|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 2/21/05 10:58 PM: KMAN, I suggested to rick that we take this debate to another level as he alluded to being interested in discussions beyond Canada versus USA comparisons. However, when I asked him for examples of what he deemed to be better systems, he reverted to an adversarial stance. I have to conclude that he actually knows nothing at all about healthcare. What was your first clue? His quick descent into name-calling, or inability to provide sources to back any of his ridiculous claims? ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! I have provided proof. You, on the other hand, rely on chest-thumping, 'mines better than yours' mentality even when i never claimed a system better. that you refuse to see the flaws pointed out by your own sources proves your ideology has far more control than your brain. I would welcome a healthcare discussion. For example, I'd really welcome input from anyone who knows something about Finland. Over the last 4-5 years I've marvelled as Finland scores high on a variety of international comparisons -- health, education, quality of life, economy. I'd love to know how they're doing it. I doubt, however, that rick can be of much help in that regard. =========================== I know that you we not be of any help, since you have decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is fine. frtzw906 I'd love to hear from someone who lives or has lived there! |
|
Sorry, rick, my news client seems to be cutting stuff off: what did you
say about systems other than Canada or the USA? Try again, and I'll see if I can fix the software problem at my end. I look forward to your input. Cheers, frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/21/05 11:37 PM: snip... been alleged. =-=============== Which you have failed to refute the Canadian sites that say otherwise. What "Canadian sites that say otherwise" you haven't provided any. ================ Yes, I have. And i've told you where to look. That you are either too stupid to know how, or too afraid to isn't my problem. It's your head stuck firmly in the sand. However, you can get excellent care most everywhere and in the event of living in a geographically isolated area or some other area where there is less equipment and doctors than the norm, tests for non-emergencies might result in a long wait. ======================= That's part of the point, idiot. How do you know if it's an emergency without the test? You really are that stupid, aren't you? Don't be silly. We aren't talking about someone coming to the hospital and not getting any tests done. The type of tests where someone is waiting is where the medical issue is known and the situation is known to be non life-threatening. ===================== Your ideology is really entrenced, isn't it? There are 'life threatening' causes that can't be known without some tests. So, as long as you're walking and talking, you get to wait until it is life threatening, eh? Unless you are suggesting that every single human being should be receiving every single medical test possible every single minute of the day, your line of argument here is goofy at best. ======================== No, that's a nice little strawman there. I suggest that getting the tests that your dictor wants shouldn't take weeks, months or years. Why would you support such treatment? As far as making ignorant claims, there are more than a few that you have never backed up. This is a weasely way of admitting that you can't back up your claim. ==================== Nopde. Try again fool. I've even given you the hints... No hinting necessary weasel. ================= Of couirse not. You knew you were spouting idiocy when you started. You just weren't expecting to be called on your stupidity. You haven't called me on anything. ================== Yes, your ignorant jingoistic chest-thumping, fool. More of your brilliance on display. ===================== No, more of the truth about your constant denial. Denial of what? Show me some facts that I have denied. Please quote. ===================== That wait lists are systematic acroos Canada. Why are you afraid to look up the data for yourself? Afraid that your jingoism would take a hit? How many? What are they coming for? Why? ======================= Why do all yours allegedly prefer the canadian system? I've answered one reason right off the bat. No waits. In a couple of cases the treatments needed weren't life threatening, but very painful joint problems. They decided that their wait time, and being dosed with painkillers instead of treatment was medically unsound. They prefer the Canadian system because the standard of care is not dependent upon your income and you don't have to mortgage your house to get the treatment that you need. ==================== More strawmen, marching to the tune of your ideology, eh? No, that's one of the things that gets mentioned most often. You asked what they say, and I told you. Maybe at least as often they mention how in Canada the doctor and institution are there to focus on your care, and in the US it feels like you are just a commodity being used to generate as much cash as possible. ===================== LOL Such altruistic doctors you have there. What a hoot! The Canadian medical system enables doctors to care more about healing than earning than you would find in a profit-driven system. Not to say that doctors here are hurting for cash. ======================= LOL What a hoot! Doctors don't determine the level of your care in Canada. that's the point, idiot. Yes, you might indeed have to wait longer than you would like to treat something that is painful but not life-threatening. ===================== Again, that's the point idiot. You don't know what is and is not life-threatening without some of these teats. And, what isn't life-threatening at that very moment may be if you have to wait 2 years for the dianostic tests. It's too bad you are so busy engaging in name-calling and propping up your ego that you aren't willing to learn something. ===================== I have. I've learned that you are too jingoistic to step back and take a real look at your system. You're too engaged in making comparisions to others. I have direct experience with both systems. I prefer the Canadian system for practical as well as ethical reasons. ================== And, as I've stated, I know others that prefer to come to the states. Why are you afraid of adressing the real issues? You obviously know nothing about this, and you are making a joke of yourself. =============== tell that to the CBC, unions and Universities in Canada. they ahve the information, if you weren't too afraid to find out the truth. Show us the truth. We are waiting! ======================== I have. And I've told you where to look for more info. That you are afraid to look, or are too stupid to know how means that you are not really interested in a real discussion of the issue. You'ere decided that your jingoistic chest thumping is more important. People wait, and people die, but by-golly you feel good, eh? There is no one waiting to have their health problems diagnosed. ===================== BS Show us the truth! We are waiting. ===================== I have, fool. You keep ignoring the truth. You don't like the truth, it scares you. People who are waiting (I don't know anyone myself who is waiting for any type of care, elective or otherwise) ================== And you're personally intamate with the health needs of ever Canadian, eh? My, maybe you should run for god. I've got a pretty good sampling of contacts at my disposal. I also used to manage a national network of educators and health care was a common topic. ======================= Wowey zowey batman, then your ignorance is willful. That's even scarier. have known medical issues that are continually monitored. Just because someone has to wait for a certain type of scan doesn't mean they aren't still receiving medical care. ====================== care that might not be the best they could get, of passibly life threatening. The best you could get would be constant testing and monitoring every minute of the day. This is definitely not happening, here or anywhere else. But getting back to what actually brought me into this discussion, Canadians are not dying in line waiting for medical care. And you can't present any evidence that they are, because it doesn't exist. ================= I've told you where to look. That you are willfully ignorant, and wish to remain so doesn't make the info go away. Hidinh your head in the sand just proves how determeined you are to remain stupid. snip A fool makes an accusation without evidence to support it. If you are alleging that Canadians are dying waiting to receive health care, prove it. Otherwise, you know exactly what you are. ==================== LOL Where's you proof fool? refute waht your own media, unions and Universties say. There's nothing to refute. They don't say as you allege. You haven't even tried. All you've done is thump your chest about how great your system is. We're # 30, we're #30!! Wow, what an acheivement! There's nothing to refute. You haven't presented any evidence to substantiate your position, because there isn't any. ====================== Yes, I have. And have provided you with info on where else to look. get at it fool, if your really wish to engage in more than jingoistic chest-thumping. And there hasn't been one piece of evidence to support the allegation, nothing but a story about Newfoundland, and nothing having to do with people dying while waiting. ==================== LOL Because YOU are afraid to research the data. Your idiocy would be exposed to yourself that way.. Yawn. More weasel words. Let's face facts, if you could possible post information to make you look a bit less stupid, you would do so. You can't because it doesn't exist. ============================= LOL Then you should post it fool. Come on. make me look like the idiot You've managed that all on your own. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. I am realizing that your rude and aggressive behaviour is all just part of your weakness. ======================== Nope, not at all. What i have managed to do is make you look like the provincial, chest-thumping, I'm better than anyone idiot that refuses to engage in real discussions. You're afraid to look at any data that refutes your willful ignorance. you have already shown yourself to be. Again, try your own media, unions, and universities. But we already know you are afraid to bring facts into your argument, eh? I didn't make the allegation that Canadians are dying in line waiting for medical care. It's obviously up to the person making the allegation to present evidence. I'd be happy to refute any such evidence, but none has been provided. That is because none exists. ======================== And it has been presented. Your saying nah nah nah, it isn't true doesn't make if false. Refute you own media, unions, universities and government fool. Come on, tell them they are wrong and prove it. snip Nobody in Canada is dying while waiting, as was alleged. ================== Not according to sources in your own country. You haven't shown us any. ===================== LOL I've already told you a number of times, try your own media, unions and universities. I have. No such evidence exists. ====================== No, you haven't looked, because I see the data when I look, and it claims they are. That you are too afraid to look, or too stupid to know how doesn't make the information any less available. It does not exist. ================== Tell that to your own people then fool. You seem to be making it up as you go. Come on, provide more than just your say-so that there are no waiting lines for Canadian health-care. If you mean that somewhere in a doctor's office or emergency room someone is waiting, I have to agree. But no one is dying in a waiting line. ====================== An assertion that is not backed up by canadian sources. And for many, the decision is not to wait until then, but to go elsewhere for treatment. No one is dying in a waiting line as alleged. ================== Not according to sources in your own country. You haven't shown us any. ======================= Yes, I have. You choose not to accept it because iof your jingoistic chest thumping. You have not shown any evidence that anyone in Canada has died waiting in line for care. ===================== I have provided you with the information on where to look. YOU do not accept what I post, even when it is the truth, so I'm leaving it to you to find it yourself. I have told you where and how to begin. YOU are too afradi to try. No surprise there, but you are being shown for the disengenuous fool that you are. snip It was "pertenent" in that it shows that in a geographically isolated area of Canada with a small population the standard of care is a behind what is available elsewhere. ========================== LOL But somehow your own 'one' example proves that the rest of the country is fine. You really are stupid enough to believe that, aren't you? The allegation is that people in Canada are dying in waiting lines. You've provided no evidence whatsoever to that effect. ===================== Because if I present it fool, you'll claim it's not true. I showing how desperate you are by having told you how to look, but but proving that you are too afraid to. Thanks for showing the world your idiocy. That's unfortunate, and it is something all Canadians want improved. But your example does nothing to demonstrate that people in Canada are dying waiting for treatment as has been alleged. ===================== Then it should be easy to disprove those claims by your own media, unions and universities, shouldn't it? Unfortunately I can't find any university, union, or media source that says "Rick Etter's ridiculous allegations are false." I also haven't found any evidence from those sources that proves George W Bush is not in fact a cockroach. ========================== LOL Nice stawman, fool. Thanks for the proof again of your idiocy. Seems you have a bizarre notion of 'real life' examples. I gave you other real life examples as well. I fully acknowledged your example. ============== That was plural fool. I've acknowledged all of the information you provided, none of which does anything to prove the allegation that people are dying in wait lines. ====================== You're afraid to look. Besides, that response was to another of your ignorant claims that canadaians all prefer to be treated in canada and they all have wonderful experiences. that was the implication of your 'one' example of fine medical access. I replied with others that proved you wrong there too. Your lies are adding up. The fact that there is no evidence to sustantiate the allegation of people dying in waiting lines should of course been enough for you. ================== Not according to sources in your own country. You haven't provided any. Thus far they are only in your mind. ================ Again, yes I have. Please quote from one of your sources that says people are dying in wait lines and I will be happy to apologize. ============================== Try for your self. We know that you are afraid to, and I like how you're squiming like a worm on a hook. snip ========================== ROTFLMAO And you as independent as the driven snow. Stop, you're killing me!! Oh well, at least i can get tested right away, eh? I think some testing is definitely in order, and I think you are right on this one...pay whatever you need to pay to move to the front of the line. Your need for help is urgent. ================== Thanks for yet again making light of the plight of many many canadians fool. Your continued jingoism noted. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:09 AM: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, so really have nothing to offer. ===============\ LOL Unlike you and kman I have provided information. You have not. Guess we know now who is tap dancing around, eh? You've provided a very limited amount of information, none of which has anything do with substantiating the allegation at hand. ======================== I have provided enough to show that people are on wait lists that need treatment. That you are afraid of that data, and have to shoot the messenger of that data say more about your ideology than antything else you say. I allege that you are in fact a turd, Rick Etter. Please provide proof from one of your unions, universities, or media sources that shows I am wrong. ======================== Try reading them for yourself. Again, I'm letting you pick he sources, since if I provide tham they are right-wing, America loving loonies, eh fool? Thanks for yet again proving you lack of real interest in the discussion. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Sorry, rick, my news client seems to be cutting stuff off: what did you say about systems other than Canada or the USA? Try again, and I'll see if I can fix the software problem at my end. I look forward to your input. ==================== Nice strwaman. Where was I discussing other systems? The only passing reference I made was that beating your chest about being #30 wasn't really any acheivment. And, I wasn't discussing the US system. That was YOUR input trying to imply that I must support it as the best in the world just because i question the effeciency of the Canadian system. Too bad for you that that wasn't what I was replying to, isn't it? Now, if you wish to discuss wait times in Canada, that's where we are. Are you with kman on this, claiming that it doesn't happen, and that no-one is denied proper, timely treatment in Canada? If so, i've got a nice bridge to sell you.... or maybe some nice swampland... Cheers, frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 2/21/05 10:58 PM: KMAN, I suggested to rick that we take this debate to another level as he alluded to being interested in discussions beyond Canada versus USA comparisons. However, when I asked him for examples of what he deemed to be better systems, he reverted to an adversarial stance. I have to conclude that he actually knows nothing at all about healthcare. What was your first clue? His quick descent into name-calling, or inability to provide sources to back any of his ridiculous claims? ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! I have provided proof. Please point me to the post in which you provided proof that Canadians are dying while in wait lines for care. If you can do so, I will gladly apologize. ===================== Pucker up, fool... You, on the other hand, rely on chest-thumping, 'mines better than yours' mentality even when i never claimed a system better. that you refuse to see the flaws pointed out by your own sources proves your ideology has far more control than your brain. Could be, but that does nothing to change the fact that an allegation was made and it cannot be substantiated. ================= Yet there are, by many Canadian sources. You are afraid to look into them... Since you asked, there are obviously pros and cons to each system, many of which I have readily acknowledged you've chosen not to pay attention, perhaps because you have managed to humiliate yourself so thoroughly. ==================== LOL What a hoot! You're the one running as fast as you can from any data. You really are this stupid, aren't you? I would welcome a healthcare discussion. For example, I'd really welcome input from anyone who knows something about Finland. Over the last 4-5 years I've marvelled as Finland scores high on a variety of international comparisons -- health, education, quality of life, economy. I'd love to know how they're doing it. I doubt, however, that rick can be of much help in that regard. =========================== I know that you we not be of any help, since you have decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is fine. Have you ever asked me what problems there are with Canadian health care? I've actually mentioned some, but you haven't been paying attention. ==================== No, you're too busy chest-thumping... I got invovled in this thread because there was a ridiculous and utterly false allegation made that Canadians were dying in wait lines for health care. It isn't true. If you'd care to simply acknoweldge that there is no evidence to support that allegation, perhaps we can move on and actually talk about the merits and problems of different health care systems. =========================== Then prove that the canadians sites data I've seen is false. But then, you'd have to actually look into the data first, and we know you are afraid to do that, aren't you? frtzw906 I'd love to hear from someone who lives or has lived there! |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:09 AM: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, so really have nothing to offer. ===============\ LOL Unlike you and kman I have provided information. You have not. Guess we know now who is tap dancing around, eh? You've provided a very limited amount of information, none of which has anything do with substantiating the allegation at hand. ======================== I have provided enough to show that people are on wait lists that need treatment. That you are afraid of that data, and have to shoot the messenger of that data say more about your ideology than antything else you say. Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. I allege that you are in fact a turd, Rick Etter. Please provide proof from one of your unions, universities, or media sources that shows I am wrong. ======================== Try reading them for yourself. Amazingly enough, not one of them actually documents your status as a turd. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 2/21/05 10:58 PM: KMAN, I suggested to rick that we take this debate to another level as he alluded to being interested in discussions beyond Canada versus USA comparisons. However, when I asked him for examples of what he deemed to be better systems, he reverted to an adversarial stance. I have to conclude that he actually knows nothing at all about healthcare. What was your first clue? His quick descent into name-calling, or inability to provide sources to back any of his ridiculous claims? ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! I have provided proof. Please point me to the post in which you provided proof that Canadians are dying while in wait lines for care. If you can do so, I will gladly apologize. ===================== Pucker up, fool... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. You, on the other hand, rely on chest-thumping, 'mines better than yours' mentality even when i never claimed a system better. that you refuse to see the flaws pointed out by your own sources proves your ideology has far more control than your brain. Could be, but that does nothing to change the fact that an allegation was made and it cannot be substantiated. ================= Yet there are, by many Canadian sources. You are afraid to look into them... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. Since you asked, there are obviously pros and cons to each system, many of which I have readily acknowledged you've chosen not to pay attention, perhaps because you have managed to humiliate yourself so thoroughly. ==================== LOL What a hoot! You're the one running as fast as you can from any data. You really are this stupid, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. I would welcome a healthcare discussion. For example, I'd really welcome input from anyone who knows something about Finland. Over the last 4-5 years I've marvelled as Finland scores high on a variety of international comparisons -- health, education, quality of life, economy. I'd love to know how they're doing it. I doubt, however, that rick can be of much help in that regard. =========================== I know that you we not be of any help, since you have decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is fine. Have you ever asked me what problems there are with Canadian health care? I've actually mentioned some, but you haven't been paying attention. ==================== No, you're too busy chest-thumping... And again, you continue making insults and showing no interest. I got invovled in this thread because there was a ridiculous and utterly false allegation made that Canadians were dying in wait lines for health care. It isn't true. If you'd care to simply acknoweldge that there is no evidence to support that allegation, perhaps we can move on and actually talk about the merits and problems of different health care systems. =========================== Then prove that the canadians sites data I've seen is false. But then, you'd have to actually look into the data first, and we know you are afraid to do that, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. frtzw906 I'd love to hear from someone who lives or has lived there! |
sorry, rick, your input is seemingly scrambled: i was able to decipher
one bit about "best system in the world", but then couldn't make out what was, in your opinion, the best system. i'm so p-o'ed. just when the debate gets good, and we're beyond name calling and into a serious discussion of criteria of good healthcare systems, my news client goes wonky. Please try once more. I'll work on fixing things at my end. Cheers, frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... sorry, rick, your input is seemingly scrambled: i was able to decipher one bit about "best system in the world", but then couldn't make out what was, in your opinion, the best system. i'm so p-o'ed. just when the debate gets good, and we're beyond name calling and into a serious discussion of criteria of good healthcare systems, my news client goes wonky. Please try once more. I'll work on fixing things at my end. ================= Well, it seems you have a problem with deleting entire posts and then replying to waht you want me to have said, what you think I may have said, or what you want said. Is all the deleting purposely dishonest, or just from ignorance on how to work your computer. Your choice. It's quite clear that i was not talking about any other system. Clear that is except to ideologs that don't want to discuss the issue that was at hand, wait lists for treatment. Since you have proven either dishonesty or ignorance, have a nice life. Cheers, frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:09 AM: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, so really have nothing to offer. ===============\ LOL Unlike you and kman I have provided information. You have not. Guess we know now who is tap dancing around, eh? You've provided a very limited amount of information, none of which has anything do with substantiating the allegation at hand. ======================== I have provided enough to show that people are on wait lists that need treatment. That you are afraid of that data, and have to shoot the messenger of that data say more about your ideology than antything else you say. Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ========================== You've yet to read what I have posted. Until you can learn to use your computer, you can just continue to prove your willful ignorance and ideology. I allege that you are in fact a turd, Rick Etter. Please provide proof from one of your unions, universities, or media sources that shows I am wrong. ======================== Try reading them for yourself. Amazingly enough, not one of them actually documents your status as a turd. ==================== They do tell us how badly you are lying though, imagine that. |
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:09 AM: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, so really have nothing to offer. ===============\ LOL Unlike you and kman I have provided information. You have not. Guess we know now who is tap dancing around, eh? You've provided a very limited amount of information, none of which has anything do with substantiating the allegation at hand. ======================== I have provided enough to show that people are on wait lists that need treatment. That you are afraid of that data, and have to shoot the messenger of that data say more about your ideology than antything else you say. Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ========================== You've yet to read what I have posted. Until you can learn to use your computer, you can just continue to prove your willful ignorance and ideology. Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. Alternatively, you may wish to admit that you have never posted such a reference, and that you are unable to do so, because none exists. I allege that you are in fact a turd, Rick Etter. Please provide proof from one of your unions, universities, or media sources that shows I am wrong. ======================== Try reading them for yourself. Amazingly enough, not one of them actually documents your status as a turd. ==================== They do tell us how badly you are lying though, imagine that. Thank you for not making any effort to disprove that you are in fact a turd. |
BCITORGB wrote: But Wolfgang, that applies to most of the nations in North Europe.... WOW! Eureka! I think you've got it! LOL. Thanks for the humor. frtzw906 I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines (Actually not to bad for holiday weekend.) Now catching up on the news here, I think I am going to die waiting in line, for rick and KMAN to figure out what line we are waiting in. So where do I get this refreshing elixir of life at? TnT |
TnT says:
================ I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines ================ How come? Was it some kind of socialized ski hill? As to the elixir: only Wolfgang seems to know. Hope you had a good time. frtzw906 |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: But Wolfgang, that applies to most of the nations in North Europe.... WOW! Eureka! I think you've got it! LOL. Thanks for the humor. frtzw906 I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines (Actually not to bad for holiday weekend.) Now catching up on the news here, I think I am going to die waiting in line, for rick and KMAN to figure out what line we are waiting in. So where do I get this refreshing elixir of life at? TnT Go to Newfoundland. It is called "screech." However, if you drink the screech in a remote area of Newfoundland and get sick as a result and would like a very specific type of scan but you are not in an emergency situation you may have to wait to get the scan. Interestingly enough, it was named "screech" because an American was unable to handle it, and he "screeched" so loud that people came running from all around to see what had happened. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... TnT says: ================ I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines ================ How come? Was it some kind of socialized ski hill? As to the elixir: only Wolfgang seems to know. I don't mind sharing: Helsinki, Reykjavik, Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Nice, Moscow, Beijing, Ulan Bator, Kiev, Sofia, Istanbul, Hanoi, Rome, Athens, Auckland, Perth, Wellington, Papeete, Baku, Shanghai, East Point, West Point, Stevens Point, the Pont Neuf, Dublin, Cabo Mondego, Algiers, Belgrade, Malabo, Kidal, Nakuru, Brazzaville, Kinshasa, Neuquen, Oranjestad, Erechim, Santiago, St. Johns, Fort Lauderdale, Sao Paolo, Brownsville, Guaymas, Little Rock, Anchorage, most populated areas in Cameroon, Cairo, Cairo, Champaign, Champlain, Shandan, Shandon, Shandong, Shannon, Shap, Shapa, Shar, Sihui, Pittsburgh, Pittsfield, Pium, Port Hardy, Port Arthur, Portugal, Oak Park, Greenfield, Greendale, Glendale, Buffalo Grove, Ogden, Long Grove, Raleigh, Mount Pilot, Wayne's house, Wayno's house, Wayne's house, Kennie's house (just Bud.....sorry), Ray's Liquors at 89th and North, Harvard, Duke, Oxford, Choate, Smith, Cambridge, Cambridge, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Flores, Salem, Salem, Budapest, Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, Joel's house (martinis), Salem, Plymouth, Plymouth, Plymouth, Vermouth, Laiwu, Jerusalem, Brussels, Lac du Flambeau, Fond du Lac, Fond du Lac, Lac Court d' Orielles, La Crosse, La Cinega, Los Angeles, Los Vegas, Los Alamos, Cabo San Lucas, Madrid, New Madrid, New Berlin, New Rochelle, New Mexico, New South Wales, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Glarus, New Glarus, Portland, Portland, Salem, McMurdo, McGill, Kalpa, Becky's wine rack over in the northeast corner of the dining room, Gurais, Bruce Crossing, Ironwood, Iron River, Iron Mountain, Ewen, Gay, Eagle River, Eagle River, Copper Harbor, L'Anse, Matchwood, Marinesco, Menominee, Marquette, Houghton, Hancock, Foynes, Charleston, Charlestown, Juneau, Juneau,......um.....did I say Charlotte?, London, London, New London, Dauphin Island, Rock Island, Rock Island, Long Island, Washington Island, Belfast, Edinburgh, Swansea, Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Sedona, Santa Fe, Santa Rosita, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Veracruz, Tulsa, Tuskeegee, Churchill, Chapel Hill, Jones Island, Frontera, Fresno, Freeport, Freeport Freeport, Freeport, San Juan, San Juan, San Juan, San Juan, Salem, Gallatin, Galveston, Baton Rouge, Martha's Vineyard, Binghamton, Platte, Pierre, South Platte, Fargo, Farmington, Black, Ironton, Leadville, Salem, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Jefferson City, Madison, Kerrville, Moratuwa, Novo Mesto, Kirovsk, Kirovskiy, Hexi, Albuquerque, El Reno, Ilchester, Olympia, Ulugan bay, Ylistaro, Wakeland, Santa Catarina, Sandia, Opua,.......um.......um.....oh yeah, and Merauke. Wolfgang |
All sounds good, but I think I'll pass on Kennie's place. Bud? That's
the best he can do? frtzw906 |
KMAN, you might be interested in the following:
http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken...formance_3.PDF pages 120-180... a detailed, intelligent, analysis/discussion of healthcare systems. One excerpt of note: "The optimum outcome of this trade-off for non-urgent curative care will be a waiting time somewhere between zero and a few months. Research has shown that short waiting times for this type of care cause very little deterioration in health, while the costs of care increase sharply if such treatments have to be performed without waiting time. Furthermore, it appears that patients do not strongly object to waiting a short time for non-urgent treatment (scp 2003: 123). However, waiting times are still regarded as unpleasant and spark public debate." Anyway, KMAN, thought this might be of interest. frtzw906 |
KMAN, while I'm passing on interesting tidbits of info, I thought you
might find this interesting: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm frtzw906 |
Wolfgang wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... TnT says: ================ I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines ================ How come? Was it some kind of socialized ski hill? As to the elixir: only Wolfgang seems to know. I don't mind sharing: Helsinki, Reykjavik, Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Nice, Moscow, Beijing, Ulan Bator, Kiev, Sofia, Istanbul, Hanoi, Rome, Athens, Auckland, Perth, Wellington, Papeete, Baku, Shanghai, East Point, West Point, Stevens Point, the Pont Neuf, Dublin, Cabo Mondego, Algiers, Belgrade, Malabo, Kidal, Nakuru, Brazzaville, Kinshasa, Neuquen, Oranjestad, Erechim, Santiago, St. Johns, Fort Lauderdale, Sao Paolo, Brownsville, Guaymas, Little Rock, Anchorage, most populated areas in Cameroon, Cairo, Cairo, Champaign, Champlain, Shandan, Shandon, Shandong, Shannon, Shap, Shapa, Shar, Sihui, Pittsburgh, Pittsfield, Pium, Port Hardy, Port Arthur, Portugal, Oak Park, Greenfield, Greendale, Glendale, Buffalo Grove, Ogden, Long Grove, Raleigh, Mount Pilot, Wayne's house, Wayno's house, Wayne's house, Kennie's house (just Bud.....sorry), Ray's Liquors at 89th and North, Harvard, Duke, Oxford, Choate, Smith, Cambridge, Cambridge, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Salem, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Burlington, Flores, Salem, Salem, Budapest, Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, Joel's house (martinis), Salem, Plymouth, Plymouth, Plymouth, Vermouth, Laiwu, Jerusalem, Brussels, Lac du Flambeau, Fond du Lac, Fond du Lac, Lac Court d' Orielles, La Crosse, La Cinega, Los Angeles, Los Vegas, Los Alamos, Cabo San Lucas, Madrid, New Madrid, New Berlin, New Rochelle, New Mexico, New South Wales, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Glarus, New Glarus, Portland, Portland, Salem, McMurdo, McGill, Kalpa, Becky's wine rack over in the northeast corner of the dining room, Gurais, Bruce Crossing, Ironwood, Iron River, Iron Mountain, Ewen, Gay, Eagle River, Eagle River, Copper Harbor, L'Anse, Matchwood, Marinesco, Menominee, Marquette, Houghton, Hancock, Foynes, Charleston, Charlestown, Juneau, Juneau,......um.....did I say Charlotte?, London, London, New London, Dauphin Island, Rock Island, Rock Island, Long Island, Washington Island, Belfast, Edinburgh, Swansea, Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Sedona, Santa Fe, Santa Rosita, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Veracruz, Tulsa, Tuskeegee, Churchill, Chapel Hill, Jones Island, Frontera, Fresno, Freeport, Freeport Freeport, Freeport, San Juan, San Juan, San Juan, San Juan, Salem, Gallatin, Galveston, Baton Rouge, Martha's Vineyard, Binghamton, Platte, Pierre, South Platte, Fargo, Farmington, Black, Ironton, Leadville, Salem, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Jefferson City, Madison, Kerrville, Moratuwa, Novo Mesto, Kirovsk, Kirovskiy, Hexi, Albuquerque, El Reno, Ilchester, Olympia, Ulugan bay, Ylistaro, Wakeland, Santa Catarina, Sandia, Opua,.......um.......um.....oh yeah, and Merauke. Wolfgang Are these your personal preference, or just known reference points. I may have missed it, but you did not reference anything near Denver. That would be a big help. Thanks, TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message
... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the matter, and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. How would Go 1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on 11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris??? 2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature was in the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on 12/14/2000)?? 3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify his slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5???? 4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House??? Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind, who controlled the US House and the US Senate. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System. |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: But Wolfgang, that applies to most of the nations in North Europe.... WOW! Eureka! I think you've got it! LOL. Thanks for the humor. frtzw906 I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines (Actually not to bad for holiday weekend.) Now catching up on the news here, I think I am going to die waiting in line, for rick and KMAN to figure out what line we are waiting in. So where do I get this refreshing elixir of life at? TnT Go to Newfoundland. It is called "screech." However, if you drink the screech in a remote area of Newfoundland and get sick as a result and would like a very specific type of scan but you are not in an emergency situation you may have to wait to get the scan. Interestingly enough, it was named "screech" because an American was unable to handle it, and he "screeched" so loud that people came running from all around to see what had happened. The question is do you have to wait in line to get it? Or maybe I should ask, how many people have died waiting in line to get it? And then the next question, is, does the Canadian government pay for his funeral, maybe from tourism dollars? You wouldn't want to many dead people standing in line, it makes it difficult to move ahead a step! TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Are these your personal preference, or just known reference points. I'll take the liberty of assuming that is a question. You know how people are always saying there's no such thing as a stupid question? Well......guess what. I may have missed it, but you did not reference anything near Denver. That would be a big help. Define "near". Thanks, TnT You're quite welcome. Wolfgang |
Wolfgang wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Are these your personal preference, or just known reference points. I'll take the liberty of assuming that is a question. You know how people are always saying there's no such thing as a stupid question? Well......guess what. I may have missed it, but you did not reference anything near Denver. That would be a big help. Define "near". Thanks, TnT You're quite welcome. Wolfgang Near is "near", sort of like is, "is"! TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Near is "near", sort of like is, "is"! TnT Hm...... You know, I'm beginning to think you're toying with me. I resent that Wolfgang |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN, you might be interested in the following: http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken...formance_3.PDF pages 120-180... a detailed, intelligent, analysis/discussion of healthcare systems. One excerpt of note: "The optimum outcome of this trade-off for non-urgent curative care will be a waiting time somewhere between zero and a few months. Research has shown that short waiting times for this type of care cause very little deterioration in health, while the costs of care increase sharply if such treatments have to be performed without waiting time. Furthermore, it appears that patients do not strongly object to waiting a short time for non-urgent treatment (scp 2003: 123). However, waiting times are still regarded as unpleasant and spark public debate." Anyway, KMAN, thought this might be of interest. frtzw906 Thanks. It's all rather logical that those are the trade-offs. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN, while I'm passing on interesting tidbits of info, I thought you might find this interesting: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm frtzw906 I might, if the link worked for me :-) |
"Mark Cook" wrote in message ... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the matter, and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. How would Go 1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on 11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris??? 2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature was in the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on 12/14/2000)?? 3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify his slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5???? 4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House??? Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind, who controlled the US House and the US Senate. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html I have no idea. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System. No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it this way. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: But Wolfgang, that applies to most of the nations in North Europe.... WOW! Eureka! I think you've got it! LOL. Thanks for the humor. frtzw906 I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines (Actually not to bad for holiday weekend.) Now catching up on the news here, I think I am going to die waiting in line, for rick and KMAN to figure out what line we are waiting in. So where do I get this refreshing elixir of life at? TnT Go to Newfoundland. It is called "screech." However, if you drink the screech in a remote area of Newfoundland and get sick as a result and would like a very specific type of scan but you are not in an emergency situation you may have to wait to get the scan. Interestingly enough, it was named "screech" because an American was unable to handle it, and he "screeched" so loud that people came running from all around to see what had happened. The question is do you have to wait in line to get it? On the day prior to a holiday weekend, most definitely. Or maybe I should ask, how many people have died waiting in line to get it? Some. But it would be hard to prove it was the lack of screech that killed them. And then the next question, is, does the Canadian government pay for his funeral, maybe from tourism dollars? No. Contrary to popular world opinion, the Canadian government can be quite stingy, and continues to be one of the few countries that has a budgetary surplus. You wouldn't want to many dead people standing in line, it makes it difficult to move ahead a step! TnT Having never been to a Republican convention, I really don't know. |
Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd
be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message ... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the matter, and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. How would Go 1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on 11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris??? 2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature was in the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on 12/14/2000)?? 3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify his slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5???? 4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House??? Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind, who controlled the US House and the US Senate. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html I have no idea. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System. No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it this way. I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate. Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris). They were awarded to him on 11/26/2000. At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie breaker, thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the Republicans. During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans made it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away via a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal change in election law. Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a challenge (which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House. Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots, illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's electors. That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the slate sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5. The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts. Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not proof Bush stole the election. IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have had the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if post-certification recounts would have shown a different result. Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period??? It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of being first to certification. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html |
"Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message ... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? I don't think so. I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the matter, and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. How would Go 1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on 11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris??? 2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature was in the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on 12/14/2000)?? 3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify his slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5???? 4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House??? Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind, who controlled the US House and the US Senate. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html I have no idea. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System. No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it this way. I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate. Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris). They were awarded to him on 11/26/2000. At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie breaker, thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the Republicans. During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans made it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away via a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal change in election law. Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a challenge (which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House. Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots, illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's electors. That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the slate sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5. The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts. Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not proof Bush stole the election. IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have had the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if post-certification recounts would have shown a different result. Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period??? It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of being first to certification. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: But Wolfgang, that applies to most of the nations in North Europe.... WOW! Eureka! I think you've got it! LOL. Thanks for the humor. frtzw906 I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines (Actually not to bad for holiday weekend.) Now catching up on the news here, I think I am going to die waiting in line, for rick and KMAN to figure out what line we are waiting in. So where do I get this refreshing elixir of life at? TnT Go to Newfoundland. It is called "screech." However, if you drink the screech in a remote area of Newfoundland and get sick as a result and would like a very specific type of scan but you are not in an emergency situation you may have to wait to get the scan. Interestingly enough, it was named "screech" because an American was unable to handle it, and he "screeched" so loud that people came running from all around to see what had happened. The question is do you have to wait in line to get it? On the day prior to a holiday weekend, most definitely. Or maybe I should ask, how many people have died waiting in line to get it? Some. But it would be hard to prove it was the lack of screech that killed them. And then the next question, is, does the Canadian government pay for his funeral, maybe from tourism dollars? No. Contrary to popular world opinion, the Canadian government can be quite stingy, and continues to be one of the few countries that has a budgetary surplus. You wouldn't want to many dead people standing in line, it makes it difficult to move ahead a step! TnT Having never been to a Republican convention, I really don't know. Having never been to an RNC either, I don't know either! It is a shame that the Canadian authorities are so stingy with a product in such high demand, to make you wait in line, and that just before a holiday. I would suggest that to increase supply and distribution, that they contract with Halliburton to build a pipeline to the Canadian-US border. I am sure that the good folks at Halliburton would be willing to provide a kickback to any and all interested parties. If done in time I am sure you could favorably impress and influence the next RNC, especially if a line is piped directly in to RNC. TnT |
Wolfgang wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Near is "near", sort of like is, "is"! TnT Hm...... You know, I'm beginning to think you're toying with me. I resent that Wolfgang Is that what was going on with the "is, is" thing? I begin to understand, and would certainly understand you resenting it. Why don't you have another drink, matter of fact have one for me as well, and I am sure you will feel better in the AM. TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message ... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? I don't think so. I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the matter, and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. How would Go 1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on 11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris??? 2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature was in the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on 12/14/2000)?? 3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify his slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5???? 4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House??? Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind, who controlled the US House and the US Senate. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html I have no idea. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System. No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it this way. I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate. Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris). They were awarded to him on 11/26/2000. At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie breaker, thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the Republicans. During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans made it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away via a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal change in election law. Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a challenge (which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House. Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots, illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's electors. That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the slate sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5. The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts. Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not proof Bush stole the election. IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have had the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if post-certification recounts would have shown a different result. Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period??? It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of being first to certification. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. That is a sad comment about those people in the US and the world. They don't care about fair and honest recounts, just anything to get their man into office. "As implemented by Judge Terry Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court's decision gave short shrift to Bush's basic right to judicial review of the thousands of disputed ballot-interpretation decisions made by (among others) openly partisan Democratic officials. In a series of late-night rulings hours after the Dec. 8 decision, Judge Lewis refused to suggest (or hear evidence on) what chad-counting standard vote-counters should use; assigned hundreds of untrained counters to plunge into this world of standardless chad-interpretation, without even requiring that they be nonpartisan; refused to require that a record be kept of chad-interpretation decisions, thereby making appeals virtually impossible; ignored Bush's request for a recount of those hundreds of rejected overseas military ballots; and shrugged off claims that some Gore votes would inevitably be counted twice." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...2000-12-28.htm The Democrats tried to steal an election, but lets blame Bush because he stood up for the rights of the voters in Florida. |
"Mark Cook" wrote in message om... The Democrats tried to steal an election, but lets blame Bush because he stood up for the rights of the voters in Florida. Yet another example of Bush's Orwellian logic in action. --riverman |
"Mark Cook" wrote in message om... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message ... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? I don't think so. I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the matter, and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. How would Go 1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on 11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris??? 2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature was in the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on 12/14/2000)?? 3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify his slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5???? 4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House??? Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind, who controlled the US House and the US Senate. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html I have no idea. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System. No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it this way. I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate. Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris). They were awarded to him on 11/26/2000. At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie breaker, thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the Republicans. During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans made it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away via a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal change in election law. Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a challenge (which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House. Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots, illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's electors. That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the slate sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5. The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts. Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not proof Bush stole the election. IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have had the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if post-certification recounts would have shown a different result. Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period??? It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of being first to certification. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. That is a sad comment about those people in the US and the world. They don't care about fair and honest recounts, just anything to get their man into office. I don't think it is realistic to assume that all those people were pro-Gore or anti-Bush. What they see is a very messed up electoral process with a very close result and a recount that was halted by judges that were appointed by the governing party. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... Wolfgang wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Near is "near", sort of like is, "is"! TnT Hm...... You know, I'm beginning to think you're toying with me. I resent that Wolfgang Is that what was going on with the "is, is" thing? I don't know what that means. I begin to understand, Do you? Hm.......we'll see. and would certainly understand you resenting it. "Would"? Not "do"? Why don't you have another drink, matter of fact have one for me as well, Actually, I don't drink. and I am sure you will feel better in the AM. Better......than.....? Wolfgang |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com