| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. A day at the airport.
This is due to years of democrats undermining the military. We are losing
lives because of the liberals giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Terrorist listen to the democrats here and figure if they can just hold out a little longer, they will win. If the dems would put as much effort into helping this country as they do bad mouthing it, the terrorist problem would have been handled years ago. Bob "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: Some of these same evil corporations are donating millions of sky miles to the most needy soldiers. Are you donating yours? To donate your Delta SkyMiles, send the following information: 1.. Your SkyMiles account number 2.. Your name, address and phone number 3.. The amount of miles to be donated, and 4.. A request to have your miles donated to "SkyMiles for Heroes" You may send your donation request via: a.. Fax to 404-773-1945 b.. Mail to: Delta Air Lines Inc., SkyMiles Service Center, Dept. 654, P.O. Box 20532, Atlanta, Ga. 30320-2532. c.. Email to Sorry, but it is my position that the U.S. taxpayers ought to pick up the tab for back-home leave for soldiers risking their lives in a war zone. Or perhaps Corporate America should pick up the tab directly. After all, it is the corporations that will make out like bandits from Bush's war. The vets will return home injured or ill, and be subject to third-class treatment from the military and the VA. Soldiers serving in a war zone always get a raw deal, while corporations make huge profits from the aftermath of war. -- Email sent to is never read. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. A day at the airport.
Robert White wrote:
This is due to years of democrats undermining the military. We are losing lives because of the liberals giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Terrorist listen to the democrats here and figure if they can just hold out a little longer, they will win. If the dems would put as much effort into helping this country as they do bad mouthing it, the terrorist problem would have been handled years ago. Hehehe. You righties are a panic. Simple thoughts in your simple minds. -- Email sent to is never read. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. A day at the airport.
This is due to years of democrats undermining the military. We are losing
lives because of the liberals giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Terrorist listen to the democrats here and figure if they can just hold out a little longer, they will win. If the dems would put as much effort into helping this country as they do bad mouthing it, the terrorist problem would have been handled years ago. Ever consider moving to a police state? In such a system, *nobody* is allowed to express any dissent when the government launches a war or question the motives/wisdom of participating in same. It makes a very efficient system. The government simply declares how it is proper to think about this subject or that, and those who disagree better darn well keep mouth shut- or they'll be a burning corpse by morning. Anybody in Iraq who might wonder what the official will of the American people might be, has only to look out the window and see the occupation troops on the street. Only to huddle in the cellar and pray to Allah as the bombs and artillery rounds fall on structures that may be very nearby. (As was the case 2-3 nights ago) When the country is wrong, should we avoid speaking out simply because the people "in charge" are making the mistake? Under a police state, the republicans will have to keep silent wehn the democrats are in charge or be suspected of treason. Same when the reverse is true. Would you like such a system? It seems to be what you're advocating in your post. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. A day at the airport.
Gould 0738 wrote:
This is due to years of democrats undermining the military. We are losing lives because of the liberals giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Terrorist listen to the democrats here and figure if they can just hold out a little longer, they will win. If the dems would put as much effort into helping this country as they do bad mouthing it, the terrorist problem would have been handled years ago. Ever consider moving to a police state? In such a system, *nobody* is allowed to express any dissent when the government launches a war or question the motives/wisdom of participating in same. It makes a very efficient system. The government simply declares how it is proper to think about this subject or that, and those who disagree better darn well keep mouth shut- or they'll be a burning corpse by morning. Anybody in Iraq who might wonder what the official will of the American people might be, has only to look out the window and see the occupation troops on the street. Only to huddle in the cellar and pray to Allah as the bombs and artillery rounds fall on structures that may be very nearby. (As was the case 2-3 nights ago) When the country is wrong, should we avoid speaking out simply because the people "in charge" are making the mistake? Under a police state, the republicans will have to keep silent wehn the democrats are in charge or be suspected of treason. Same when the reverse is true. Would you like such a system? It seems to be what you're advocating in your post. The saddest part is the bit about giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. What enemy? The people in Iraq resisting the forces of the United States? Those people weren't "resisting" us until we invaded their country. Those are the people we are "fighting" in Iraq. We're certainly not fighting the terrorists responsible for planning or carrying out 9-11. We don't have much like finding those folks. But the Iraqi people? Well, they're available, and some of them fight back. -- Email sent to is never read. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. A day at the airport.
Geez Chuck,
Did this thread ever devolve into a cockfight? I thought it was an OT about decency in America. Right Wingers, Left Wingers, what are they doing? Talking about chickens, politics, or just winging it? I duuno. What do you think? I suppose most of these folks here don't know this. During W.W.II laws were enacted giving military personnel priority travel over civilian travelers. These laws are still in force. The air lines really have no choice but to make the best of the situation. Its not like they have extra jets in some secret hanger. I suppose MAC could lend a hand, but they are a little busy themselves. 1st Mate tells me its time for the sack. C-ya regards, Capt. Frank Gould 0738 wrote: This is due to years of democrats undermining the military. We are losing lives because of the liberals giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Terrorist listen to the democrats here and figure if they can just hold out a little longer, they will win. If the dems would put as much effort into helping this country as they do bad mouthing it, the terrorist problem would have been handled years ago. Ever consider moving to a police state? In such a system, *nobody* is allowed to express any dissent when the government launches a war or question the motives/wisdom of participating in same. It makes a very efficient system. The government simply declares how it is proper to think about this subject or that, and those who disagree better darn well keep mouth shut- or they'll be a burning corpse by morning. Anybody in Iraq who might wonder what the official will of the American people might be, has only to look out the window and see the occupation troops on the street. Only to huddle in the cellar and pray to Allah as the bombs and artillery rounds fall on structures that may be very nearby. (As was the case 2-3 nights ago) When the country is wrong, should we avoid speaking out simply because the people "in charge" are making the mistake? Under a police state, the republicans will have to keep silent wehn the democrats are in charge or be suspected of treason. Same when the reverse is true. Would you like such a system? It seems to be what you're advocating in your post. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. A day at the airport.
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. A day at the airport.
JohnH wrote:
jps, pay attention: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 What's your point here, John? Such letters are written and signed every single day by every member of Congree for every possible reason. Besides, Bush invaded Iraq for reasons connected to 9-11, or so he claimed at the time, plus a handful of other reasons that proved equally fallacious. Now, I see, Bush is bowing to reality and is planning to skip out of "running" Iraq just before the fall elections. So. we'll have *ANOTHER* Bush president who failed to resolve the serious issues of Iraq. About that time, Americans are going to be asked whether they are better off than they were four years ago. For most, the answer will be a resounding no. C.f. this piece which ran in the NY Times yesterday and was syndicated today to hundreds of hometown newspapers: For Middle Class, Health Insurance Becomes a Luxury DALLAS The last time Kevin Thornton had health insurance was three years ago, which was not much of a problem until he began having trouble swallowing. "I broke down earlier this year and went in and talked to a doctor about it," said Mr. Thornton, who lives in Sherman, about 60 miles north of Dallas. A barium X-ray cost him $130, and the radiologist another $70, expenses he charged to his credit cards. The doctor ordered other tests that Mr. Thornton simply could not afford. "I was supposed to go back after the X-ray results came, but I decided just to live with it for a while," he said. "I may just be a walking time bomb." Mr. Thornton, 41, left a stable job with good health coverage in 1998 for a higher salary at a dot-com company that went bust a few months later. Since then, he has worked on contract for various companies, including one that provided insurance until the project ended in 2000. "I failed to keep up the payments that would have been required to maintain my coverage," he said. "It was just too much money." Mr. Thornton is one of more than 43 million people in the United States who lack health insurance, and their numbers are rapidly increasing because of ever soaring cost and job losses. Many states, including Texas, are also cutting back on subsidies for health care, further increasing the number of people with no coverage. The majority of the uninsured are neither poor by official standards nor unemployed. They are accountants like Mr. Thornton, employees of small businesses, civil servants, single working mothers and those working part time or on contract. "Now it's hitting people who look like you and me, dress like you and me, drive nice cars and live in nice houses but can't afford $1,000 a month for health insurance for their families," said R. King Hillier, director of legislative relations for Harris County, which includes Houston. *Paying for health insurance is becoming a middle-class problem, and not just here. "After paying for health insurance, you take home less than minimum wage," says a poster in New York City subways sponsored by Working Today, a nonprofit agency that offers health insurance to independent contractors in New York. "Welcome to middle-class poverty." *In Southern California, 70,000 supermarket workers have been on strike for five weeks over plans to cut their health benefits.* The insurance crisis is especially visible in Texas, which has the highest proportion of uninsured in the country almost one in every four residents. The state has a large population of immigrants; its labor market is dominated by low-wage service sector jobs, and it has a higher than average number of small businesses, which are less likely to provide health benefits because they pay higher insurance costs than large companies. State cuts to subsidies for health insurance to help close a $10 billion budget gap will cost the state $500 million in federal matching money and are expected to further spur the rise in uninsured. In September, for example, more than half a million children enrolled in a state- and federal-subsidized insurance program lost dental, vision and most mental care coverage, and some 169,000 children will lose all insurance by 2005. "These were tough economic times that the legislature was dealing with, and the governor believed in setting the tone for the legislative session that the government must operate the way Texas families do and Texas businesses do and live within its means," said Kathy Walt, spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry. She noted that the legislature raised spending on health and human services by $1 billion this year, and that lawmakers passed two bills intended to make it easier for small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. Those measures, however, will not help Theresa Pardo or other Texas residents like her who have to make tough choices about medical care they need but cannot afford. Ms. Pardo, a 29-year-old from Houston, said that having no insurance meant choosing between buying an inhaler for her 9-year-old asthmatic daughter or buying her a birthday present. The girl, Morgan, lost her state-subsidized insurance last month, and now her mother must pay $80 instead of $5 for the inhaler. Rent, car payments and insurance, day care and utilities cost Ms. Pardo more than $1,200 a month, leaving less than $200 for food, gas and other expenses. So even though her employer, the Harris County government, provides her with low-cost insurance, she cannot afford the $275 a month she would have to pay to add her daughter to her plan. When Morgan's dentist recently wanted to pull a tooth, Ms. Pardo hesitated. The tooth extraction proceeded, but: "I had to ask him, if you pull this tooth, will it cause other problems? Because if it does, I can't afford to deal with them." Lorenda Stevenson said her choice was between buying medicine to treat patches of peeling, flaking skin on her hands, arms and face and making sure her son could continue his after-school tennis program. "There's no way I will cut that out unless we don't have money for food," she said. Mrs. Stevenson's husband, Bill, lost his management job at WorldCom two years ago, when an accounting scandal forced the company into bankruptcy. They managed to pay $900 a month for Cobra, the government policy that allows workers to continue their coverage after they lose their jobs, but when the cost rose to $1,200, they could no longer afford it. When their son, a ninth grader, needed a physical and shot to take tennis, Mrs. Stevenson turned to the Rockwall Area Health Clinic, a nonprofit clinic in Rockwall, a city of 13,000 northeast of Dallas. The clinic charged her $20 instead of the $400 she estimated she would have paid at the doctor's office. "I sat filling out the paperwork and crying," she said, tears streaming down her face. "I was so embarrassed to bring him here." A salve to treat her skin condition costs $27, and she pays roughly $50 a month for medications for high blood pressure and hormones. She does without medication she needs for acid reflux, treating the conditions sporadically with samples from the clinic. Carol Johnston cannot afford even doctor visits. A single mother in Houston, she lost her job in health care administration in May and said she was still unemployed despite filling out 500 to 600 applications and attending countless job fairs. Cobra would have cost $214 a month, or more than one-fifth of the $1,028 in unemployment she gets a month. As it is, her monthly bills for rent, car, utilities and phone exceed her income. She got a 12-month deferral on her student loans, and Ford pushed her car payments back by two months. The Johnstons rely on television for entertainment and almost never use air-conditioning, despite Houston's muggy, hot climate. Now Ms. Johnston's 16-year-old son is losing the portion of his insurance that covered treatment for his learning and emotional disabilities because of state cutbacks. Ms. Johnston herself does not qualify for Medicaid, the government insurance program for the indigent, because her income is too high, the same reason she qualifies for only $10 a month in food stamps. "I worry, I worry so much about making sure my son is safe," she said. As for her own health, Ms. Johnston has two cysts in one breast and three in another but has had only one aspirated because she cannot afford to check on the others. "Do I have to move to Iraq to get help?" she asked. "They have $87 billion for folks over there," she said, referring to money Congress allocated for military operations and rebuilding. Experts warn that allowing health problems to fester is only going to increase the costs of health care for the uninsured. "As Americans, when are we going to realize it's cheaper to save them on the front end than when they get cancer and show up in the emergency room?" said Sandra B. Thurman, executive director of PediPlace, a nonprofit health clinic in Lewisville, Tex. Many hospitals and neighborhood clinics here say that the well-heeled are now joining the poor in seeking their care. Emergency rooms are particularly hard hit, since federal law requires them to treat anyone who walks through their doors for emergency treatment, regardless of whether they can pay. Public hospital emergency rooms are even harder hit, since private hospitals will move quickly to shift uninsured patients to them. And clinics for the poor are also seeing an increase in demand. A clinic run by Central Dallas Ministries charges patients $5 for a doctor visit, $10 for medication and $15 if laboratory work is needed, but often settles for no payment from many of the 3,500 patients it treats each year. "I'm not real optimistic it will get a lot better," said Larry Morris James, executive director of Central Dallas Ministries. "Demographic and economic trends tell you that it's probably going to get worse." For Irma Arellano, the problem has already hit home. Mrs. Arellano is a secretary in the Royse school district northeast of Dallas, which provides her health insurance for $35 a month but offers no discounts for her three children or husband. Two years ago, the Arellanos paid $269 a month to insure the family. The price jumped last year to $339 and this year to $780, more than their monthly mortgage payment. Her husband works for a small landscaping company that does not offer insurance. So Mrs. Arellano is insured, but her husband, Jose, and their three children Jackie, 16; Joe, 15; and Anthony, 13 are going without insurance. The Arellanos' income, which ranges from $2,800 to $3,200 a month, makes them ineligible for state-subsidized insurance. Their basic expenses run $2,000 a month or more. "I'm one of those people in the middle," Mrs. Arellano said. "We don't make enough to pay for insurance ourselves, but we make too much to qualify for CHIP," the government-subsidized program for children. So her children were recently at the Rockwall clinic for the physicals they need to participate in after-school sports, paying $25 instead of the $100 or more Mrs. Arellano would have paid at the doctor's office. The family has catastrophic insurance, but Mrs. Arellano is uncertain how much longer she can afford it. Mr. Arellano's income typically drops in the winter, and his wife is hoping the children will then qualify for the state insurance program. Even so, newly initiated regulations require families to reapply for the insurance every six months, rather than once a year, so they are not likely to qualify for long. "I'll take what I can get," Mrs. Arellano said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Under Bush, the middle class is becoming the impoverished class. Are we better off than we were four years ago? No. -- Email sent to is never read. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
O.T. A day at the airport.
In article ,
88 says... On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:25:12 -0800, jps wrote: In article , says... This is due to years of democrats undermining the military. We are losing lives because of the liberals giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Terrorist listen to the democrats here and figure if they can just hold out a little longer, they will win. If the dems would put as much effort into helping this country as they do bad mouthing it, the terrorist problem would have been handled years ago. Bob We don't bad mouth our country, we bad mouth the people running it. That is called dissent and since you cannot tell the difference between that and "aid and comfort to the ememy," your opinion is worth nothing. Secondly, do you not think the Iraqis value their country as much as the US does? If someone invaded and occupied our country because they disagreed with our leadership, would we sing and dance in the streets and worship the occupiers? Hell no, "people" like you would be trying to pick off every enemy soldier you could from the "media room of your split level." You'd consider anyone who hailed the conquering troops as heros traitors. If the invaders own people were partially against the actions of their country would it serve as a catalyst in your resolve to fight? **** no. You'd fight because you don't want to be occupied by a foreign power, without regard to what anyone thinks. May you be personally subject to a full body search by John Ashcroft for dubious reasons having nothing to do with terrorism but based on the Patriot Act. Then maybe you'll realize what's worth a fight. jps, pay attention: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 Does your heart good, doesn't it? Now, have you been fishing or boating at all this year? Do you own a boat? Do you think you are engaging in intelligent conversation? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Your quote has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do you understand the meaning of the word context? To engage in "intelligent conversation" there's got to be intelligence coming from the both participants and they have to relate somehow. I'm doing my part, why don't you see if you can muster something from your side. jps |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
