rick, since it appears YOU are unable to read, let me help you.

From -- Feb 21, 2:23 pm

SNIPPAGE....

I SAID
======================
I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless.
======================

SO, HAVE I, OR HAVE I NOT, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU DO NOT CHARACTERIZE
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AS THE BEST SYSTEM? I dunno, the statement seems
fairly clear to me: "I agree: You have not held up the American model
as being flawless."

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick, it is you who decided to reply to something i thought
kman might
find interesting. kman indicated an inability to open the link.
you
clesarly were curious and tried it.

you're right, it is exactly as you describe: early 90s data
used to
support an analysis of the reagan-bush era. so what? i never
pretended
it was anything more (or less).
=====================
Yes, you did. You used it as an attempt to claim that anyone
that dared question you was living an insular life, without
benefit of anyknowledge. Problem for you was that it just proved
how provincial you are instead.


in recommending two links to kman, i
suggested he might "find this interesting". whether he does (or
did),
is up to him. in recommending these links, i said nothing in
support of
(or against) the canadian medical system.

the dutch study was recommended because it takes the discussion
of
healthcare systems a notch or two above the name-calling you
had
dragged this debate into. i thought kman, like me, could be
interested.
note again: no support (or lack of support) for the canadian
healthcare
system from me.
================
The dutch study wasn't included in the post I replied to. You
might know that if you didn't delete everything and then pretend
what is in posts.




you clearly have some kind of bone to pick with the canadian
system.
=====================
Nope. I just replied to idiocy that was trying to be spewed by
jingoistic fools.


why don't you just get whatever it is, off your chest. i'm sure
you'll
feel better. did you not get your mri? was your joint
replacement
delayed for 3 months? did your mother die waiting for a
cataract
operation? whatever it is: please vent. as it stands, you sound
like
you're on the waiting list for some serious psychiatric care.
you sound
very bitter.
================
Nope. i suggest that you must be because you cannot post
honestly on the subject. Why is that?


on the positive side, i'd say there is hope for you. i think
this is
the second or third (i'm not counting) post from you where you
haven't
invoked the "strawman". trust me, in this regard, you're making
real
progress.
==================
How would you know? you're still living a delusion and 15 years
in the past. Must have been the best years of your life, and
you've gone steadily downhill since, eh?



cheers,
frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick, since it appears YOU are unable to read, let me help you.

From -- Feb 21, 2:23 pm

SNIPPAGE....

I SAID
======================
I agree: You have not held up the American model as being
flawless.
======================

SO, HAVE I, OR HAVE I NOT, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU DO NOT
CHARACTERIZE
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AS THE BEST SYSTEM? I dunno, the statement
seems
fairly clear to me: "I agree: You have not held up the American
model
as being flawless."
====================
Nice proof of your dishonesty again, eh fool? You just can't
post without imagining what you want others to have said, eh?



frtzw906

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

"Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq

Rockets filled with sarin were destroyed in Iraq after the Gulf War
An artillery shell containing a small amount of the nerve gas sarin has
exploded in Iraq.

Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said the blast had caused a small release of the
substance and two people had been treated for exposure to the agent.

The substance was found in a shell inside a bag discovered by a US convoy a
few days ago, he said.

It appears to be the first evidence of nerve gas existing in Iraq since the
start of the US-led war last year."

BBC News, Monday, 17 May, 2004, 15:50 GMT 16:50 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3722255.stm

"It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt
said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an
IED [improvised explosive device]. When it exploded, it indicated that it
had some sarin in it."

The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would
determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical
weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said
another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in
Iraq.

U.S. probes discovery of shell believed to contain sarin gas

"It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt
said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an
IED [improvised explosive device]. When it exploded, it indicated that it
had some sarin in it."

"The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would
determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical
weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said
another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in
Iraq."

Monday, May 17, 2004 Posted: 9:08 PM EDT (0108 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)


--
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 KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the
bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street
corners.

The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they
didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did
*understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely
decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and
tyranny.

The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were
just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then
too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk)
comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if
they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit
access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing
out the baby with the bath water.

Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety."

Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed
citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an
unarmed citizenry would be.

Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet you.

History is sometimes inconvenient for gun banners. I'm paraphrasing (and
quoting) those who concocted our system of government.


They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would
in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to
use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault.

Never
did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the
police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed
our system to prevent precisely that.

And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with
arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit
lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful,
violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal
firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment.

Holy sweet fancy moses.

Indeed.


The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn.

No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male
citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia
kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services.

There was no
armed forces.

Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of
the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George
Washington?

There were no assault weapons.

The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and
technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right.

And there weren't more than
30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours.

There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides
and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small
and getting smaller every year.

Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related
deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada.

If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted
that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip
semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon
and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they
would rethink the whole thing.

Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly
aware of the potentials of firearms.

Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal
semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully
automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding
semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily
convertible" to fully automatic fire.

Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to
fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal
crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing
event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They
were all, at best, semi-automatic.

Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper."
Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single
common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the
ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good
citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have
occurred.

Total up all the Americans killed in every
war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between
1979 and 1979.

Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous
thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews
of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and
you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed
by firearms since 1776.

That's NOT what the framers had in mind.

Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with
firearms, but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands
of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale
death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and
the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet.

They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good
people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect
themselves was to be armed.

You really have no clue about American history, do you?
--
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 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.



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.

Indeed. My mistake.


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.

The recount was halted by the Supreme Court because it was unlawful, not
because of the political affiliations of the Justices. Go read the case
sometime. The legal arguments are perfectly sound and have nothing whatever
to do with politics.

--
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 KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world.

Well, not just yet, anyhow.

That
is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the
existence of a deity.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on the diety.

Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can
convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and
wealth - all thanks to a fantasy!

And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that
science cannot explain.

--
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

rick wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick, since it appears YOU are unable to read, let me help you.

From -- Feb 21, 2:23 pm

SNIPPAGE....

I SAID
======================
I agree: You have not held up the American model as being
flawless.
======================

SO, HAVE I, OR HAVE I NOT, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU DO NOT
CHARACTERIZE
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AS THE BEST SYSTEM? I dunno, the statement
seems
fairly clear to me: "I agree: You have not held up the American
model
as being flawless."
====================
Nice proof of your dishonesty again, eh fool? You just can't
post without imagining what you want others to have said, eh?



frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==============
Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.
==================

What you don't comprehend is that no doctor is required to participate
in the national insurance scheme -- all doctors are free.

Who pays them? And there certainly ARE government-employee doctors...and
nurses...and administrators.


Weiser says:
=================
Doctors in the US don't go on strike
================

So, you're predicting that the 50,000 to 100,000 (and growing rapidly)
unionized doctors in the USA (can you say HMO?) will never go on
strike? Good luck on that one!

You need to learn the distinction between a union and an HMO. HMO doctors
can't strike because it's in their contract.


Weiser, in reference to the USA, says:
===============
Nope. They get paid exactly what the consume thinks their services are
worth.
===================

And you actually believe that, eh?

Of course! It's perfectly obvious. If the patient didn't think it was worth
it, they wouldn't use that doctor.


I suspect it's more a case of what the consumer "must" pay, because,
while you "talk to free market talk", "walking the walk" is quite
another thing. You have yet to explain how/why the free market doesn't
respond to such lucrative incomes with a greater supply of doctors.

It does. We have lots and lots of doctors. However, it does take many years
for the doctor population to respond to demand, which may result in
temporary shortages. But, as soon as the new crop is trained, they become
available to the market.

Scott, isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

It does.


What in hell is wrong with you guys down there, that you can't get the
capitalist system to work for you as far as the supply of doctors is
concerned?

Our doctor supply, like our lawyer supply, is just fine.

Maybe if you could get these things right, we'd be inclined
to follow your example. But, so long as the simple supply-demand thing
remains a mystery to you, perhaps we'd best stick to a system that
produces better results. When you get the kinks worked out, give us a
call.

Uh huh.


--
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:
==============
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because
the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did,
they
risked nuclear conflict.
===================

C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or
this is Faux News drivel.

Try CNN and the BBC


Weiser says:
=================
We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time.
=====================

BULL****!

Really? Are you an intelligence agent with independent knowledge of what our
intelligence apparatus knew and when they knew it? I think not.

Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other
nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were
telling a different tale?

You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different
conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam and had a profit
motive to dissuade us from invading.

They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They
disagreed on Iraq.

Who cares? We used OUR intelligence information, which we found more
reliable and credible. Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.


And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had
this figured out. The lie was transparent.

Fortunately, you're not in charge of our intelligence system or our country.

--
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