and
get
some exercise and drop the high fat, high sugar diet.

Frank
Who runs 36 miles a week and at 60 has no aging diseases. No
diabetes, no high blood pressure, no cardiovascular issues, no
joint,
ligament, or cartilage issues.


Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except
ours. I'm
sure we're glad you're healthy and can afford health care, but no
one has
a
contract with God.


And you miss the entire point. Adopting healthier lifestyles has
nothing to do with having a contract with God. It just diminishes
the
need for the" healthcare" that we have come to believe is an
entitlement in this country, that is we can eat horribly, be obese,
smoke, lead completely sedentary lives, and if pregnant, take drugs,
alcohol and smoke, and we or our newborn will remain healthy, and if
that doesn't work, someone else has to pay to make it happen.

Anything the government has ever gotten involved in that requires
cost
control and reasonable product or service has been a disaster.

Frank

And you've missed the point as well... all of your attempts to remain
healthy are great, but that has little to do with the money required
to save
your life or give you a decent quality of life if you get sick and
don't
have insurance.

It is the point. I go to the doctor once a year for him to tell me
I'm healthy. There is no burdon on the system. Of course I'm paying
an exorbitant amount for health insurance which I don't need in order
to pay for those that have not made those healthy lifestyle choices.
That's how it works, and the only thing that can make it worse is for
the government to step in.






The VA insurance is a great example of gov't run healthcare
that for the most part works. They can negotiate prices for drugs,
they
serve a vast community, mostly quite well.

So have you used the VA system? I had two close relatives now
deceased, who used the excellent VA system. father in law was one of
them. I'm not even going to comment on your assessment of it as a
system that works "quite well"





You're very quick to say that healthcare is an entitlement, as though
it
isn't needed, not really. It is needed and that's demonstrated by the
millions who are uninsured, pushing up the costs for those who are.
It's
demonstrated by people's inability to get affordable insurance that
sticks
with them, rather than changes with their employer. A child of four
getting
cancer is not a life-style problem, but gods forbid if that child's
parents
couldn't afford decent health insurance.


No, what I said is that we seem to believe we can live horrible
lifestyles and we have an entitlement to have some system that is
subsidized by others, either the government or the people in a group
who are making the healthy choices, to offset the effects of those
poor lifestyle choices. That's what sucks up the resources that would
be available for those exceptional cases where the illness is no fault
of the patient. And please site the case where a four year old is not
treated for cancer, whatever the financial status of the parents.




We're very, very quick to talk about "freedom," but we sure are slow
to talk
about decency when it comes to our own

And with that statement, I wonder why I even bother to respond.

Frank



Why are you paying for health insurance if you claim you don't and won't
need it? Seems foolish. You are free to drop your health insurance
coverage at any time.



Insurance is just that...the hedge agaisnt the bet that you may or may
not need it...but in one respect, you're correct...if a person is
magnificently healthy, then putting the money into an HSA might be a
better thing to do...



Frank just got telling us that he doesn't need insurance because he's
healthy. Can't imagine why he would need an HSA either.


To hedge that bet that something might happen...like falling off a ladder
while painting his soffits, say...



And, what about the person who can't afford the hedge? S/he's just supposed
to lump it I suppose.


There are many other ways to get medical coverage...there are all types
of free clinics...Catholic hospitals treat in ER's and do not turn away
as do other church based hostpiatls...ypeople are pnly as limited as the
amount of eddort they want to put into finding a wa Y..there is nothing
free in this world...there is a price to everything, one way or the
other...get real...you are seeking a utopia that does not, and will npt,
ever exist on this earth...

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:21:55 -0400, katy
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:b32e835o7lbt2rvnbfu4oggffgbeqeo1kg@4ax. com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:19:08 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:




"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:llnd831ecb0q0593eei9dsbv6dh7nhl0bk@4a x.com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:48:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"

wrote:




"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:mntc83d9rodko0301h8hdoag3e5llnpa0h@ 4ax.com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:02:01 -0000, thunder

wrote:




On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:36:25 -0700, Bart wrote:





What's the problem with government health systems?

What's more important, continued support for a private health care
system,
or American jobs? It seems
to be overlooked that our health care system costs upwards of 15%
GDP,
while those countries with
universal health care spend @10% GDP. That extra 5% is the reason
is
the
reason our automotive
sector is fleeing north, expanding operations in Canada, while
curtailing
them here. In a global economy,
5% extra cost puts us at a considerable economic disadvantage.
Ignore
that at your peril.


All manufacturing is fleeing, not just automotive, and health care
cost is a major driver. I know, I've been there. But universal
health care is not the answer.

Just recently, at a medical school close to my home, the state
legislature mandated to the board of higher education that the
number
of seats be increased. There is a very large supply of eligible
candidates, many don't get in. It is the AMA's very sucessful,
long
standing attempt to control the supply side, keeping fee schedules
very high.




That's just job losses. Let's not consider the lower life
expectancy
and
higher infant mortality our health
system provides.

Our health care system doesn't have anything to do with this. It
is a
matter of lifestyle choices. Want a lower infant mortality rate?
how
about a lower rate of teen mothers on drugs and alcohol. Want a
longer life expectancy? How about everyone get off your buns and
get
some exercise and drop the high fat, high sugar diet.

Frank
Who runs 36 miles a week and at 60 has no aging diseases. No
diabetes, no high blood pressure, no cardiovascular issues, no
joint,
ligament, or cartilage issues.


Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except
ours. I'm
sure we're glad you're healthy and can afford health care, but no
one has
a
contract with God.


And you miss the entire point. Adopting healthier lifestyles has
nothing to do with having a contract with God. It just diminishes
the
need for the" healthcare" that we have come to believe is an
entitlement in this country, that is we can eat horribly, be obese,
smoke, lead completely sedentary lives, and if pregnant, take drugs,
alcohol and smoke, and we or our newborn will remain healthy, and if
that doesn't work, someone else has to pay to make it happen.

Anything the government has ever gotten involved in that requires
cost
control and reasonable product or service has been a disaster.

Frank

And you've missed the point as well... all of your attempts to remain
healthy are great, but that has little to do with the money required
to save
your life or give you a decent quality of life if you get sick and
don't
have insurance.

It is the point. I go to the doctor once a year for him to tell me
I'm healthy. There is no burdon on the system. Of course I'm paying
an exorbitant amount for health insurance which I don't need in order
to pay for those that have not made those healthy lifestyle choices.
That's how it works, and the only thing that can make it worse is for
the government to step in.






The VA insurance is a great example of gov't run healthcare
that for the most part works. They can negotiate prices for drugs,
they
serve a vast community, mostly quite well.

So have you used the VA system? I had two close relatives now
deceased, who used the excellent VA system. father in law was one of
them. I'm not even going to comment on your assessment of it as a
system that works "quite well"





You're very quick to say that healthcare is an entitlement, as though
it
isn't needed, not really. It is needed and that's demonstrated by the
millions who are uninsured, pushing up the costs for those who are.
It's
demonstrated by people's inability to get affordable insurance that
sticks
with them, rather than changes with their employer. A child of four
getting
cancer is not a life-style problem, but gods forbid if that child's
parents
couldn't afford decent health insurance.


No, what I said is that we seem to believe we can live horrible
lifestyles and we have an entitlement to have some system that is
subsidized by others, either the government or the people in a group
who are making the healthy choices, to offset the effects of those
poor lifestyle choices. That's what sucks up the resources that would
be available for those exceptional cases where the illness is no fault
of the patient. And please site the case where a four year old is not
treated for cancer, whatever the financial status of the parents.




We're very, very quick to talk about "freedom," but we sure are slow
to talk
about decency when it comes to our own

And with that statement, I wonder why I even bother to respond.

Frank



Why are you paying for health insurance if you claim you don't and won't
need it? Seems foolish. You are free to drop your health insurance
coverage at any time.



Insurance is just that...the hedge agaisnt the bet that you may or may
not need it...but in one respect, you're correct...if a person is
magnificently healthy, then putting the money into an HSA might be a
better thing to do...



Frank just got telling us that he doesn't need insurance because he's
healthy. Can't imagine why he would need an HSA either.


To hedge that bet that something might happen...like falling off a ladder
while painting his soffits, say...



And, what about the person who can't afford the hedge? S/he's just supposed
to lump it I suppose.


There are many other ways to get medical coverage...there are all types
of free clinics...Catholic hospitals treat in ER's and do not turn away
as do other church based hostpiatls...ypeople are pnly as limited as the
amount of eddort they want to put into finding a wa Y..there is nothing
free in this world...there is a price to everything, one way or the
other...get real...you are seeking a utopia that does not, and will npt,
ever exist on this earth...


That is why I react to people like Jon making "pull it out of the air"
anecdotal comments about the "four year old that has cancer and can't
get treatment". It is simply not true. And if he made those kind of
statements in this area of the country, I'm sure someone would kick
his butt back to the left coast. Those people who participate in the
multiple fund raising events for St. Judes, just up the road and Catch
Kids and the Free Clinic in my town. I have good friends who staff
these organizations on a voluntary basis.

And no NP hospital, and most are, can turn away an indigent needing
treatment. Dickie Scruggs will make sure they are sued if they do.
If you pay for your health care, you are also paying for theirs.

Having the Government create another wasteful bureaucracy to do the
job is not a step in the direction toward utopia.

Frank

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:b32e835o7lbt2rvnbfu4oggffgbeqeo1kg@4ax. com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:19:08 -0700, "Capt. JG"

wrote:




"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:llnd831ecb0q0593eei9dsbv6dh7nhl0bk@4a x.com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:48:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"

wrote:




"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:mntc83d9rodko0301h8hdoag3e5llnpa0h@ 4ax.com...



On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:02:01 -0000, thunder

wrote:




On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:36:25 -0700, Bart wrote:





What's the problem with government health systems?

What's more important, continued support for a private health
care
system,
or American jobs? It seems
to be overlooked that our health care system costs upwards of
15% GDP,
while those countries with
universal health care spend @10% GDP. That extra 5% is the
reason is
the
reason our automotive
sector is fleeing north, expanding operations in Canada, while
curtailing
them here. In a global economy,
5% extra cost puts us at a considerable economic disadvantage.
Ignore
that at your peril.


All manufacturing is fleeing, not just automotive, and health
care
cost is a major driver. I know, I've been there. But universal
health care is not the answer.

Just recently, at a medical school close to my home, the state
legislature mandated to the board of higher education that the
number
of seats be increased. There is a very large supply of eligible
candidates, many don't get in. It is the AMA's very sucessful,
long
standing attempt to control the supply side, keeping fee
schedules
very high.




That's just job losses. Let's not consider the lower life
expectancy
and
higher infant mortality our health
system provides.

Our health care system doesn't have anything to do with this. It
is a
matter of lifestyle choices. Want a lower infant mortality rate?
how
about a lower rate of teen mothers on drugs and alcohol. Want a
longer life expectancy? How about everyone get off your buns and
get
some exercise and drop the high fat, high sugar diet.

Frank
Who runs 36 miles a week and at 60 has no aging diseases. No
diabetes, no high blood pressure, no cardiovascular issues, no
joint,
ligament, or cartilage issues.


Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except
ours. I'm
sure we're glad you're healthy and can afford health care, but no
one has
a
contract with God.


And you miss the entire point. Adopting healthier lifestyles has
nothing to do with having a contract with God. It just diminishes
the
need for the" healthcare" that we have come to believe is an
entitlement in this country, that is we can eat horribly, be obese,
smoke, lead completely sedentary lives, and if pregnant, take
drugs,
alcohol and smoke, and we or our newborn will remain healthy, and
if
that doesn't work, someone else has to pay to make it happen.

Anything the government has ever gotten involved in that requires
cost
control and reasonable product or service has been a disaster.

Frank

And you've missed the point as well... all of your attempts to
remain
healthy are great, but that has little to do with the money required
to save
your life or give you a decent quality of life if you get sick and
don't
have insurance.

It is the point. I go to the doctor once a year for him to tell me
I'm healthy. There is no burdon on the system. Of course I'm paying
an exorbitant amount for health insurance which I don't need in order
to pay for those that have not made those healthy lifestyle choices.
That's how it works, and the only thing that can make it worse is for
the government to step in.






The VA insurance is a great example of gov't run healthcare
that for the most part works. They can negotiate prices for drugs,
they
serve a vast community, mostly quite well.

So have you used the VA system? I had two close relatives now
deceased, who used the excellent VA system. father in law was one of
them. I'm not even going to comment on your assessment of it as a
system that works "quite well"





You're very quick to say that healthcare is an entitlement, as
though it
isn't needed, not really. It is needed and that's demonstrated by
the
millions who are uninsured, pushing up the costs for those who are.
It's
demonstrated by people's inability to get affordable insurance that
sticks
with them, rather than changes with their employer. A child of four
getting
cancer is not a life-style problem, but gods forbid if that child's
parents
couldn't afford decent health insurance.


No, what I said is that we seem to believe we can live horrible
lifestyles and we have an entitlement to have some system that is
subsidized by others, either the government or the people in a group
who are making the healthy choices, to offset the effects of those
poor lifestyle choices. That's what sucks up the resources that
would
be available for those exceptional cases where the illness is no
fault
of the patient. And please site the case where a four year old is
not
treated for cancer, whatever the financial status of the parents.




We're very, very quick to talk about "freedom," but we sure are slow
to talk
about decency when it comes to our own

And with that statement, I wonder why I even bother to respond.

Frank



Why are you paying for health insurance if you claim you don't and
won't need it? Seems foolish. You are free to drop your health
insurance coverage at any time.



Insurance is just that...the hedge agaisnt the bet that you may or may
not need it...but in one respect, you're correct...if a person is
magnificently healthy, then putting the money into an HSA might be a
better thing to do...



Frank just got telling us that he doesn't need insurance because he's
healthy. Can't imagine why he would need an HSA either.


To hedge that bet that something might happen...like falling off a ladder
while painting his soffits, say...



And, what about the person who can't afford the hedge? S/he's just
supposed to lump it I suppose.


There are many other ways to get medical coverage...there are all types of
free clinics...Catholic hospitals treat in ER's and do not turn away as do
other church based hostpiatls...ypeople are pnly as limited as the amount
of eddort they want to put into finding a wa Y..there is nothing free in
this world...there is a price to everything, one way or the other...get
real...you are seeking a utopia that does not, and will npt, ever exist on
this earth...


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," Isn't
that in the Constitution?

My needs include:
Free Health Care
Free Living Assistance
Free Lunch