TopBassDog wrote:
On Feb 24, 12:19 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Feb 23, 11:37 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Drop dead you little coward (metaphorically of course). You're not man
enough even to post under your real name, unlike him.
--
Nom=de=Plume
And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?"
When you were younger were you called 'Nommie?"
I'm a woman and I don't need stalkers such as yourself. Were you ever
mistaken for a man? If so, by whom?

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're a woman? Since when?

By God, you told her! Keep up the good work.


Lib - Always whining about stalkers, and getting the crap beat out of
them by smart men with wit.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose
wrote:

That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable
conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?


The smokers and the people who try to enforce it.
At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes
causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit
incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away.

This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse
themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their
injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the
profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose
wrote:

That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable
conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?


The smokers and the people who try to enforce it.
At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes
causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit
incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away.

This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse
themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their
injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the
profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.
--
Nom=de=Plume

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 12:19 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Feb 23, 11:37 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Drop dead you little coward (metaphorically of course). You're not man
enough even to post under your real name, unlike him.

--
Nom=de=Plume
And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?"

When you were younger were you called 'Nommie?"

I'm a woman and I don't need stalkers such as yourself. Were you ever
mistaken for a man? If so, by whom?

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're a woman? Since when?


You're a man? Are you still sore from the operation?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 10:51 am, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:49:30 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:
And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?"

French for "pen name"

Oui, je parle français et comprends Nom de Plume la signification.
Merveille I qui D'Plume le blâme d'autres pour l'usage d'un faux
nommé, pourtant fait également. Un hypocrite !


You also speak stupid, apparently.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 2/25/10 5:16 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 12:19 am, wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 23, 11:37 pm, wrote:

Drop dead you little coward (metaphorically of course). You're not man
enough even to post under your real name, unlike him.

--
Nom=de=Plume
And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?"

When you were younger were you called 'Nommie?"

I'm a woman and I don't need stalkers such as yourself. Were you ever
mistaken for a man? If so, by whom?

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're a woman? Since when?


You're a man? Are you still sore from the operation?


Nom - why do you even bother with "bass," jim, herring, jack, Bruce,
and the rest of the pack of retarded right-wing misogynists? Consider
just letting them wallow in their own effluent.

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose
wrote:

That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable
conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?


The smokers and the people who try to enforce it.
At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes
causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit
incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away.

This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse
themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for
their injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem
until the profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope. You do not have insurance to cover your self imposed ills. You die.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose
wrote:

That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable
conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?


The smokers and the people who try to enforce it.
At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes
causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit
incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away.

This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse
themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for
their injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem
until the profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope. You do not have insurance to cover your self imposed ills. You
die.



You said, "Maybe require they carry insurance...." So, were you just lying?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:16:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news:_7ednXcdOIKRWhvWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose
wrote:

That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable
conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?


The smokers and the people who try to enforce it.
At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes
causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit
incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away.

This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse
themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for
their
injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the
profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.


I am willing to bet that your average smoker has a lower lifetime
health care cost than a non-smoker. They die sooner and don't get all
the late life care. It is certainly better for Medicare since they are
not on it as long. Some never make it at all.



Heh... I have no objection your honor. I know, that's mean, but I hate
second-hand smoke.

--
Nom=de=Plume