"Mark Cook" wrote in message
m...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The political affiliation of
the
Justices is irrelevant.

Apparently it wasn't since they voted exactly along party lines.
Coincidence? Only a nut like you would believe that.

Apparently you have not read Gore vs. Harris, which became Bush vs. Gore,
or
Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris.

Down party lines???? More Democrat propaganda.

I think you'll find this useful. It was designed for teens, and you seem to
have an adoloscent approach to things...

====

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent US Supreme Court
decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?

A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the
most votes.

Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?

A: Right.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?

A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any
legal ballots?

A: Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices
agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate
number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the
voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't
conservatives love that?

A: Yes. These five justices have held that the federal government has no
business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets
just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal
government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in
schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to
force states to take measures to stop violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?

A: Yes, the "Gore Exception." States have no rights to control their own
state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating!

A: Nope. They held, "Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes
generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?

A: They didn't say.

Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't
be counted because the Florida Supreme Court, "changed the rules of the
election after it was held." Right?

A: Wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court
did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found
the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.

Q: Huh?

A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote
is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not
adopting a clearer standard.

Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's
law after the election.

A: Right.

Q: So what's the problem?

A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court
should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is
a legal vote"

Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.

A: Right.

Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been
overturned.

A: Right. You're catching on.

Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for
changing the rules. And since it didn't, it's overturned for not changing
the rules? That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did,
legal votes could never be counted if they would end up with a possible Gore
victory.

A: Right. Next question.

Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some
counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?

A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
Democratic-leaning counties record only 98% of the votes. So approximately
2% of Democratic-leaning votes (several thousand) are thrown in the trash
can.

Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!

A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 2% of
Democratic-leaning ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That
"complexity" was not a problem.

Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more
than 10,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or both Gore and Buchanan?

A: Nope. The courts have no problem believing that Buchanan got his
highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with
Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.

Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?

A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 2% of
Democrat-leaning voters (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The
problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots (100 to 300 votes)
may have been determined under slightly different standards, because judges
and county officials -- doing what Americans have done for more than 200
years -- will look at the ballots under strict public scrutiny and record
voters' votes. At the end of the day, they may have a slightly different
opinion about a few hundred votes, but a single judge was overseeing the
entire process to resolve any disputes under a single standard.

Q: A single judge? I thought the standards were different. I thought that
was the whole point of the Supreme Court opinion.

A: Judge Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the Florida
Supreme Court, had already ordered each of the counties to fax him their
standards so he could be sure they were uniform when the US Supreme Court
stopped him from counting the uncounted votes (because they were favoring
Gore, according to Scalia's stay opinion).

Q: Hmmm. Well, even if those .005% of difficult-to-tell votes are thrown
out, you can still count the votes where everyone, even Republicans, agrees
the voter's intent is clear, right?

A: Nope.

Q: Why not?

A: No time.

Q: I thought the Supreme Court said that the Constitution was more
important than speed.

A: It did. It said, "The press of time does not diminish the
constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for
ignoring equal protection guarantees."

Q: Well that makes sense. So there's time to count the votes when the
intent is clear and everyone is treated equally then. Right?

A: No. The Supreme Court won't allow it.

Q: But they just said that the Constitution is more important than time!

A: You forget. There is the "Gore Exception."

Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree
the intent is clear? Why not?

A: Because they issued the opinion at 10 p.m. on December 12.

Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?

A: No. January 6, 2001 is the deadline. In the Election of 1960, Hawaii's
votes weren't counted until January 4, 1961

Q: So why is December 12 important?

A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.

Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?

A: Nothing. In fact, some 20 states still (as of December 13, 2000)
haven't turned in their results.

Q: But I thought...

A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its
work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States
Supreme Court is trying to "help" the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing
the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not
binding.

Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes
counted by December 12.

A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the
recount last Saturday.

Q: Why?

A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.

Q: So why not separate the votes into piles -- hanging chads for Gore,
indentations for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or
the other -- so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining
who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out,
the American people will know right away who won Florida?

A: Great idea! An intelligent, rational solution to a difficult problem!
The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held in stopping the count on
December 9 that such counts would be likely to produce election results
showing Gore won and that Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and
that would "cast a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm
"democratic stability."

Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't
accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? Or a political one?

A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this
reason has no basis in law. But that didn't stop the five conservatives from
creating new law out of thin air.

Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the
votes afterward?

A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not
binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.

Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
arbitrarily setting a deadline?

A: Yes.

Q: But, but...

A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets
for other courts.

Q: Tell me this, are Florida's election laws unconstitutional?

A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the Legislature drafted the law in
such an unfair way that the Florida votes can never be fairly counted.

Q: Are the election laws of any of the other 49 states unconstitutional as
well?

A: Yes, if one logically applies the Supreme Court opinion. The voters of
the 50 states use different systems and standards to vote, and 33 states
have the same "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court
found was illegal in Florida.

Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?

A: Um. Because.um...the Supreme Court doesn't say.

Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by
the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won
the election there, right?

A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 23,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). See
http://www.herald.com/thispage.htm?c...ion/104268.htm

Q: So, what do we do? Count under a single uniform standard? Have a
re-vote? Throw out the entire state?

A: No. As there's no time for a re-vote or a re-count based on the
non-binding "deadline", the Supreme Court will just choose itself who will
be President, and it picks Bush to win 5-4, based on the flawed count it
just called unconstitutional.

Q: That's completely bizarre! Were there any apparent conflicts of
interest?

A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers at law firms working for Bush.
Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the
Bush administration.

Q: Why didn't they remove themselves from the case?

A: If either had recused himself, the vote would have been 4-4, the Florida
Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed, and
Scalia feared Gore would have won the election.

Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.

A: Read the opinions for yourself:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf
(December 9 - stay stopping the recount)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supr...-949_dec12.fdf
(December 12 - opinion)

Q: So what are the consequences of this?

A: The guy who got the most votes in the US, in Florida, and under our
Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice (George W. Bush)
who won the all- important 5-4 Supreme Court vote, which trumps America's
choice.

Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. At least in
the Electoral College, shouldn't the guy with the most votes in Florida win?

A: That's true, but in this election it seems that the guy with the most US
Supreme Court votes wins.

Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President?

A: He will appoint more pro-Republican justices.

Q: Is there any way to stop this?

A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate.
It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
Senators stand up to Bush and his Supreme Court and say that they will not
approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror will end..and
one day we can hope to return to the rule of law and the will of the People.

Q: What can I do to help?

A: Email this article to everyone you know, and write or call your Senator,
reminding him or her that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes
(three to five times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that
VOTERS, not JUDGES should determine who wins an election. And to protect
our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you ask your Senators
to confirm NO NEW FEDERAL JUDGES APPOINTED BY A NON-DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED
PRESIDENT until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by the American
people in a new election.

Q: What do the four dissenting US Supreme Court justices have to say about
all this?

A: Read excerpts below:

Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford):
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the
winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is
perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial
guardian of the rule of law."

Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush):
"Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the ballots] the
courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There
is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count
all the disputed ballots now."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican regime." [In
other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] "The court should not let
its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is "impractical" "decide the
presidency of the United States."

Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"There is no justification for the majority's remedy . . . We risk a
self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the
nation."

"Wilko" wrote in message
...


KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote:
And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe
that
science cannot explain.


Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these
days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there
were dinosaurs.

Not to mention something as incredible as the "flat earth society"...

http://www.flat-earth.org/

Guess where it's based... :-)

Satire I enjoy...but there are people who really believe that the bible is a
factual document.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Satire I enjoy...but there are people who really believe that the bible is
a factual document.

There are a lot of accurate factual statements in "The
Bible".........whichever version one happens to peruse.

Wolfgang
who has read several and finds all of them.......begats and
all.......considerably less tedious than this interminable competition
between idiots on one side and morons on the other, whose only purpose
appears to be to determine which group is stupider.

A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found.

Where is your source for this?

The "many" was a misstatement. Two WMD artillery shells were found, one
with
Sarin, the other with mustard gas. Both were probably parts of stockpiles
used during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds which Hussein said had been
destroyed. Where there's one, there's most likely more.

It was barely reported by the major news media during the invasion, then
it
disappeared from the radar.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery
round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark
Kimmitt
(search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad.
"The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which
was
discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

Fox News, Monday, May 17, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Well, that's Fox news, who I think we can agree have traded off their
credibility for sensationalism and an openly confessed pro-Bush bias quite a
while ago.

No, we most certainly cannot agree. At worst, Fox News presents a reasonably
balanced view of the news that struggles to overcome the pervasive
ultra-liberal left-wing bias of virtually all other major media sources.

Nontheless, Fox and all the other news agencies reported that the
conclusion was that this bomb was an artifact left over from the Pre-1991
era,

Which was supposed to have been destroyed long ago. Where there's one,
there's very likely others, probably buried in the desert in massive
stockpiles that we have not yet discovered. You are aware that there are
miles and miles of deeply-buried underground bunkers and tunnels under
Baghdad alone that Saddam built in the 12 years after the original invasion.

There is no reason to believe that he did not construct similar bunkers in
remote regions to store his WMD's, along with other munitions. The
insurgents in Iraq are getting their munitions from somewhere.


that the people who rigged it probably had no idea that it contained
binary Sarin,

Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue, which is that it constitutes more
proof positive that Hussein had, and used WMD's.

and in his later report, Duelfer concluded that the existance
of this bomb did not constitute evidence that there was any ongoing WMD
program.

Who said anything about "ongoing?" He had WMD's, he used them on the
Iranians and the Kurds, he stockpiled such munitions in large quantities,
and he refused to permit UN inspections intended to ensure that ALL those
stockpiles had been destroyed.

That's entirely sufficient.


If you are merely stating that some left over munitions exist, I don't think
anyone who ever shopped at an ArmyNavy store would disagree. If your
statement is that Saddam intentionally hid weapons from the pre-1991 era
from the inspectors with the intent to use them later, and the discovery of
these bombs are proof, then I refer you to Fox news again, and an excerpt
from Charles Duelfer's report:

"Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on
Iraqi WMD affairs, found Saddam wasn't squirreling away equipment and
weapons and hiding them in various parts of the country, as some originally
thought when the U.S.-led war in Iraq began, officials said. Instead, the
report finds that Saddam was trying to achieve his goal by retaining
"intellectual capital" - in other words, keeping weapons inspectors employed
and happy and preserving some documentation, according to U.S. officials."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

What makes you think that Dueifer is infallible?

Besides, the quote itself proves my point. At the time, the best
intelligence we had indicated that Saddam DID have WMD's, that he HAD
deployed them and killed thousands of his own citizens with them, that he
WAS very likely squirreling them away in the desert during the 12 years he
defied the UN sanctions, and that he WAS playing a shell-game with UN
inspectors to prevent them from finding the evidence.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
================
If we close the border with Canada, it will be CLOSED. Nobody in,
nobody
out.
It's much cheaper for us to force you to fix it than to do it
ourselves.
=================

But Scott, that's a huge IF.

Indeed. It's a last resort option. We'd much rather you agree to keep your
drug dealers and terrorists up there so we don't have to.

I think someone (perhaps Michael) has
already pointed out that the trade between our two countries is HUGE.
And trade, as I'm sure you know, is a two-way street.

Which can be made a no-way street when the costs exceed the benefits. It
won't take too many terrorist incursions from Canada to make it worth it to
close the border.


If this 2-way trade were not extremely advantageous to the USA (and, of
course, to Canada as well), you wouldn't be engaging in it. Now in
terms of dollars required to fix whatever problem you perceive there to
be with our mutual border: do you really believe that cutting off trade
with Canada will be cheaper than the USA fixing whatever this problem
is?

The mere threat will probably be sufficient to persuade your masters to
clean up their act. If not, the sanctions can be imposed gradually,
increasing the economic pressure until you cave, which you will long before
we do.


I suggest that if that's your position, then you cannot even begin to
fathom how valuable this trade is to your country. Fixing a border
problem would cost a mere pittance in relation to the trade we're
talking about.

That's a good reason for Canada to clean up its act. Mexico too...


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott, notwithstanding everything you said between:
"It was a number of things. First, he was a brutal tyrant who was
murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most
heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable." AND "Seventh, he
provided an excellent object lesson on the perils of thumbing one's
nose at
the US for other terrorist nations such as Libya and North
Korea...among
others. That's some of the principle reasons we invaded. "

That's NOT what Colin Powell was preaching at the UN. The justification
for going to war with Iraq was made to the world community, at the UN.

Fu*k the UN. What we choose to tell the UN has nothing whatever to do with
what we base our independent sovereign actions on. The UN is a bunch of
leftist pussies who hate America and who wouldn't lift a finger to help us
if we were under attack. They do nothing but dither, debate and pontificate,
and the people who run it are massively corrupt. The UN should be disbanded
and kicked out of the US entirely.

Screw the world community too, if they were too blind to see the horrors
taking place in Iraq and the dangers posed by Hussein.

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


The weapons inspectors were well on their way to NOT finding WMD. The
aluminum tubes et al turned out to be a hoax.

No, they didn't.


He threatened world peace you say?!!!

Yup.

Fer crissakes man, your army
walked all over him in a few days! How could this man threaten world
peace?

By using UN oil-for-food money to fund international terrorism, including
the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union by
terrorist organizations, for one.

Are you now telling me that your intelligence agencies (the one
that KNEW he had WMD) did NOT know that his armed forces weren't worth
a popcorn fart? Threaten world peace! Not likely!

I never said he threatened world peace through military invasion.


As to refusing to allow mandated inspections. Was that a UN issue, or
was that an issue for the USA?

It was an issue for the US, which we misguidedly contracted out to the UN in
an ill-considered attempt to curry favor with the international community.
Turns out the UN really didn't give a crap about holding Saddam's feet to
the fire, because the UN, as an organization, hates the US and is happy to
see us embarrassed or put at risk. Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement
SEVENTEEN TIMES in the 12 years after the first war.

That's sixteen times too often.

When the UN failed to reinvest Baghdad with UN troops after the FIRST
violation of the cease fire agreement, the UN gave up any right to complain
when the US eventually (and belatedly) decided to act unilaterally to
enforce the agreement.


Nope. It was WMD.

Nope, it was a lot of things.

But even if it was only WMD's, nothing changes. He had WMD's, he used WMD's,
he concealed WMD's, he illegally retained information about the manufacture
of WMD's, he moved WMD's about in a shell-game to avoid detection, he
refused inspections for WMD's, and he very likely exported WMD's to Syria.
That's all the justification we needed.

BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian intelligence
officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency, supplying
arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from
Syria.

So, we'd better go clean out that nest of vipers too.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

==============
Clearly you get all your information from the CBC.
=================

and your point is..... ?

That you are a brainwashed dupe with no perspective on the issues other
than
that spoon-fed you by the notoriously left-wing, Socialist,
American-hating
CBC.
===============

What's wrong with the CBC? Don't you like classical music?

No, I don't like ultra-leftist liberal propaganda.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says (in answer to frtzw906):
=====================
Fixing a border
problem would cost a mere pittance in relation to the trade we're
talking about.

That's a good reason for Canada to clean up its act. Mexico too..
=======================

But, who sees it as a problem? We don't.

If canada thought it were a problem, we'd have done something about it.

frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"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.
=======================
I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are
too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on
the messenger just proves your stupidity.

Please post a link to the message in which 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 have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too
stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the
messenger just proves your stupidity.




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.

=======================
I have.

For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet.

Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to 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 have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too
stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the
messenger just proves your stupidity.




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 have.

For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet.

Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to 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 have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too
stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the
messenger just proves your stupidity.









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.
===========================
LOL You are the one proving that you have no interest in
finding out the facts. Thanks again for proving you don't
have anything to say.

Please post the facts that prove Canadians are dying in line
waiting for health care.
=======================
I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too
stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the
messenger just proves your stupidity.






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.

=======================
I have.

For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet.

I invite anyone else wo has seen your post to this effect to
share it with me.

Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to 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 have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too
stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the
messenger just proves your stupidity.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott says:
=====================
You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different
conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam...

Excuse me? The French not only actually obstructed our intelligence
efforts,
but they were actively trying to sell nuclear technology to Iraq, in
direct
violation of the UN sanctions.
==================

So, Scott, how were the Germans corruptly in bed with Saddam?

Among other things, they were transferring advanced technology to Iraq in
violation of the UN sanctions for money.


As to the French, when you say "The French not only actually obstructed
our intelligence efforts", are you suggesting that that's why the USA
had it all wrong with respect to WMD? Damn those Frencies. If they
hadn't messed with your intelligence, you would have known there were
no WMD and the whole war could have been avoided.

Investigation of the existence of WMD's is hardly the only intelligence data
we were looking for. One of the things they did was attempt to conceal the
fact that they knew (and had photographic evidence) of Iraqi intelligence
agents meeting with representatives of Bin Laden in Paris. We now find out
that Saddam took much of the oil for food money from the UN and stashed it
away in tens of thousands of numbered bank accounts all across the world,
and gave access to those funds to terrorist organizations, including OBL,
Hezbolla and many others.


You're right! No more French fries for honest American citizens. Ought
to be part of the Patriot Act, I say.

Well, since "French fries" aren't French, it's not really a problem.
However, boycotting France and French import products is a very good idea,
and something I'm doing.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser