Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The costs are high. So what do we do about it?

Dave


You won't like my answer.

1) Face the fact that the uninsured are currently being treated at the
expense
of the rest of society in the US, at very expensive hospital emergency
rooms.

2) Reinvigorate the Public Health services gutted by the present and
previous D
and R adminsitrations kow-towing to the medical lobbies

-or-

3) Formalize the de-facto public funding of health care services and
institute
strict cost controls.

#3 could work, but people who think Karl Marx is the guy with the moustache,
the cigar and the three goofy brothers will say "socialism".

The problem with this, or any other "socialist" solutions, is that when
you place tight cost controls, you remove the incentive for many people
to choose the health services as a career. If healthcare workers become
the same as teachers, what will happen to the quality of our care?

Dave

and is anybody taking notice of north korea's actions weighted against what
is being said about iraq?


North Korea will get its turn, at least according to the New American Century
game plan.

Bush needed to do Iraq first. There's an election coming up, and all his Texas
big oil funders had to have some reason to open their checkbooks. Remember what
happened to the price of gas the last time GWB ran for office?

NOYB equivocated:

Remember, the key statement in Bush's speech was "the British Government has
learned...". Since MI6 *still* stands by their original intelligence, then
Bush's statement is 100% accurate.

Depends on your definition of "is". Really.

Do you see some sort of major moral difference between simply making a false
statement and repeating a statement (known to you and your advisors to be
false) made by somebody else to achieve the same effect?

You can weasel around and say, "But Bush himself was not informed! He's too
stupid to follow intelligence briefings from the CIA! His staff and cabinet
were able to hide the facts from him!" Fine. If so, should such a man be
POTUS? And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Where the moral high ground now? You Bush fans ought to be ashamed to defend
this bald faced manipulation.

It means he is sticking by his original statement that Iraq was trying to
buy uranium from Niger "according to British Government intelligence data".

"Trying to buy" (and being told "no') doesn't make a country an imminent
nuclear threat.

(sound of phone ringing)

1: "Hello, President of Nigeria? This is Saddam Hussein. Long time no see. Did
you get that container full of hand woven rugs I sent you for your palace?"

2: "Saddam! How have you been? That golf swing of yours still as bad as ever?
Yeah, I got the carpets, but you need to knock that sort of stuff off. People
might talk."

1:"Well, the main reason I called was to see if you've got any excess uranium
lying around that I could buy sort of under the table."

2: "Oh, hell, Saddam. You know we can't sell you uranium. It's been illegal
since 1991. Let's talk about something else.
Isn't it your birthday soon? I'll have my presidential bakery put together
something nice for you, to show you how much I appreciate the bribe, er I mean
"gift" of carpeting. Do you like chocolate?"

1: "Well, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer a yellow cake."

.........................

(Next day we'd have the WH announcing absolute proof that yellow cake had been
shipped from Niger to Iraq.) :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB equivocated:

Remember, the key statement in Bush's speech was "the British Government
has
learned...". Since MI6 *still* stands by their original intelligence,
then
Bush's statement is 100% accurate.

Depends on your definition of "is". Really.

Do you see some sort of major moral difference between simply making a
false
statement and repeating a statement (known to you and your advisors to be
false) made by somebody else to achieve the same effect?

You can weasel around and say, "But Bush himself was not informed! He's
too
stupid to follow intelligence briefings from the CIA!

Bush *was* informed. Tenet already said it was his fault the line wasn't
pulled from the speech. The CIA reviewed the speech beforehand and didn't
have him pull it.


His staff and cabinet
were able to hide the facts from him!" Fine. If so, should such a man be
POTUS? And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions
of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is
ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Where the moral high ground now? You Bush fans ought to be ashamed to
defend
this bald faced manipulation.

Hogwash.

FACT: MI6 said Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

FACT: Tenet and the CIA couldn't confirm nor deny that report.

FACT: Bush stated "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

FACT: Even today, MI6 says their original assessment was accurate.

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

You'll never know. You'd have to open your mind as well as your eyes to see it.
:-)

Gould 0738 wrote:

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

You'll never know. You'd have to open your mind as well as your eyes to see it.
:-)


Make that your immagination. Because that's all you have to speculate
with right now.

Dave

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:51:01 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"ralph" wrote in message
...
but don't forget, clinton lied about a blowjob. therefore it
was all his
fault. that's why bush got elected by such a landslide over
gore.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the Bush Administration
and it's policies. Why bring Clinton into it? Or Gore?

Can't you deal with current events?

You go girl!!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Make that your immagination. Because that's all you have to speculate
with right now.

Dave

Dave, Dave, Dave. Is there any hope for you at all?

Read the friggin speech. Just run a search engine for State fo the Union
Speech. In the last 40% of the speech he associates
SH with nuclear weapons at least a half dozen times. Don't take my word for it,
go look at the actual words of the POTUS. Read what he said, not what Rush
Limbaugh now tells you he said.

The implications are repeated, and deliberate. You think a reference to a
"mushroom cloud" isn't manipulative?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

You'll never know. You'd have to open your mind as well as your eyes to
see it.
:-)

Open minded, eh? That's the problem with liberals...they're so open-minded
that very often their brains fall out.

*Pretend* I'm open-minded...then answer my question:
"Where's the lie?"