Keenan Wellar

Message-ID: BDC6D50F.121E5%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@hotmai l.com

If it was about sex, it would be a problem.

Going to war and killing thousands of people...not an issue.

Since the President doesn't gather intelligence himself, one could very
legitimately state that the information was a mistake.

I doubt that such is the case when you have some intern blowing you in the Oval
Office.

I would point out that the Clinton Administration relieved and criminally
prosecuted Military Officers for the same behavior.

SYOTR
Larry C.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
Brian Nystrom
I agree that's troubling, but it would only get worse if the Democrats
controlled everything again. The only reason that government got smaller
under Clinton was that he wasn't able to get Hillay's outrageous health
care program through Congress. It was so outlandish that even the
Democrats wouldn't vote for it. After '94, the Republicans kept him in
check.

Even as the current Republican Congress blocked the current President
from just having his way regarding 9/11 Commission. I don't expect
there is any free sliding by to be had. Of course there will be a few
more R congressmen, and a few less D in the next congress, so yet to
be seen how that goes!

This is the rest of the story as PH says. The Ds can rant about
President Bush, but the real problem is they lost more ground in the
Senate and House. If they had made gains there, I suspect that we
would not be hearing so much about Bush. They have to digest this
double loss, and face the prospect of losing in the Supreme Court as
well. An unenviable position.

Indeed. But not just for the Democrat Party. That would give the Bush
administration full license to take the campaign of fear and hatred to new
levels and realize their dreams...like making being gay illegal...making
abortion the privelege of the rich...oh, what fun they could have!

Fortunately, they will go to far. Even people who have been sucked into a
perpetual vortex of fear - if pushed far enough - will eventually say "to
hell with it, I'm tired of being afraid" and that will be the end of it.
Looking at the Bush arrogance that started two seconds after yet another
thin victory, the Democrats should be able to run yet another dud next time
around and manage a win.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
Keenan Wellar

Message-ID: BDC6D50F.121E5%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@hotmai l.com

If it was about sex, it would be a problem.

Going to war and killing thousands of people...not an issue.

Since the President doesn't gather intelligence himself

That's for sure!

one could very
legitimately state that the information was a mistake.

It's easy to make such mistakes when the tail is wagging the dog.

I doubt that such is the case when you have some intern blowing you in the
Oval
Office.

Only in America would that be seen as a more serious offense than starting a
war on false pretenses.

Keenan Wellar"

Only in America would that be seen as a more serious offense than starting a
war on false pretenses.

You assume that because the intelligence didn't prove to be entirely correct
that it was a fabrication, but I've seen no evidence of that being true. I've
looked at the same intelligence, most of it is available at the UN or
www.globalintelligence.com, or even at the CIA website, and it all pointed to
the same conclusion, that Saddam was still pursueing programs to develop WMD.
The only difference in any of the was to the extent he was being successful and
how to deal with it.

Intelligence is often inaccurate. The bad guys are trying to keep you from
finding things out and often your source of information is indirect. Even
Humintel can get chancy, these sources often have scores to settle or their own
agenda.

The real offense Clinton committed was that the prejured himself when
questioned about the having oral sex. Even that really didn't go very far.

SYOTR
Larry C.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
Keenan Wellar"

Only in America would that be seen as a more serious offense than starting
a
war on false pretenses.

You assume that because the intelligence didn't prove to be entirely
correct
that it was a fabrication, but I've seen no evidence of that being true.
I've
looked at the same intelligence, most of it is available at the UN or
www.globalintelligence.com, or even at the CIA website, and it all pointed
to
the same conclusion, that Saddam was still pursueing programs to develop
WMD.
The only difference in any of the was to the extent he was being
successful and
how to deal with it.

Intelligence is often inaccurate. The bad guys are trying to keep you from
finding things out and often your source of information is indirect. Even
Humintel can get chancy, these sources often have scores to settle or
their own
agenda.

The real offense Clinton committed was that the prejured himself when
questioned about the having oral sex. Even that really didn't go very far.

SYOTR
Larry C.

Only in America could getting accurate confirmation of intelligence before
starting a war be of greater importance than telling the truth about who you
had oral sex with.

Tinkerntom wrote:

Hillary Care was a startup program that would have cost several
trillion by itself, with no guarantee that it would work, and a
history of big government boondoggles and porkbarrel politics
supporting programs that don't work. If I remember right, they
estimated 1.7 trillion, and politician estimates are always low when
they are the ones trying to sell the program! But what is another 500
billion +/-, we would have gotten, mediocre medical care, by doctors
who gave up really caring, after standing in long lines, waiting for
our slice of the American Pie.

So how is that different from our current health care system? The
current employer-based insurance-reimbursement system is a shambles.

A single-payer system could very well result in a lower percentage
of GDP being paid for health care. In 1990 the US spent more on
health care per capita than any other western nation, and by 1996
spent even more as a % of GDP.

Total 1990 Healthcare Expenditures

Nation Per Capita Percent
==========================================
United States $2,566 12.1 (1996=13.6%)
Canada 1,770 9.3
France 1,532 8.8
Sweden 1,451 8.6
Germany 1,486 8.1
Switzerland 1,633 7.7
Italy 1,236 7.7
Norway 1,184 7.4
Japan 1,171 6.5
United Kingdom 972 6.2

[ http://www.corporatism.netfirms.com/universal.htm ]

No Spam wrote:
Ok, now I'm curious. I've been reading here (RBP, not this thread - or maybe
it is this thread) for quite some time and the name is familiar - was he the
sponson guy?

Nope, he is a non-paddler land owner who got really angry when paddlers
used "his" part of a little stream in Colorado (Was it Boulder Creek?).
In one such event he described the paddlers calling him (and his
mother?) names.

At first he would lure (new to this forum) paddlers into "discussions"
with carefully worded messages, then he'd verbally kick the **** out of
them. Most of the regular visitors knew to ignore him. Lately, he got
into a sad shadow of his former eloquent self, becoming verbally abusive
and badly worded in his responses. I think he lost his riverside land
not so long ago when his mother died.

The spamson guy was just a completely different pest: he'd post the same
posts hundreds of times, hijacking every thread, attacking people
blindly and using disgusting arguments (the deaths of children on a
paddling trip and such) to try to force paddlers (including white water
paddlers!) and the Coast Guard to sell his floatation devices... Where
Scott used to be pretty bright, spamson guy Timmy was a clear case of
someone with at least one screw loose...

It was because of the latter that I put up the trolling page.

http://wilko.webzone.ru/troll.html

Wilko

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Dave Van wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...

Hi, my Dutch friend Wilko, and I mean that sincerely.

I took rivermans recommendation, and did some research on some of my
apparent antagonist, and found that you are a well document foreigner.


OMG

ROFLMAO!!!

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Wilko" wrote in message
...
Dave Van wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...

Hi, my Dutch friend Wilko, and I mean that sincerely.

I took rivermans recommendation, and did some research on some of my
apparent antagonist, and found that you are a well document foreigner.


OMG

ROFLMAO!!!

Is there such a thing as a 'foreigner' on the internet?

If there were an occassional 'yeah, baby' thrown into this guys writing I'd
swear it was Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery.

Life. Live it, Baby... Yeah!

I'm certainly no expert in healthcare but I think the billing process takes
a very large chunk of the dollar paid. I used to go to an old dentist that
had no staff and took only cash. If credit was needed it was from him. He
wrote it in his notebook and you paid when you came back. I assume he sent
you packing if the bill got too large and he felt you could pay. I do know
that he wrote it off, if he knew you couldn't pay. His prices were about 50%
of what other dentists charged and my father skipped the dental insurance
offered by his work because there was no need. My current dentist has a full
time staff of at least 4 that deal with billing because the insurance
companies are such a pain to deal with (busy father-son office). So for 2
dentists and 4 hygienists he needs 4 people to do billing. That has to add
up to a good percentage of the incoming cash to be eaten up in overhead
related directly to the problems with collection. I don't know what the big
picture solution may be but I was reading an article about a few doctors
offices that have gone to a cash only system and dropped their prices
accordingly. The article stated that a large number of their patients were
self employed people that were more than happy to switch their coverage to
catastrophic and pay cash for normal office visits and tests. The upside was
the doctors actually pocketed more per patient and were able to cut their
patient load to a reasonable level which provided a better level of service
for their patients.

..
"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ...
Tinkerntom wrote:

Hillary Care was a startup program that would have cost several
trillion by itself, with no guarantee that it would work, and a
history of big government boondoggles and porkbarrel politics
supporting programs that don't work. If I remember right, they
estimated 1.7 trillion, and politician estimates are always low when
they are the ones trying to sell the program! But what is another 500
billion +/-, we would have gotten, mediocre medical care, by doctors
who gave up really caring, after standing in long lines, waiting for
our slice of the American Pie.

So how is that different from our current health care system? The
current employer-based insurance-reimbursement system is a shambles.

A single-payer system could very well result in a lower percentage
of GDP being paid for health care. In 1990 the US spent more on
health care per capita than any other western nation, and by 1996
spent even more as a % of GDP.

Total 1990 Healthcare Expenditures

Nation Per Capita Percent
==========================================
United States $2,566 12.1 (1996=13.6%)
Canada 1,770 9.3
France 1,532 8.8
Sweden 1,451 8.6
Germany 1,486 8.1
Switzerland 1,633 7.7
Italy 1,236 7.7
Norway 1,184 7.4
Japan 1,171 6.5
United Kingdom 972 6.2

[ http://www.corporatism.netfirms.com/universal.htm ]