Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #111   Report Post  
Scott Weiser
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:


In the end I believe we will be judged by how we treat the poorest in
society, not the wealthiest. I am pleased with Canada.


Fine by me, just don't try to export your socialism down here, we don't

want
it.


You mean, YOU don't want it.


Indeed, me and 200 million others.


Our military is not the most powerfull ( I would like to see it better
funded. ) But we have not fely a need to reach out and touch someone in
the way GW has.


And the reason you have a minimal military is because the US protects you,
just like it protected all of western Europe during the Cold War, which
freed you from having to spend more money on defense.

You're welcome...


That would be your opinion, of course.


Nope, a fact.


Our medical system is fine.


Unless you're a teenager needing knee surgery...


Strangely enough, the Canadians who live under the system so oppresively
described by you seem happier and healthier than most Americans.


And they will continue to do so right up until the entire system collapses
into chaos. Nothing surprising about people getting freebies not complaining
about it...till the gravy train derails.

-
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

  #112   Report Post  
Scott Weiser
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:


However, diabetes, broken ankles and heart disease are not a public health
threats, which means that the government has no call to impose the costs

of
treating such individual illnesses on others, because there is no exported
harm that justifies imposing this burden on others.


You don't think so?


Nope.

There are many ways that society pays the price for
illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs. The
economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick or
injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity,
overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs to
consumers), etc.


And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government.

When you're a small business owner and your employees are
home sick instead of working, you lose money.


So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should
government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business owner
fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why
should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to
protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is
essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him
healthy, not the government or the rest of us.

If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just
provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better.

So does the national economy.
It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but they're
enormous.


Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism are
the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That
responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else.

Such things are only an impact because the government interferes with the
employer's ability to avoid or reduce those impacts.
--
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

  #113   Report Post  
Scott Weiser
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A Usenet persona calling itself Eddy Rapid wrote:


"Scott Weiser" who appears to be a wrote in message
[...]
Fine by me, just don't try to export your socialism down here, we don't
want
it.


And just how do you imagine we'd try to export our "socialism"?


By breeding legions of little socialists.

And who elected you as the spokesperson for all the "we"?


Me, of course.


Parham "bemused, but bound to be none the wiser"


--
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

  #114   Report Post  
Scott Weiser
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:41 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to enable
their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live
without
concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all your
goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing
sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone else
to
join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each individual
gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not the
government's duty or authority to compel it.

I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be afforded
everyone. This includes education and health care.


Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human rights?

I say no.


I know. Becuase you are a selfish prig.


No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my assertion.


In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to
respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the
right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to
obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which
others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is
anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights.

What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The
difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not
"provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of
the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No
affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those
rights.


ROFLMAO

So owning a gun is a fundamental human right, but a child getting medical
care is not?


Yup. Well...the right to keep and bear arms, including guns, is.

Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.


And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational
rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does.


Education and health care, however, require the active participation of
others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden
or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of
that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be
compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are
"violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another
in the exercise of a right by an individual.

There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the
rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free
association...and disassociation.

Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not
to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it?

Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student
because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right
to not associate with neo-nazis?

Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks
because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I
think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to
provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights.

The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that
someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against
their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a
serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those
"rights."

Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan,
anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the
rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise.


Er. No.

It means as a society agreeing that education and health care should be
available to all. If not infringing upon the religified is something
important to a certain society, but they still believe that health care is a
basic human right, then they will negotiate the situation.


Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty to
affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a
right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different
thing.


In Canada most people think of health care as a basic human right. But a
doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions doesn't get forced into the
job.


What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient? Does
he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition of
"rights" says yes.


This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy!


Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the
subtleties of my argument.


Any society will have "affirmative burdens" all over the place.


Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens
characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they instead
merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract under
which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying those
obligations, such as democratic voting?

I say the latter.

You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong.


That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the
Constitution


As you are aware, I don't give a fig about that.


Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.


or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And
imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal
system.

No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of
your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else.


Whatever you want to call it, I believe in a society where a child can get
help when they are sick and can go to school no matter what the financial
status of the family they are born into.


Then provide the funding for such a society and be called a hero.


I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that comes
with it.


Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden
on others without their consent.


Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and
effective
means of showing concern for others.

Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force
of law is morally repugnant.

Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job
of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society
that sees education and health care as necessities of life.


Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings
to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you
happen to think they ought to pay for?


Selfish prigs are a part of every society, and you can't worry much about
their feelings, or you'll soon have a society of paranoid freaks walking
around with concealed weapons ready to shoot at their own shadow.


Classic socialist swill: "Shut up and do what we tell you..."



Talk about repugant. You define selfishness.


Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not admire or
like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their lives...at
least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing.


It's ugly. And so are you :-/


And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure
individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly imposing
your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are now
to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones.

--
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

  #115   Report Post  
KMAN
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future
starting
with infancy.

No, I hold the parents accountable.


But the child suffers.


Then perhaps the state should take custody of the child, award custody to
someone better able to raise the child, and garnish the parent's wages to
pay for the child's care...after eliminating any welfare payments to the
parents to stimulate them to get a job.


Wow, for a guy who seems so freaked out about freedom, you are a bit of a
control freak when it comes to other people!

Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity.

You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.


No, I don't, actually.

There is no equality of opportunity for a child born into a poor family who
cannot access education or health care.


Wrong.


You are hopeless if you really believe that.

In this country, opportunities are abundant. There are millions uponn
millions of success stories of poor people who have persevered and
succeeded. That's WHY a million people a month illegally enter this country.

In the Sudan, there are no opportunities for education or health care, but
in North America there are opportunities everywhere. All a parent has to do
is go and seek it out and resolve to be successful.


A child who grows up in poverty does not have equality of opportunity with a
child from a wealthy family. If you think otherwise, you are insane.

Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

America is indeed the "Land of
Opportunity,"
but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an
equal
opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to
strive
to excel and advance.

As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to
squash everyone flat."


You can't have an equal opportunity to anything if you are hungry,
uneducated, and without access to health care.


Sure you can. Go to a shelter, get a meal, go find a Catholic hospital and
seek medical care and go find a job to pay for your education.


That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying? FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner. You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.


How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.


I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public
education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public
education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else.


If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for the
very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or merely
require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs
sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged explicitly
to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry.

The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and grab
one.


I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship
captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his
teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that.


LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.


In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.


His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.


You didn't really answer the question.

FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Pity we can't say the same about you.


Who'd want to govern a country with so many selfish prigs like you?



  #116   Report Post  
KMAN
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/23/05 12:23 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:41 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to enable
their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live
without
concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all your
goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing
sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone else
to
join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each individual
gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not the
government's duty or authority to compel it.

I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be afforded
everyone. This includes education and health care.

Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human rights?

I say no.


I know. Becuase you are a selfish prig.


No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my assertion.


No, your just a selfish prig who for some reason feels the need to try and
justiry your selfishness through goofy arguments. Do you actually experience
guilt, or what is it that drives you to such foolishness?

In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to
respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the
right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to
obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which
others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is
anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights.

What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The
difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not
"provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of
the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No
affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those
rights.


ROFLMAO

So owning a gun is a fundamental human right, but a child getting medical
care is not?


Yup. Well...the right to keep and bear arms, including guns, is.


LOL. That's so pathetic. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.


And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational
rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does.


You're right, I can't think of a "rational rebuttal" to someone who thinks
having guns is a fundamental right but an infant who is dying should fend
for themselves.

Education and health care, however, require the active participation of
others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden
or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of
that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be
compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are
"violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another
in the exercise of a right by an individual.

There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the
rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free
association...and disassociation.

Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not
to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it?

Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student
because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right
to not associate with neo-nazis?

Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks
because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I
think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to
provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights.

The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that
someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against
their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a
serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those
"rights."

Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan,
anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the
rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise.


Er. No.

It means as a society agreeing that education and health care should be
available to all. If not infringing upon the religified is something
important to a certain society, but they still believe that health care is a
basic human right, then they will negotiate the situation.


Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty to
affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a
right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different
thing.


Any society can declare whatever rights they want to declare.

This can be as bizarre as the "right to bear arms" and can certainly extend
to fundamental needs like health care and education.

In Canada most people think of health care as a basic human right. But a
doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions doesn't get forced into the
job.


What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient? Does
he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition of
"rights" says yes.


Sounds good to me. What kind of a dickhead doctor would let someone die
because they are poor?

This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy!


Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the
subtleties of my argument.


It's not subtle at all.

Any society will have "affirmative burdens" all over the place.


Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens
characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they instead
merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract under
which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying those
obligations, such as democratic voting?

I say the latter.

You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong.


Your thesis, in English, is nothing more than "Scotty wants certain things
to be rights and other things not to be rights." That's all there is to it.
You like guns, so you want the right to carry one. You don't give a damn
about children in poverty, so you don't want them to have the right to
education or health care.

That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the
Constitution


As you are aware, I don't give a fig about that.


Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.


I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And
imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal
system.

No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of
your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else.


Whatever you want to call it, I believe in a society where a child can get
help when they are sick and can go to school no matter what the financial
status of the family they are born into.


Then provide the funding for such a society and be called a hero.


I do provide the funding, as do the rest of my fellow citizens. But it has
nothing to do with being a hero.

I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that comes
with it.


Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden
on others without their consent.


In some societies it is simply something people want.

You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and healthcare
- as a burden.

Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and
effective
means of showing concern for others.

Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force
of law is morally repugnant.

Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor
job
of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society
that sees education and health care as necessities of life.

Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings
to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you
happen to think they ought to pay for?


Selfish prigs are a part of every society, and you can't worry much about
their feelings, or you'll soon have a society of paranoid freaks walking
around with concealed weapons ready to shoot at their own shadow.


Classic socialist swill: "Shut up and do what we tell you..."


No, grow up, and stop being a selfish prig, an infant born into poverty
should not be denied access to health care.

Talk about repugant. You define selfishness.

Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not admire or
like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their lives...at
least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing.


It's ugly. And so are you :-/


And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure
individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly imposing
your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are now
to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones.


ROFL.

I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a chance
to learn how to read.

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.






  #117   Report Post  
bearsbuddy
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating,
really.
It's like witnessing societal devolution.


Ok, now I understand! It's all in the name of science.

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown, as
there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark


  #118   Report Post  
KMAN
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating,
really.
It's like witnessing societal devolution.


Ok, now I understand! It's all in the name of science.


And typos.

I meant to say:

Scotty is NOT a moron. He IS clinically selfish. Sort of fascinating,
really. It's like witnessing societal devolution.

I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across
him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown,
as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others.

Mark


What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person
(e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and
therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other nasty
commie stuff.


  #119   Report Post  
BCITORGB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott thinks:
===============
The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of
money
from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all
persons in
the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an
uncontrolled
fire.

On the other hand, the link between one's private health care issues
and
some sort of overall public harm is extremely tenuous at best, and
doesn't
justify the forcible extraction of money from everyone in order to
provide
health care for some. The risks are not equal
=================


United States spends about $35 billion per year to provide uninsured
residents with medical care, often for preventable diseases or diseases
that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis
(Bloombert/Hartford Courant, 18 June 2003: "Hidden Costs, Value Lost:
Uninsurance in America"

"Earlier diagnosis"! What a unique concept. No! Wait! I believe it's
one of those socialist (and Canadian) concepts.

Even if we accept your lack of "overall harm" thesis (which I don't --
see Wolfgang's response to you), perhaps you'll be moved by the extent
to which this affects your pocketbook....

frtzw906

  #120   Report Post  
KMAN
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott thinks:
===============
The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of
money
from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all
persons in
the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an
uncontrolled
fire.


Nonsense Scott!

I have my own firefighting equipment and can protect my own property and I'd
never be responsible for starting an uncontrolled fire! Why should I have to
pay because people like you are careless and can't take care of their own
property!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT Bush propaganda against Kerry basskisser General 125 October 4th 04 09:22 PM
Bush fiddles while health care burns Harry Krause General 71 September 17th 04 10:21 PM
OT- Ode to Immigration Harry Krause General 83 July 27th 04 06:37 PM
OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! NOYB General 25 March 15th 04 08:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017