A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost.

Hitler declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Berlin.

Hussein declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad.

Declaring victory is not the same thing as achieving it.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I find it credible

Given your track record for believing in bull****, that means
nothing.

And yet you cannot refute the author.


I've long since lost count of the number of times you are willing
to make a claim that you refuse to back up. Your credibility = 0.

What makes you think I care how you judge my credibility?


Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be
somewhat less accommodating to you.

Prove it - I've challenged you on this stuff many times and you still
remain incapable or to scared to even attempt it.

Nah, I've done so many time. You just don't like the answers, so you resort
to ad hominem insults because you've got nothing probative to say.


Nah. It's up to you to refute them.

I've never heard of such a law.

Your ignorance is legendary.

How do I prove something that
doesn't exist?

That you are ignorant does not prove the non-existence of the law.

Your claim - your burden of proof, coward.

Lame.


Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying.

Prove it.

Why would I bother?


So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital?

Yes, dickhead, I've already said that it does.

I don't think so. How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement
you have so we can all see if you're lying.


--
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 Michael Daly wrote:


On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You bull**** in a most ignorant, pedantic and
childish manner.

Prove it.

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

--
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 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do. That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.
Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:46 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:16 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?

Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your
needs"?

You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or
be branded a liar.

Brand away rick. Er, Scotty.

It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted
what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights.

Based on what evidence, precisely?

If only I had a warrant...

But seriously dear Scotty, it's just an impression.

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.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other
adults.

It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share.

You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be
ethically and legitimately imposed on others.

It's imposed on me and I find it totally ethical and legit.

Oddly enough, I've never met one Canadian who complains of unwillingly
contributing to universal health care.

The minuteness of your circle of friends is not determinative of the issue.

As it happens it is a rather broad circle.

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.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?

They'd have been better off not being shot.

Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes.

They'd have been better of not being hacked to death as well.

They
were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while
alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were
sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers
as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off
with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again.

Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda
would have even been possible?

Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to
admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing.

Only if you have a means of ensuring that the good people have 'em and the
bad ones don't.

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.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

Sure you can. Charity begins at home.

Charity cannot provide universal education and health care.

Why not?

Because it is a charity, not a universal program with the requisite funding
to operate one. When the charity doesn't get enough donations, what do you
think happens? Operations close. Services are eliminated.

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.

Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.

What ever made you think that?

Your preceding statement.

Stupid is as stupid does.

And you ARE stupid.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:47 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost.

Hitler declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Berlin.

Hussein declared victory as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad.

Declaring victory is not the same thing as achieving it.

I keep telling that to nuts who get mad when you tell them Bush stole the
election.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do.

I know.

That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.

That's what selfish prigs want to do. I have a perfect understanding of free
market ecomomics. The outcome of applying free market economics to education
and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid
system of haves and have-nots.

Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

Absolutely insane.

On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet you cannot refute the author

The existance of my policy is proof enough.

Of course, you believe anything you read as long as it fits your
narrow, biased view of the world. The rest of us don't believe
everything we read. But then you're a "journalist" so you
have to support other "journalist's" lies.

What makes you think I care how you judge my credibility?

If you cared at all what others think, you wouldn't lie so much.

Nah, I've done so many time.

More bull****. You just continue to make ridiculous claims and
never offer any real proof.

Your claim - your burden of proof, coward.

Lame.

You continue to evade and avoid confronting the truth.

How about you scan and post the policy coverage statement
you have so we can all see if you're lying.

You first - post a credible link to the law that you claim
exists that prevents us from buying the insurance that many
Canadians hold.

Mike

On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does
not, by law.

Which law? Provide proof.

The supplemental policies _do_ provide for hospitalization and
surgery. It is you who is too ignorant to accept the truth.

Mike

On 25-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Based on what evidence, precisely?

Why should you expect anyone to provide evidence when you consistently
refuse to provide any of your own?

Mike