|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "jps" wrote in message ... You may read, but you don't seem to comprehend very well. I never suggested anything like that. A simple case of gangrene is life threatening. Eisboch A simple cold can turn into pneumonia, which is life threatening. Not knowing colesteral counts can lead to heart disease and catastrophic outcomes. I don't know where you think you'd draw the line. It's proven that consistency of care when health is a key factor in preventing the types of diseases and afflictions that end up costing huge money. This is just as short-sighted as those who favor funding jails to pre-school. Is that somehow miscomprehending your intent? I think it's just lacking in some common sense. Eisboch The typical sort of system that I'm used to has a triage system, whereby a nurse practitioner handles the initial call. If s/he feels it might be worth proceeding with a doctor telephone call or a visit, it's decided then. I also have access to my doctor directly via email (answered the same day) or telephone (next business day, typically). That takes it out of the hands of the patient deciding if it's trivial or not. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... You're the one to decide what's a sniffle or cold? I think I'd rather have my doctor decide. -- Nom=de=Plume I am 60 years old. My parents and my wife and I (with our kids) did a pretty good job determining what required a doctor's attention and what required a day home from school to rest. Now-a-days the parents don't want that responsibility because it only costs a $10 co-pay to run to the doctor. That's what I am talking about. Not serious injuries or illnesses. Eisboch Perhaps you're better educated than others? Perhaps it's something other than laziness or not taking responsibility. Perhaps it's concern for the child's health. I seriously doubt any parent is going to waste the hours required to take a child to the doctor if it's something they really think is trivial. That would cost them way more than the $10. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
snipped for brevity
A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his enemies. A good man can have a wealth of enemies. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:48:59 -0400, Larry wrote:
jps wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:51:04 -0400, wrote: jps wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:32:00 -0500, wrote: jps wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, wrote: wrote in message m... I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance" are two different things. Eisboch No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree necessary. The hang-up I still have is the difference between a mandatory health insurance program and the right to free or subsidized (tax supported) health care for life threatening or disabling conditions. Mandatory health insurance puts another massive layer of bureaucracy, private or government, into the mix. When it comes to getting care, that has never been a good thing. A mandatory health insurance law is in effect here in MA. For those who can't afford the subsidized insurance (state programs) it is cheaper to pay the fine (assuming the state even enforces the collection of them, which I doubt.) Tough call. I guess my attitude is that those of us that are fortunate enough to be able to afford decent health insurance also have a moral obligation to assist those who need medical care (though a tax or increased insurance premium) for those who cannot afford insurance. But to subsidize health *insurance* programs is another matter. Eisboch Are you suggesting that those that can afford it pay retail, but those who need subsidized care get it through some other method? Not sure I understand. The guy lays out a detailed plan to provide health care for all, and you bitch about it. Unless you have a better plan, quit criticizing. What about my post was bitching? Do you actually read or just jerk a spasmotic knee? It was a question about clarification, you dweeb, not an accusation or bitch. I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway. Maybe you should consider augmenting your screen name so we can tell the difference. Sure you don't have MPD? Pretty sure. Let me check . . . . . . . Nope. Well then, you're obviously playing two roles. The customary Dan Krueger and his less evil twin. Does Margaret know there's two of you? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:29 -0400, Larry wrote:
jps wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, wrote: hk wrote: On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here whining about health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result racked up a $25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off. I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his arrangement is with the hospital. That's his business and I am not interested in that specific discussion. However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as a person of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no insurance for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it. I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the criticism? Eisboch My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his irresponsibility, his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help that was offered to him in a time of need. I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the cost of health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In fact, I would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law last week goes. So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health care is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a deserving recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this regard. I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance" are two different things. Eisboch No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree necessary. That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new level? Welfare checks *and* free health care? You are an ignorant, sick piece of **** who has bought into all the propaganda fed you by your selfish, greedy masters. The truth hurts that bad? That's your sick truth. The world's truth is something else and you clearly wouldn't understand. You're too busy investing in Reagan's myth of parasitic welfare cheats. You're no more enlightened than the militia idiots who think that when the government goes broke that all those inner city leaches are gonna come rape and pillage the good white folk. ****in' sick *******s, the lot of you. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:55:38 -0400, hk
wrote: On 3/31/10 5:46 PM, jps wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:28:52 -0400, wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company and for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of the services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries or illness. Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow such a thing. Eisboch You once did a survey that proved something. Sure. In one specific case. But, I guess Mitt didn't like your plan. The one he pushed is much stronger than the one that just passed. Of course, he's against it after he was for it. -- Nom=de=Plume My company was representative of a typical small business who collectively employ about 80% of the population. It may have been a specific case, but it was representative of what happened when HMO type health plans became popular. BTW ... the one Mitt signed .... (under a heavily Democratic state populous) isn't exactly working out very well, particularly for small business. It has advantages to the insured, but is causing small business to cut back or avoid growth. Again, since small business is the major employer, it has ramifications that aren't so good overall. Maybe small businesses are just going to have to account for the real cost of doing business, including taking care of the folks who generate the income. I'm burdened because I choose to be, no matter the state law. It may indeed limit my growth but I know whomever is in my employ has a medical safety net that they can rely on. Walmart wouldn't be nearly as successful if they accounted for the true cost of maintaining a human being. Socialism for the rich. The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. That's why the reaction from the right is so astounding. This is the Republican's wet dream of a health care bill. Protect the monied scum who make a profit by providing nothing but administrative process. The public option is the only way we're going to see competitive rates in this country. That'd be a good first step towards the ultimate goal of single payer. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:04:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message ... The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. Good grief. I agree with you. Eisboch Holy ****. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:04:30 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . You may read, but you don't seem to comprehend very well. I never suggested anything like that. A simple case of gangrene is life threatening. Eisboch A simple cold can turn into pneumonia, which is life threatening. Not knowing colesteral counts can lead to heart disease and catastrophic outcomes. I don't know where you think you'd draw the line. It's proven that consistency of care when health is a key factor in preventing the types of diseases and afflictions that end up costing huge money. This is just as short-sighted as those who favor funding jails to pre-school. Is that somehow miscomprehending your intent? I think it's just lacking in some common sense. Eisboch Common sense dictates investment in education and care so that more people avoid the catastrophic. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 3/31/10 9:25 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:55:38 -0400, wrote: On 3/31/10 5:46 PM, jps wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:28:52 -0400, wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company and for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of the services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries or illness. Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow such a thing. Eisboch You once did a survey that proved something. Sure. In one specific case. But, I guess Mitt didn't like your plan. The one he pushed is much stronger than the one that just passed. Of course, he's against it after he was for it. -- Nom=de=Plume My company was representative of a typical small business who collectively employ about 80% of the population. It may have been a specific case, but it was representative of what happened when HMO type health plans became popular. BTW ... the one Mitt signed .... (under a heavily Democratic state populous) isn't exactly working out very well, particularly for small business. It has advantages to the insured, but is causing small business to cut back or avoid growth. Again, since small business is the major employer, it has ramifications that aren't so good overall. Maybe small businesses are just going to have to account for the real cost of doing business, including taking care of the folks who generate the income. I'm burdened because I choose to be, no matter the state law. It may indeed limit my growth but I know whomever is in my employ has a medical safety net that they can rely on. Walmart wouldn't be nearly as successful if they accounted for the true cost of maintaining a human being. Socialism for the rich. The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. That's why the reaction from the right is so astounding. This is the Republican's wet dream of a health care bill. Protect the monied scum who make a profit by providing nothing but administrative process. The public option is the only way we're going to see competitive rates in this country. That'd be a good first step towards the ultimate goal of single payer. The GOP doesn't know or care about reform...what is driving the GOP is its desire to try to stymie Obama wherever and whenever possible, for purely political reasons. Remember, the GOP is populated by morons like Ingersoll and Herring who believe the simple-minded nonsense the party chieftains and elected officials spew. Look at the teabaggers - a movement of absolute morons. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
wrote in message
... snipped for brevity A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his enemies. A good man can have a wealth of enemies. It can be a requirement. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:43:50 -0500, Peter Prick wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:32:00 -0500, Larry wrote: jps wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance" are two different things. Eisboch No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree necessary. The hang-up I still have is the difference between a mandatory health insurance program and the right to free or subsidized (tax supported) health care for life threatening or disabling conditions. Mandatory health insurance puts another massive layer of bureaucracy, private or government, into the mix. When it comes to getting care, that has never been a good thing. A mandatory health insurance law is in effect here in MA. For those who can't afford the subsidized insurance (state programs) it is cheaper to pay the fine (assuming the state even enforces the collection of them, which I doubt.) Tough call. I guess my attitude is that those of us that are fortunate enough to be able to afford decent health insurance also have a moral obligation to assist those who need medical care (though a tax or increased insurance premium) for those who cannot afford insurance. But to subsidize health *insurance* programs is another matter. Eisboch Are you suggesting that those that can afford it pay retail, but those who need subsidized care get it through some other method? Not sure I understand. The guy lays out a detailed plan to provide health care for all, and you bitch about it. Unless you have a better plan, quit criticizing. What about my post was bitching? Do you actually read or just jerk a spasmotic knee? It was a question about clarification, you dweeb, not an accusation or bitch. Clarify what? I didn't see a "detailed plan" anywhere, nor any "bitching." You gentlemen seem more interested in one-upmanship than real discussion. Very disappointing. Peter, I was asking Richard what he meant by not subsidizing a health insurance program. My aim was true but some jerk claimed I was bitching. I think he should start reading for content and, otherwise STFU. I don't really give a **** if you're disappointed but perhaps you should be more accurately so. Why would you like to subsidize insurance? The insurance industry is ecstatic over this healthcare bill. They love Obama. Got another 35 million customers. Can charge what they want. Main reason their stock prices increased 12% in the runup to the passing of the bill. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "hk" wrote in message ... The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. Good grief. I agree with you. Eisboch The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear? Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A cold and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for every little sniffle. Then there are those to do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:39:49 -0400, hk
wrote: On 3/31/10 9:25 PM, jps wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:55:38 -0400, wrote: On 3/31/10 5:46 PM, jps wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:28:52 -0400, wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company and for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of the services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries or illness. Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow such a thing. Eisboch You once did a survey that proved something. Sure. In one specific case. But, I guess Mitt didn't like your plan. The one he pushed is much stronger than the one that just passed. Of course, he's against it after he was for it. -- Nom=de=Plume My company was representative of a typical small business who collectively employ about 80% of the population. It may have been a specific case, but it was representative of what happened when HMO type health plans became popular. BTW ... the one Mitt signed .... (under a heavily Democratic state populous) isn't exactly working out very well, particularly for small business. It has advantages to the insured, but is causing small business to cut back or avoid growth. Again, since small business is the major employer, it has ramifications that aren't so good overall. Maybe small businesses are just going to have to account for the real cost of doing business, including taking care of the folks who generate the income. I'm burdened because I choose to be, no matter the state law. It may indeed limit my growth but I know whomever is in my employ has a medical safety net that they can rely on. Walmart wouldn't be nearly as successful if they accounted for the true cost of maintaining a human being. Socialism for the rich. The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. That's why the reaction from the right is so astounding. This is the Republican's wet dream of a health care bill. Protect the monied scum who make a profit by providing nothing but administrative process. The public option is the only way we're going to see competitive rates in this country. That'd be a good first step towards the ultimate goal of single payer. The GOP doesn't know or care about reform...what is driving the GOP is its desire to try to stymie Obama wherever and whenever possible, for purely political reasons. Remember, the GOP is populated by morons like Ingersoll and Herring who believe the simple-minded nonsense the party chieftains and elected officials spew. Look at the teabaggers - a movement of absolute morons. They're not who concern me. We've shifted so far to the right that a health care bill based on a Republcan wet dream is considered a leftist government plot. We're easily as far to the right as we were to the left when Nixon founded the EPA. I sure as **** hope the pendulum has come to rest and ready to move back to the left. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:20:54 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote: In article , says... I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I am sure you can handle it. I've done well enough. There have been times though.... But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name? I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to post here regularly. I take at face value your saying you were not mocking my name, and apologize for criticizing you unfairly. As to my name, you can suspect what you will. I have given a brief history of my family name in reply to Mr. Schnautz. I am always exactly who I claim to be. Years ago - at least a decade - I made some number of posts to various groups, and some may have been cross posted here. You might find some by looking for "Peter" or "Pete." But I don't remember what I posted. I was often drunk. I did not use the Prick family name then. Too many fights. I only recently "rediscovered" usenet and after browsing this group found it an interesting study in newsgroup dynamics. I was initially interested in buying another boat, but that desire has dissipated somewhat after reading this group, which might be more appropriately called rec.anything.but.boats. Doesn't matter really. There is a wide variety of personalities here, spanning the wacko spectrum. I like that, as it reflects real life. Hopefully, I can get along here, and make a few pals. Then when I get a boat, organize some raft ups. Wouldn't it, after all, be a delightful sight to behold Harry, Loogy, John, and Scotty sitting around a shore site campfire, singing "Michael Rowed the Boat Ashore," with Loogy and Scotty doing the chorus while strumming their Fenders, John singing bass, Harry singing tenor? Maybe Froggy could do some background croaking for atmosphere if no real frogs are calling, and jps could cuss sotto voce, adding a bit of rhythm. There are many, many arrangement possibilities. I think that's an admirable goal for a group participant to strive for, and that's the type of boater I would like to be. I'm sure many here agree with my get-along sentiments. They just don't want to come out of the protective shells they have constructed around themselves. But they are basically good people. Just takes a little sing-along to bring the good elements out. A few cases of beer helps too. But sing-along to get-along is a good motto. I sure hope Jesse Jackson never said that. That's an adimrable goal but I'd recommend TSA be contracted to provide metal and explosives detection. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "hk" wrote in message ... The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. Good grief. I agree with you. Eisboch The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear? Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A cold and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for every little sniffle. Then there are those to do. So, basically, you're unable to understand the word prevention and can't comprehend doctors making decisions. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... snipped for brevity A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his enemies. A good man can have a wealth of enemies. It can be a requirement. You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "hk" wrote in message ... The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. Good grief. I agree with you. Eisboch The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear? Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A cold and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for every little sniffle. Then there are those to do. So, basically, you're unable to understand the word prevention and can't comprehend doctors making decisions. So basically, you would expect us to pay for your breast augmentation because your doctor decided it would improve your self esteem and thought it was medically necessary. Are you confusing prevention with early intervention? It seems as if you are. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In article , says... I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I am sure you can handle it. I've done well enough. There have been times though.... But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name? I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to post here regularly. And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for disrupting the harmony of rec.boats |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
anon-e-moose wrote:
Peter (Yes, that one) wrote: In article , says... I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I am sure you can handle it. I've done well enough. There have been times though.... But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name? I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to post here regularly. And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for disrupting the harmony of rec.boats One word, friend. Joesparebedroom. Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
Jim wrote:
anon-e-moose wrote: Peter (Yes, that one) wrote: In article , says... I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I am sure you can handle it. I've done well enough. There have been times though.... But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name? I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to post here regularly. And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for disrupting the harmony of rec.boats One word, friend. Joesparebedroom. Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with. Sorry, he's not smart enough to pull it off. Besides he couldn't get two layers into a thread without showing us every vulgar word in his vocabulary. You know, kind of like JPS. Confession is good for the soul, Tom. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
anon-e-moose wrote:
Jim wrote: anon-e-moose wrote: Peter (Yes, that one) wrote: In article , says... I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I am sure you can handle it. I've done well enough. There have been times though.... But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name? I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to post here regularly. And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for disrupting the harmony of rec.boats One word, friend. Joesparebedroom. Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with. Sorry, he's not smart enough to pull it off. Besides he couldn't get two layers into a thread without showing us every vulgar word in his vocabulary. You know, kind of like JPS. Confession is good for the soul, Tom. Nope, not me. Maybe Denninger, Skipper, Gene, or Larry Butler. Krueger? Spock? Jim - I'll figure it out. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
Jim wrote:
anon-e-moose wrote: Jim wrote: anon-e-moose wrote: Peter (Yes, that one) wrote: In article , says... I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I am sure you can handle it. I've done well enough. There have been times though.... But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name? I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to post here regularly. And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for disrupting the harmony of rec.boats One word, friend. Joesparebedroom. Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with. Sorry, he's not smart enough to pull it off. Besides he couldn't get two layers into a thread without showing us every vulgar word in his vocabulary. You know, kind of like JPS. Confession is good for the soul, Tom. Nope, not me. Maybe Denninger, Skipper, Gene, or Larry Butler. Krueger? Spock? Jim - I'll figure it out. Spock,maybe? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 30/03/2010 12:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"I am wrote in message ... In , says... On 30/03/2010 4:14 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, wrote: That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new level? Welfare checks *and* free health care? how about welfare for wall street? you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious your abso-****in-lutely clueless I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they want? because george bush and other rich, white frat boys, rigged the system so we have no choice. it's either bail out the rich or let the banking system go down in flames...like in 29. that's why the banks are fighting so hard against regulation. and why people like richard shelby, GOP of alabama...are carrying their water for them. protect the rich You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in office. Funny how the liars here and in the media forget that fact.. Like you? TARP wasn't "created" by Congress. It was passed by Congress. It was created by Treasury (i.e., Paulson) and was promoted to Congress as make-or-break funding to stabilize the economy, which, after some revisions did as advertised. You are arguing semantecs. If DEMOCRAT congress didn't approve the TARP it would have DIED. Fact is, democrats like large sums of unaccountable cash. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 30/03/2010 3:34 PM, hk wrote:
On 3/30/10 5:30 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:16:31 -0400, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in office. Funny how the liars here and in the media forget that fact.. typical right winger. all bitching. no solutions. 25% unemployment? great. collapse of the economic system? fantastic as long as the rich are protected. and TARP was started under bush...he needed to bail out his rich buddies. It's theater of the absurd when SnottyScottyTosk whines in on these posts, since he is unemployed and unemployable, as is, I suspect, Canuck. Given the times you post, you must be a hanger waiting for the government bailout of your silly sorry life. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message ... On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... hk wrote: On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here whining about health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result racked up a $25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off. I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his arrangement is with the hospital. That's his business and I am not interested in that specific discussion. However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as a person of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no insurance for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it. I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the criticism? Eisboch My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his irresponsibility, his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help that was offered to him in a time of need. I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the cost of health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In fact, I would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law last week goes. So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health care is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a deserving recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this regard. I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance" are two different things. Eisboch No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree necessary. That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new level? Welfare checks *and* free health care? Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose. That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8 months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14 kids and on *welfare*. Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class working families. I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working class neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your demise in whatever is your local newspaper. You are ambulatory, right? Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck. I suspect they would. They do at work!! Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand. At some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are getting ****ed at the tax rape going on. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 30/03/2010 12:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 30/03/2010 12:08 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks who benefitted from the recent bubble So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility? Eisboch It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability to pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't answer. -- Nom=de=Plume I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms. Plume. Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those with the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that cannot when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical care. I repeat. Medical care. I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize free health care insurance via private or government insurance programs. Big difference between the two. Eisboch Eisboch, Used to be people were grateful for charity, today they think it is a right and will spit in your face with envy in their hearts when you help. Many are not deseriving of the charity. They want handouts not hand ups, unwilling to learn what it takes to be productive they just continue their loser ways. Oh be quiet. The adults are speaking. So who's bitch/slave are you? Or are you a welfare sucking mama? -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 30/03/2010 12:35 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 29/03/2010 10:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 29/03/2010 12:28 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 28/03/2010 7:25 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600, wrote: So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it freeloading? notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing to blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'? Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading. Which this case highlights perfectly. Did you do further research? Bet not. Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and father as money there had different priorities. Further, they sought insurance AFTER they needed it. This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading. Playing the sympathy screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when they have a problem they subscribe. Just jacks the rates for the rest of us. how the hell does a newborn baby have a 'pre existing condition'? and what the hell relevance is this? the kid is DYING but to the right...let him DIE... Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up long before even getting knocked up. yep. kill the kid Nope. Should have saved the kid, jailed the parents in debtors court. Obviously the parents would not mortgage their home and persue it legally, they don't have a case. And they can't really persue this type of abuse. this is why we need socialized medicine In a weird sort of way, I agree. This was a tragic neglect of parents that should not be allowed to happen. But it happens all the time as they think they can cheat the system and get others to pay for it. Pretty obvious far too many parents have this problem with home economics. Time for these people to be forced to pay and do without so they pay for their needs, including heath care. Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they think they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. No... you hate them. You hate anyone who isn't like you. You could have offered to pay for it. How come you didn't? Or is socialism OK as long as other people pay for it? You're a moron. I offer to pay more taxes. That's how our system works. Even on this newsgroup, I offered to pay for John's utility bill. He wasn't willing to meet me even 1/4 of the way to getting it done. How does unemployed offer more taxes? Hell, you could have wired these welshers $100K for the operation. But yu didn't, because you want other peoples moneys.... ?? What are you ranting about? What does unemployment have to do with a baby's welfare? Certainly, you're in no position to help, being close to being homeless? You didn't answer the question, how come you didn't help them with your money? I am sure you could contact the hospial and setup a fund with your money... You want me to send someone $100K??? Are you just pretending to be dumber than a stump? Because in the end this is about extorting others doing it right as you have no intention of paying for your mouth. Liberalism is fine as long as someone else is paying for it. Trouble is, you yourself are unwilling as nothing stops you from seeking out such situations and putting your own money on the line. Trouble is, you are a screwed up loser.. probably no money and just a hanger. So who is your meal ticket? Better treat them real good as they are what keeps you from the street. Here's your logic: Why should we go to school? School is about acquiring knowledge. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Corruption is a crime. Crime doesn't pay. Therefore, we shouldn't go to school. Yep, an how come you use a computer? Write your representative for more welfare? Mind you, your verse above has some merit, stupid people make good government sheep. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 30/03/2010 12:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "I am wrote in message ... In , says... On 30/03/2010 4:14 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, wrote: That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new level? Welfare checks *and* free health care? how about welfare for wall street? you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious your abso-****in-lutely clueless I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they want? because george bush and other rich, white frat boys, rigged the system so we have no choice. it's either bail out the rich or let the banking system go down in flames...like in 29. that's why the banks are fighting so hard against regulation. and why people like richard shelby, GOP of alabama...are carrying their water for them. protect the rich You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in office. Funny how the liars here and in the media forget that fact.. Like you? TARP wasn't "created" by Congress. It was passed by Congress. It was created by Treasury (i.e., Paulson) and was promoted to Congress as make-or-break funding to stabilize the economy, which, after some revisions did as advertised. You are arguing semantecs. If DEMOCRAT congress didn't approve the TARP it would have DIED. Fact is, democrats like large sums of unaccountable cash. Fact is, you're an idiot. You lied about TARP then claim pointing out that lie is semantics. (learn to spell) -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... hk wrote: On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here whining about health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result racked up a $25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off. I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his arrangement is with the hospital. That's his business and I am not interested in that specific discussion. However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as a person of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no insurance for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it. I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the criticism? Eisboch My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his irresponsibility, his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help that was offered to him in a time of need. I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the cost of health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In fact, I would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law last week goes. So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health care is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a deserving recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this regard. I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance" are two different things. Eisboch No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree necessary. That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new level? Welfare checks *and* free health care? Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose. That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8 months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14 kids and on *welfare*. Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class working families. I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working class neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your demise in whatever is your local newspaper. You are ambulatory, right? Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck. I suspect they would. They do at work!! Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand. At some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are getting ****ed at the tax rape going on. Since you're not sure, why not wander into a bar and start hurling your racial epithets. I'd be happy to contribute $100 toward your medical care. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "hk" wrote in message ... The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost. Good grief. I agree with you. Eisboch The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear? Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A cold and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for every little sniffle. Then there are those to do. So, basically, you're unable to understand the word prevention and can't comprehend doctors making decisions. So basically, you would expect us to pay for your breast augmentation because your doctor decided it would improve your self esteem and thought it was medically necessary. Are you confusing prevention with early intervention? It seems as if you are. I'm glad you confirmed that you don't understand simple English. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... snipped for brevity A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his enemies. A good man can have a wealth of enemies. It can be a requirement. You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that. You're just dumb and probably a stalker. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 30/03/2010 12:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 30/03/2010 12:08 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks who benefitted from the recent bubble So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility? Eisboch It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability to pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't answer. -- Nom=de=Plume I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms. Plume. Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those with the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that cannot when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical care. I repeat. Medical care. I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize free health care insurance via private or government insurance programs. Big difference between the two. Eisboch Eisboch, Used to be people were grateful for charity, today they think it is a right and will spit in your face with envy in their hearts when you help. Many are not deseriving of the charity. They want handouts not hand ups, unwilling to learn what it takes to be productive they just continue their loser ways. Oh be quiet. The adults are speaking. So who's bitch/slave are you? Or are you a welfare sucking mama? Your mom didn't do a very good job raising you did she. You should have your mouth washed out with soap. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 30/03/2010 12:35 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 29/03/2010 10:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 29/03/2010 12:28 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 28/03/2010 7:25 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600, wrote: So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it freeloading? notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing to blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'? Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading. Which this case highlights perfectly. Did you do further research? Bet not. Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and father as money there had different priorities. Further, they sought insurance AFTER they needed it. This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading. Playing the sympathy screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when they have a problem they subscribe. Just jacks the rates for the rest of us. how the hell does a newborn baby have a 'pre existing condition'? and what the hell relevance is this? the kid is DYING but to the right...let him DIE... Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up long before even getting knocked up. yep. kill the kid Nope. Should have saved the kid, jailed the parents in debtors court. Obviously the parents would not mortgage their home and persue it legally, they don't have a case. And they can't really persue this type of abuse. this is why we need socialized medicine In a weird sort of way, I agree. This was a tragic neglect of parents that should not be allowed to happen. But it happens all the time as they think they can cheat the system and get others to pay for it. Pretty obvious far too many parents have this problem with home economics. Time for these people to be forced to pay and do without so they pay for their needs, including heath care. Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they think they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. No... you hate them. You hate anyone who isn't like you. You could have offered to pay for it. How come you didn't? Or is socialism OK as long as other people pay for it? You're a moron. I offer to pay more taxes. That's how our system works. Even on this newsgroup, I offered to pay for John's utility bill. He wasn't willing to meet me even 1/4 of the way to getting it done. How does unemployed offer more taxes? Hell, you could have wired these welshers $100K for the operation. But yu didn't, because you want other peoples moneys.... ?? What are you ranting about? What does unemployment have to do with a baby's welfare? Certainly, you're in no position to help, being close to being homeless? You didn't answer the question, how come you didn't help them with your money? I am sure you could contact the hospial and setup a fund with your money... You want me to send someone $100K??? Are you just pretending to be dumber than a stump? Because in the end this is about extorting others doing it right as you have no intention of paying for your mouth. Liberalism is fine as long as someone else is paying for it. Trouble is, you yourself are unwilling as nothing stops you from seeking out such situations and putting your own money on the line. Trouble is, you are a screwed up loser.. probably no money and just a hanger. So who is your meal ticket? Better treat them real good as they are what keeps you from the street. Here's your logic: Why should we go to school? School is about acquiring knowledge. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Corruption is a crime. Crime doesn't pay. Therefore, we shouldn't go to school. Yep, an how come you use a computer? Write your representative for more welfare? Mind you, your verse above has some merit, stupid people make good government sheep. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. Mind you, you're an idiot. Oh wait, you have to have a mind to understand. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:05:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... hk wrote: On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here whining about health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result racked up a $25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off. I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his arrangement is with the hospital. That's his business and I am not interested in that specific discussion. However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as a person of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no insurance for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it. I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the criticism? Eisboch My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his irresponsibility, his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help that was offered to him in a time of need. I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the cost of health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In fact, I would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law last week goes. So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health care is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a deserving recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this regard. I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance" are two different things. Eisboch No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree necessary. That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new level? Welfare checks *and* free health care? Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose. That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8 months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14 kids and on *welfare*. Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class working families. I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working class neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your demise in whatever is your local newspaper. You are ambulatory, right? Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck. I suspect they would. They do at work!! Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand. At some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are getting ****ed at the tax rape going on. Freeloaders? Your head is so far up your ass, it's pathetic. When did the "working taxpayers" pull the chain on Bush? You live in some weird fantasy world where reality has no place. Go back to Canada. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:01:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "anon-e-moose" wrote in message .. . nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... snipped for brevity A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his enemies. A good man can have a wealth of enemies. It can be a requirement. You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that. You're just dumb and probably a stalker. He's got a supply of depends just in case he needs to go cross country in a hurry. While Jim is likely a stalker, he's clearly a buttsniffer. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:19:36 -0400, anon-e-moose
wrote: Jim wrote: anon-e-moose wrote: Peter (Yes, that one) wrote: In article , says... I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I am sure you can handle it. I've done well enough. There have been times though.... But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name? I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to post here regularly. And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for disrupting the harmony of rec.boats One word, friend. Joesparebedroom. Jim - So far spoof free. The libs know I'm not to be trifled with. Sorry, he's not smart enough to pull it off. Besides he couldn't get two layers into a thread without showing us every vulgar word in his vocabulary. You know, kind of like JPS. Confession is good for the soul, Tom. Nice try Jim, you ****ing cocksucker. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:58:33 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: d You are arguing semantecs. If DEMOCRAT congress didn't approve the TARP it would have DIED. Fact is, democrats like large sums of unaccountable cash. as opposed to the GOP that spent triilion in iraq how'd that work out? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com