| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Were trailers full of hot air?
William Graham wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: Gregory Shearman wrote in message ... Saddam made a habit of billiting his troops in hospitals and schools and orphanages, so who do you think is responsible for the death of innocents during the two gulf wars? Where did you get your information about where saddam "billets" his troops? It was on the news daily during the first gulf war. Also, Our, "smart bombs" could be directed to take out individual buildings.....When not tipped with explosive warheads, we could just destroy one house out of a string, without any damage to the other houses on the block. We did not direct our bombs to harm innocent civilians....I know this, because I know troops who were there. If we had to destroy any schools and/or hospitals, it was because Saddam had troops or ammunition stored there. Who are you, the summer replacement for Simple Simon? And obviously, you took first place in the Harvard debating team competetion....... Hey...I'm smart enough to know dumbfoch, mindless right-wing trash when I see it, and you be it. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... I *do* believe that SH had more than ample warning about an impending US attack, and it certainly wasn't coming from Bush's left wing detractors. Again, you're probably right, but you have to also consider that all the time we wasted, waltzing with the U.N., and Hans Blix, and the rest of the floor show, gave Saddam even more time to move his "stuff". Right. We waltzed. Keep in mind that our own secretary of state recommended waltzing for a couple of months. He could not have done this without your president's permission. If you will recall, it was at that point when Colin Powell, seemed to be at odds with the rest of the administration. Most of the others were in favor of war at that point. Powell, had been the lone holdout for additional diplomatic efforts. While he may have earned a few brownie points, it will be a matter of history, whether his delay may have cost us, in credibility, with those who must find that elusive "smoking gun". Dave So, was Colin Powell thinking for himself (which is why I'd vote for him if I could), or was he influenced by the horrible liberals that everyone keeps whining about here? Be sure to document your response, since I assume you don't have Mr. Powell over to the house for dinner very often. You've got me all wrong on that one. I admire Powell, and would love to see him run for president. But the events, as I stated them, are pretty much true. I don't know if Powell walked a little bowlegged afterward or not, but he seems to be back in the fold. Dave |
Were trailers full of hot air?
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted to grease the wheels a little too. Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there, there is *no* urgency. *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. Dave |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... thunder wrote: On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted to grease the wheels a little too. Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there, there is *no* urgency. *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. Dave Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those countries dangle in the wind. Stability of the Middle East: Get real. You do not believe for a moment that we contribute to stability. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST stability. You should stop by this link regularly, and read: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Default.asp Havens: Show me. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:08:52 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:
*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. The brutality of Saddam was a given. No one will miss him. Mid-east stability is still a wait and see. As an aside, the mid-east might of already been a stable place, if we had kept our CIA's hands out of it. You are aware that one of the CIA's many mid-east coups was indirectly responsible for Saddam in the first place. Do a search on CIA Kassim Saddam. You might find it interesting. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted to grease the wheels a little too. Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there, there is *no* urgency. *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. Dave Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those countries dangle in the wind. We're sending troops to Africa right now. You can only fight so many battles without risking the dangerous thinning of your military power. Stability of the Middle East: Get real. You do not believe for a moment that we contribute to stability. That depends. Initially, we are just another disruption. But in the long term, if we are successful at creating a democracy in the middle of all those fundamentalist regimes, we can build a foundation to drive other country's to following that model. Once people get a taste of true freedom, how can they be expected to live under the harsh rule of a totalitarian fundamentalist government? And thus the seeds are planted. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST stability. They're entitled to their opinions, as we are to ours. But they're no more credible. The point is that we at least DID something, to make a change. Sitting around doing nothing, only allows the cancer to grow..... You should stop by this link regularly, and read: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Default.asp Havens: Show me. Do you not read the news? They uncovered a "major" terrorist training camp in the northern section of Iraq, sometime during the middle of the "war". Dave |
Were trailers full of hot air?
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:08:52 +0000, Dave Hall wrote: *ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the elimination of havens for terrorists. The brutality of Saddam was a given. No one will miss him. Mid-east stability is still a wait and see. As an aside, the mid-east might of already been a stable place, if we had kept our CIA's hands out of it. You are aware that one of the CIA's many mid-east coups was indirectly responsible for Saddam in the first place. You are correct. This country does have a very poor record, for interfering in the affairs of other nations, if we feel it's to our best interest. In the case of Iraq and Saddam, they were our friends, because we shared a common enemy, Iran, at the time. Where we go wrong, is that we fail to consider the constantly changing political atmosphere in this region of the world. What might be today's friend, could turn out to be tomorrow's enemy. This practice transcends partisan politics. We tend to judge by our own set of morals and principles, which may be different then that of the people in those other countries. We have a weakness for wanting other countries to be more like us, as we have more rights and freedoms as most other nations. Then we face a catch 22 situation. If we keep our heads out of world politics, we get accused of being "isolationists". If we do become involved, we get accused of trying to police the world. It seems that no matter what we do, we can't seem to please everyone.... Dave |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those countries dangle in the wind. We're sending troops to Africa right now. You can only fight so many battles without risking the dangerous thinning of your military power. We are??? That's interesting. Today's news says: PRETORIA, South Africa (CNN) -- President Bush will decide in the next few days whether to send U.S. troops to Liberia to enforce a cease-fire, according to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST stability. They're entitled to their opinions, as we are to ours. But they're no more credible. Right. What do they know? They're just Arabs who happen to live in the region. Imagine what your response would be if some Arab editor in a Cairo newspaper wrote a column about crime in Philadelphia, never having visited the city. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access to health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people. Fact is, the majority of poor people work at low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often less. These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying $1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense. Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!" Great idea. What if all of "them" get better jobs? Do you suppose NOYB would mind checking into a hotel with his own toilet cleaning tools? |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access to health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people. Fact is, the majority of poor people work at low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often less. These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying $1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense. Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!" Actually, I blame the insurance companies for making the insurance unaffordable. Of course, thanks to the McCarron-Ferguson Act, they operate under different rules than the rest of us...making them exempt from many anti-trust laws. The Bush Administration is tackling this issue from the right direction. First, he's squeezing the trial lawyer's profits by pushing punitive damage caps. Secondly, he's squeezing the insurance companies by pushing Association Health Plans (AHP's), that allow organized "groups" to purchase competitive group plans ACROSS STATE LINES. (No longer will the insurance companies be able to "cherry pick" the most lucrative states to operate in). Finally, he's lowering the cost of administering the health care. How? By insuring more people are insured, hospitals and doctors won't be writing off the non-insured patient expenses against the patients that actually pay their bill. I'd love to see Congress repeal the McCarron-Ferguson Act. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Great idea. What if all of "them" get better jobs? Do you suppose NOYB would mind checking into a hotel with his own toilet cleaning tools? You have any idea how long it takes to clean a whole toilet with a cotton swab on the end of a stick? Ahhhhh...so you've pledged a fraternity, eh? |
Were trailers full of hot air?
You have any idea how long it takes to clean a whole toilet with a cotton
swab on the end of a stick? Ahhhhh...so you've pledged a fraternity, eh? Naw, but I've been to the dentist. The swab on the stick isn't as bad is scraping the dried on "plague" off the bowl with stainless pick. :-) |
Were trailers full of hot air?
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:50:21 -0700, ralph
wrote: z wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message om... and the poor ignorant wogs are too ignorant to figure this out by themselves, so we must protect them from voting them back in by accident. With logic like yours, the Nazi party would not have been outlawed in Germany after WWII. Instead, the Nazis were brought to the US to help set up the CIA and other government programs. BTW, many of the officials we have installed in Iraq are former Ba'athists. Absolute horsepoop. The Bush administration made it clear that former members of the Baath party would hold no positions in the new government. Made it clear as horsepoop, and continue to clarify it today. Baath officials backed to rebuild Iraq BBC News Sunday, 13 April, 2003, 14:25 GMT 15:25 UK Baath Party members who were loyal to Saddam Hussein will take part in the reconstruction of Iraq, according to Geoff Hoon. "They had a system of administration that will deliver," the defence secretary told The Observer. And many were "perfectly decent people who have not participated in any atrocities". There has already been anger in the southern city of Basra after the man chosen by the British forces there to run the city was revealed to be a Baath Party member. Mr Hoon told the newspaper: "It is understandable people that have lived in dread and terror of this organisation should go and kick in a few doors." But he added: "We have to ensure it does not get out of hand." Iraq's Baath Party Is Abolished Franks Declares End of Hussein's Apparatus as Some Members Retake Posts (May 12, 2003) By Peter Slevin and Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, May 12, 2003; Page A10 BAGHDAD, May 11 -- Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, announced today that Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, which dominated the country for more than three decades through violence and intimidation, has been abolished, although U.S. authorities have allowed many prominent members to return to top government positions. The effect of Franks's declaration remained unclear, but it seemed largely symbolic, given the party's organizational implosion and the somewhat contradictory U.S. request that many former high-ranking government officials, most of whom were Baath members, report to their jobs as usual. U.S. authorities have made "de-Baathification" a goal of the occupation period, but have not laid out consistent rules for accomplishing it. U.S. vows to remove Baath officials in Iraq Thursday, May 15, 2003 Posted: 12:49 PM EDT (1649 GMT) • Any former Baath Party personnel will be "aggressively removed from office" in all parts of Iraq's postwar administration. BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Iraq's U.S. administrators will "aggressively move" to identify and remove former officials of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from office and are working to restore security in Baghdad, the civilian authority's new chief said Thursday. "Shortly, I will issue an order on measures to extirpate Baathists and Baathism from Iraq forever," L. Paul Bremer told reporters in Baghdad. "We have and will aggressively move to seek to identify these people and remove them from office." But Bremer, who assumed office Monday, said that such action would be difficult while U.S. officials are trying to restore services such as power, water and health care. "In some cases, we have found, people who have offered to work with us have turned out to be members of the Baath Party," he said. "Those people have been put out of office when we found that out." Officials: Ban on Baathists delays Iraqi government Monday, May 19, 2003 Posted: 1653 GMT (12:53 AM HKT) BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The decision to ban senior Baath Party members from holding jobs in a future Iraqi government will delay the handover of control to Iraqis, senior officials with the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance said. U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer has ordered a large-scale operation to ensure that Baath Party members are removed from critical positions in the public sector. This ban could affect as many as 30,000 senior Baath Party members. The delay was revealed Friday as Bremer and John Sawers, British envoy to Iraq, met with opposition leaders. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner initially had allowed some former Baath officials to hold positions, including interim health minister and Baghdad University president, but the decision resulted in protests among Iraqis. Bremer replaced Garner this week. ANALYSIS By Gen. Wayne Downing MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait, April 4 — In order to establish the new Iraq that President Bush speaks of, the grip established by Saddam's security apparatus must be broken. This task will be difficult and, to my knowledge, the coalition plan on how it will go about doing this is rudimentary at best. In fact, compared with their knowledge of the Iraqi military, the U.S. and British intelligence agencies know comparatively little about the the extent of this Baathist web and potentially acceptable Baath Party members. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, is to be the senior U.S. official in postwar Iraq. His office is not equipped to tackle the job of neutralizing the Baathist security web. The inability of the United States to get a consensus and a working coalition of in-country and expatriate Iraqis on what will happen after the war will bedevil Washington and U.S. military forces. Reports from Washington do not sound encouraging, with factions centered in the Pentagon, State Department and the CIA continuing to advocate their own contradictory solutions. Not only are they failing to cooperate with each other, these key agencies appear to be actively working against each other, promoting their favored candidates and undermining those they oppose. The failure to develop a coherent Baath vetting process (akin to the de-Nazification program that turned West Germany into a functioning democracy after World War II) could prove a major problem. "Regime change" was a major stated goal of this war, and many now suspect there is no plan beyond the immediate goal of toppling Saddam's regime, an eventuality that appears closer every day. What will replace it? Unfortunately, there exists no clear answer, even at this late date. How will U.S. administrators determine which Iraqi civil servants may continue to serve and which are too tainted to stay? This is key to the Pentagon's reconstruction and humanitarian assistance plan and the timely departure of U.S. forces. Gen. Wayne Downing, U.S. Army (ret.), is an NBC News military analyst and former head of U.S. Special Operations Command. kinda get the feeling they're winging it? "winging" would appear to be a kind word. Does anyone outside the gov't have any idea what plan or policy we are persuing? Does anyone *inside* the gov't have any idea? Sadly, it seems to be a mish-mash, and US soldiers are dying daily. Anybody got a plan? noah Courtesy of Lee Yeaton, See the boats of rec.boats www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats |
Were trailers full of hot air?
We know they're out there, but we don't agree with the Dems that government
issued health care is the answer for them. For too long, insurance companies have operated under different rules than most businesses. Go to any of the cities that headquarter several of the large insurance companies. The biggest, most lavish buildings are either banks or...you guessed it...insurance companies. Because of special protection they were granted under the McCarron-Ferguson Act, insurance companies aren't subject to the same Federal anti-trust regulations that all other companies operate under...rather, they are governed by state laws. Consequently, they pick and choose the states they want to operate in so as to maximize their profits. When one state passes laws that might squeeze their profits, they pull out...or skyrocket the premiums. One answer is Association Health Plans (AHP's) that allow a group to buy across state lines. Also, the Federal government ought to consider repealing, or reforming the McCarron-Ferguson Act, and taking some of the regulation back under Federal control. This is the one exception in which I feel control by the Federal government rather than state governments is the answer. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... ralph wrote: lazarus wrote: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 02:00:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Hooda Gest wrote: Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. Oh? Many? Is that an unsubstantiated "many?" Let's see...how many of those many are in the "I can pay for a health insurance premium...or...I can pay the rent..." Some choice. It's seldom a choice between rent and insurance. More like insurance and nintendo/new car/big screen tv/$150 Nikes. I have none of those, still can't afford insurance. Quite luckily, my wife has insurance. Tell me how someone working minimum wage is supposed to afford insurance? Especially if their company doesn't offer it? if you need it and your employer doesn't offer it you can't buy it. HMOs aren't crazy. I work with people almost every week who are marginally employed and who have neither health insurance nor access to reasonable health care, if they have access to any at all, especially dental health care and mental health care, for themselves and their children. Conservatives like to pretend such people don't exist, but they are out there, by the millions. My wife spends almost half her time treating people without means or insurance, more of her time trying to find specialists who will help the indigent and even more time trying to arrange "hardship" meds for patients who simply have no ability to pay for medications and who have fallen through the rapidly disappearing holes in what used to be a safety net. There are millions and millions of residents of this country without insurance or access to health care. They're out there...among all of us...despite the crap spewed by those Conservatives who don't give a damn about society or its ills. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"noah" wrote in message
... kinda get the feeling they're winging it? "winging" would appear to be a kind word. Does anyone outside the gov't have any idea what plan or policy we are persuing? Does anyone *inside* the gov't have any idea? Sadly, it seems to be a mish-mash, and US soldiers are dying daily. Anybody got a plan? noah Someone does, but unfortunately, he's only the secretary of state. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
Hooda Guest wrote:
You are incredibly ignorant. You know nothing about this country if you think that health care is being denied to anyone. Hooda's right. When you kid is running a 103-degree fever and no doctor will see you because you can't pay $150 cash for the call and don't have health insurance, you do what the parental instinct dictates and get some help for the kid where you can. That turns out to be the hospital emergency room most of the time, as the desperate know that most hospitals won't turn you away. Now the feverish kid costs $675 to examine and medicate, rather than $150. Who picks up the $675? It gets passed along to everybody with the means to pay for their own health care or with health insurance in the form of increased fees from the hospital for all "paying" patients. We're already paying for universal health care in the US. I think the only remaining question is whether we are doing so in the most efficient manner. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
Gould 0738 wrote:
Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access to health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people. Fact is, the majority of poor people work at low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often less. These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying $1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense. Even middle income jobs have tightened up on health insurance benefits. At my wife's bank, they pay the premiums for the employee only and the employee must pay the premiums for the family members. (Not entirely unfair, why should party "A" with six kids be compensated more highly than single person "B" for doing the same job? If the bank had to pay for everybody, people with lots of kids would be less employable and have trouble finding work). A great observation. And its not just corporate greed, it's the "global economy". So, why don't poor folks just park the "$150 sneakers" and turn off the "big screen TV"? and buy health insurance instead? The cost is prohibitive. My wife and I could make a choice at any time to retire. It wouldn't require much reorganizing of things to live a simpler, but acceptably comfortable lifestyle for just about forever. We don't seriously consider it for two reasons. 1) We both enjoy our work. 2) Health insurance. We have looked into private health insurance in our state. $1000 deductible plans for healthy adults in their early 50's run about $500 a month. *Each*. The cost goes up at age 55, and again at age 60, and can go up in any particular year when the health insurance companies decide their costs have increased too much or their profits haven't increased enough. You forgot to mention one of the greatest sources of increased premiums; Increased payouts due to increases in damages awarded by overzealous lawsuits, and a legal system which favors putting the screws to a large company to pay for claims that exceed normal allowances for "pain and suffering". We could probably handle a giesel a month, but who wants to be in a position of having to return to work 5 or six years from now because health insurance costs have gone from $1000 a month to $2800? So think of the poor mini-wage family. Poppa, Mama, three or four kids...... probably $1200 to $1500 a month locally (for health insurance that doesn't have such a ridiculously high deductible that for most poor people with minor illnesses it would be a moot point whether they had insurance or not). Pretty tough to write even a single person a take-home check for $200-300 a week and expect him to run out and buy a health insurance policy for $500 a month. So the observation is correct. The poor do have access to health insurance- but not health insurance *and* groceries, rent, transportation, clothing, etc. "Big screen TV's and $150 sneakers" aren't keeping the poor from health coverage, in spite of the derogatory sterotypes. The costs are high. So what do we do about it? Dave |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"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". |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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 |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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? |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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.) :-) |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"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? |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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. :-) |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... 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. Delegation of responsibility, according to Nookular Boy: The buck stops here, except when I want it to stop somewhere else. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
HOT AIR SHMAIR!
There's plenty of hot air, and little else, in come of the commitments being made to our men and women in the armed forces. Guess its time for the left to break out the "Support Our Troops" signs. Probably get a good deal on them, second hand, from some WH staffers who certainly don't need them anymore. According to the following item, there are a handful of specific GI's who will be spending the rest of their (probably short) military careers on latrine duty. They must really be upset to throw their careers away by talking so frankly with a reporter. That liberal news source, ABC, reports: FALLUJAH, Iraq (July 16) -- The sergeant at the 2nd Battle Combat Team Headquarters pulled me aside in the corridor. "I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," he told me. He was referring to the deck of cards the U.S. government published, featuring Saddam Hussein, his sons and other wanted members of the former Iraqi regime. "The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz," he said. He was referring to the four men who are running U.S. policy here in Iraq -- the four men who are ultimately responsible for the fate of U.S. troops here. Those four are not popular at 2nd BCT these days. It is home to 4,000 troops from the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division. The soldiers were deployed to Kuwait last September. They were among the first troops in Baghdad during the war. And now they've been in the region longer than other troops: 10 months and counting. They were told they'd be going home in May. Then in early July. Then late July. Then last week they heard that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had mentioned them on Capitol Hill. "The 2nd Brigade is — the plan is that they would return in August, having been there something like 10 months," said Rumsfeld. He added: "The services and the Joint Staff have been working with Central Command to develop a rotation plan so that we can, in fact, see that we treat these terrific young men and young women in a way that's respectful of their lives and their circumstances." Solid words from a solid source. Soldiers called their families. Commanding officers began preparations. ‘I Don’t Care Anymore’ Now comes word from the Pentagon: Not so fast. The U.S. military command in Iraq said Tuesday it plans to complete the withdrawal of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division by September, but officials said they could make no hard promises because of the unsettled state of security in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. "If Donald Rumsfeld were sitting here in front of us, what would you say to him?" I asked a group of soldiers who gathered around a table, eager to talk to a visiting reporter. "If he was here," said Pfc. Jason Punyahotra, "I would ask him why we're still here, why we've been told so many times and it's changed." In the back of the group, Spc. Clinton Deitz put up his hand. "If Donald Rumsfeld was here," he said, "I'd ask him for his resignation." Those are strong words from troops used to following orders. They say they will continue to do their job, but they no longer seem to have their hearts in the mission. "I used to want to help these people," said Pfc. Eric Rattler, "but now I don't really care about them anymore. I've seen so much, you know, little kids throwing rocks at you. Once you pacify an area, it seems like the area you just came from turns bad again. I'd like this country to be all right, but I don't care anymore." Wondering Why What they care about is their families. Sgt. Terry Gilmore had to call his wife, Stacey, this week to her that he wouldn't be home in a few weeks to see her and their two little children. "When I told her, she started crying," Gilmore said, his eyes moistening. "I mean, I almost started crying. I felt like my heart was broken. We couldn't figure out why they do it. Why they can keep us over here right after they told us we were coming home." Sgt. Felipe Vega, who oversees the platoon, sat alone in the platoon quarters, writing a letter. A photo of his wife, Rhonda, was taped to the wall above him. It is Vega's job to maintain morale. That's not easy, he told me, when the Army keeps changing the orders. "They turn around and slap you in the face," he said. When asked if that's the way it feels, he said, "Yeah, kicked in the guts, slapped in the face." Losing Faith The 2nd Brigade originally came to Kuwait for six months of exercises. Then they stayed to fight the war. Like the others, Vega thought that would be the end of it. "What was told to us in Kuwait," he said, "was the fastest way to go home was through Baghdad. And that's what we did." But more than three months later they are still here. "Well it pretty much makes me lose faith in the Army," said Pfc. Jayson Punyhotra, one of the soldiers grouped around the table. "I mean, I don't really believe anything they tell me. If they told me we were leaving next week, I wouldn't believe them." Fighting words from men who are eager to put down their weapons. Â* Copyright 2003 ABC News.Â* All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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 |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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 |
Were trailers full of hot air?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh? So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense! Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by a dirty bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster zone. I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb would create. Do you have an answer for that or just more rhetoric? You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric. When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... If a doctor needs to make $1.5mm a year, fine. But that doctor should earn that kind of money because he or she is specially worth it, rather than simply because "Oh, well, that person's a doctor and that's the going market". I'd rather a doctor get paid 1.5 mill, than some sports "star". Dave At no point in a person's life does he/she NEED to consult with a sports star. Their incomes are whatever someone's silly enough to pay them. Not the same as a doctor. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
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? |
Were trailers full of hot air?
Given the choice, where do you think the brightest and best qualified
medical personell would choose to work? What questions would that raise about the disparity in healthcare between the two? How long until the left starts screaming about the unequal healthcare access for the There is no doubt that somebody would try to make an issue of of the fact that a Public Health Hospital (once common in this country) didn't deliver the same level of customized, boutique medical attention available at "Sky's the Limit Clinic." Probably as good an excuse as any for the hard hearted factions on the right to justify doing *nothing*, (except allowing the private insurance companies they all hold stock in to remain obscenely profitable and charge predatory rates). I'd rather a doctor get paid 1.5 mill, than some sports "star". Dave I'd rather attract some people to the profession who were interested in the practice of medicine for reasons not associated with being in the top .01% of American wage earners. In most communities, you can live in a very fine home, vacation a few times a year, own a boat, a couple of cars, and put away plenty for an early and comfortable retirement on no more than $300-400 thousand a year. Why a guy thinks he needs five times that amount is beyond me.NOT THAT HE SHOULDN"T BE FREE TO EARN IT IF HE CAN- but it shouldn't be considered normal compensation for a 9-5 flu and sniffles pediatrician. |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"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?" |
Were trailers full of hot air?
No, it's not "manipulative". According to ours and the Brits' intelligence
services, Hussein has been trying to get his hands on nukes for years. MI6 has said that he tried to acquire uranium from Niger. CIA couldn't confirm nor deny that specific report. However, the CIA's position was also that he was actively trying to maintain and enlarge his stock of WMD's...including nukes. Unfortunately, when dealing with nukes, you can't wait for the mushroom cloud as "proof" that the guy was up to no good. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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? |
Were trailers full of hot air?
Israel knew how to handle these things, with a wink and a nod. Remember?
"NOYB" wrote in message rthlink.net... No, it's not "manipulative". According to ours and the Brits' intelligence services, Hussein has been trying to get his hands on nukes for years. MI6 has said that he tried to acquire uranium from Niger. CIA couldn't confirm nor deny that specific report. However, the CIA's position was also that he was actively trying to maintain and enlarge his stock of WMD's...including nukes. Unfortunately, when dealing with nukes, you can't wait for the mushroom cloud as "proof" that the guy was up to no good. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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? |
Were trailers full of hot air?
Gould 0738 wrote:
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? I'm not arguing that he said those things. I'm arguing the point where you automatically assume that they're false, without any evidence, other than a few sound bytes to go on. Dave |
Were trailers full of hot air?
"JohnH" wrote in message ... You go girl!! Thanks, but I didn't realize I was posting here. I noticed the crossposts to several groups a few minutes ago and just wanted to come in and apologize for intruding on rec.boats. If ya'll would like to continue the discussion, try news:misc.news.internet.discuss . Thanks and again, sorry for the intrusion. -- Regards of the NW, Kathy |
Were trailers full of hot air?
|
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Kathryn Simpson" wrote in message
... Thanks, but I didn't realize I was posting here. I noticed the crossposts to several groups a few minutes ago and just wanted to come in and apologize for intruding on rec.boats. If ya'll would like to continue the discussion, try news:misc.news.internet.discuss . Thanks and again, sorry for the intrusion. Hmm. Interesting timing. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com