"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
mister b wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:34:18 -0700, DoctorD wrote:

tax-whining snipped

wonder why your roads are pot-holed, your buses/subways old and broken,
your hospitals un-maintained, your sewage treatment plants obsolete, your
children's schools a disgrace...

keep whining about the taxes bub...just so long as _you're_ alright eh
Jack?

Yeah, no need to whine about taxes. See the democratic plan is to raise
*someone else's* taxes and have *someone else* pay to repair the roads,
buses, etc! All you have to do is become a democrat and you can claim
morally superior compassion for the poor, etc without contributing one
thin dime of your own money to the effort!

Stephen


Way off topic, but I suppose you think that $3-6 trillion spent on a war of
choice is preferrable to health care for all Americans... I know where I'd
rather see my money going, and it isn't to Saudia Arabia.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Way off topic, but I suppose you think that $3-6 trillion spent on a war
of choice is preferrable to health care for all Americans... I know where
I'd rather see my money going, and it isn't to Saudia Arabia.


Do not fret! It is going to cost trillions for the long term health care of
all the veterans! It's a win-win!

The only thing left is to draft all Americans - universal health care!

Bush and the associated Congress is one of the most reckless of all time.

It's time America started having national strikes, where everyone stops
working for a few days at a time in unison. Maybe then the ruling class will
start to get a hint.

Phil

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:48:04 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I suppose you think that $3-6 trillion spent on a war of
choice is preferrable to health care for all Americans... I know where I'd
rather see my money going, and it isn't to Saudia Arabia.

This is an argument we see over and over ad nauseam--the guvmint should
spend money on the program I want because that's better than spending it
on
X.

The technique relieves that proponent of having to justify on its own the
program he wants, or to consider the possibility that perhaps we'd be
happier if the guvmint didn't spend the money on either program, and
didn't
take the money out of our pockets in the first place.


I don't think there's much in the way of argument about which is better to
spend money doing. Unless of course you think war is preferrable to healthy
citizens.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:48:04 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I suppose you think that $3-6 trillion spent on a war of
choice is preferrable to health care for all Americans... I know where
I'd
rather see my money going, and it isn't to Saudia Arabia.

This is an argument we see over and over ad nauseam--the guvmint should
spend money on the program I want because that's better than spending it
on
X.

The technique relieves that proponent of having to justify on its own the
program he wants, or to consider the possibility that perhaps we'd be
happier if the guvmint didn't spend the money on either program, and
didn't
take the money out of our pockets in the first place.


I don't think there's much in the way of argument about which is better to
spend money doing. Unless of course you think war is preferrable to
healthy citizens.


Tell me, please what's so healthy about citizens taking large doses of
LSD???

--
Gregory Hall

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:19:06 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

The technique relieves that proponent of having to justify on its own
the
program he wants, or to consider the possibility that perhaps we'd be
happier if the guvmint didn't spend the money on either program, and
didn't
take the money out of our pockets in the first place.


I don't think there's much in the way of argument about which is better to
spend money doing. Unless of course you think war is preferrable to
healthy
citizens.

So you simply repeat the fallacious argument.


There's no difference between spending on war vs. spending on health? Ok. I
guess I just repeated it again!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:01:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

There's no difference between spending on war vs. spending on health? Ok.
I
guess I just repeated it again!

Remember those multiple choice tests you took in HS, Jon? There was often
a
choice labeled "none of the above."

Jon and his liberal ilk have one-track minds bordering on the imbecile
level. They can no more envision a path with multiple inputs and outputs
than they can envision taking care of themselves. No! It DOES take a village
to raise and nurture the likes of dependent personalities such as Jon Boy.

Not a one of them can grasp a complicated thought such as healthy citizens
being rendered unhealthy by as little as one terrorist dirty bomb which
could easily be the consequence of failing to be aggressive and vigilant in
waging war on Islamic Fascists terrorists. And, yes, the war in Iran is part
of that world-wide war against the Islamic terrorist threat. We pull out,
the Islamic fascists flood in. It's that simple.

But, liberals such as Jon Boy see their selfish selves as the center of the
world. All needs to revolve around them. All needs to be ordered to fulfill
their needs. All needs to be bought and paid for by somebody other than
themselves. That's the liberal world outlook. Somebody else's has got to
produce and they've got to produce according to the liberals concept of what
production means. Jon Boy is a looter. He could not survive without those
who produce taking care of his every need. And, sadly, he and his ilk are
not capable of seeing the world as it exists. They would dictate, from a
standpoint of utter and ridiculous ignorance how it should work. If ever
they got their way they would still not see their stupidity even as the
world crumbled around their feet as they starved to death. With their very
last breath they would bemoan that it's all somebody else's fault. Never
would they ask what they produced. The concept of production eludes them.
They are the elite. They are entitled to consume without producing anything
other than complaints. This is why they are so loathsome.

Wilbur Hubbard

He does seem to complain quite a bit. Here he is complaining publicly:

http://www.sacbee.com/410/story/428427.html

The most humorous thing is that the flight path of those planes is about 3
miles east of the lake so how could they appear "low over the lake"?

Just more gross misrepresentations and whinging. Simply check the map in
the article. Could be a case of severely distorted perception:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002206/

"Gene Rayburn" wrote in message
...

snip stalker crapola

Sigh... another sockpuppet stalker... easy to plonk...

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

"Gene Rayburn" wrote in message
...
He does seem to complain quite a bit. Here he is complaining publicly:

http://www.sacbee.com/410/story/428427.html

The most humorous thing is that the flight path of those planes is about 3
miles east of the lake so how could they appear "low over the lake"?

Just more gross misrepresentations and whinging. Simply check the map in
the article. Could be a case of severely distorted perception:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002206/




That's what large overdoses of LSD does to a person. It's a wonder he
doesn't see the aircraft morphing into reptiles and dragons. I guess the
following is what you're talking about?

"Orangevale resident Jonathan Ganz said the big cargo jets are especially
noticeable when they lumber in low and loud over Lake Natoma while he is
trying to teach a sailing class. "I have to stop talking. We all sit on the
dock and watch the plane, wondering if it is going to land in the lake,"
Ganz said.""

Ha ha ah! What a jerk! Teaches a sailing class on the dock? Wouldn't it be
better to teach sailing on a sailboat? A case of the blind leading the
blind, I'm afraid.

--
Gregory Hall

"Gene Rayburn" wrote in message
...
He does seem to complain quite a bit. Here he is complaining publicly:

http://www.sacbee.com/410/story/428427.html

The most humorous thing is that the flight path of those planes is about 3
miles east of the lake so how could they appear "low over the lake"?

Just more gross misrepresentations and whinging. Simply check the map in
the article. Could be a case of severely distorted perception:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002206/




If the planes are such a nuisance, why in God's name did he chose to buy a
house right in the flight path? Seems really dumb to me. It's like buying a
boat, knowing it has a large hole in the bottom, and then complaining it
sinks every time you put it in the water. Talk about a perpetual victim of
his own doing!

Phil