Re: OT: Physicians for a National Health Program

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nathan W. Collier" <no@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:R7CdnUTQmdw2if3anZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ok fine.  say i make $80,000 a year but cannot afford to pay for
> health care because i have more house than i can afford, more car
> than i can afford, more boat than i can afford, etc.  is it then
> the burden of the state to fund my health care?  you liberal
> democrats want to make health care an _entitlement_ instead of
> holding people responsible for their fiscal stupidity.

I can't tell whether the hypothetical situation is due to stupidity,
bad planning or just bad luck.  However, there are many American
families (most, actually) who do not make even close to $80K a year.
Some have extraordinary medical costs due to sudden accidents or
illnesses.  IMO it is in the best interests of society as a whole,
not to mention it is also the right thing, to do help these American
families.  It amazes me that no one complains about spending
$275,000,000 per day on Bush War II without any justification and
with no chance of ever winning, yet the hard right fight bitterly to
keep from spending one tenth as much to help Americans.

>> You claim that but show me proof.  Hint: "Rush said it" is not
>> proof.
>
> youve already acknowledged their assets and tried to dismiss it
> through equity.  the public documents exist that show the family
> assets.  this much has clearly been proven.

Wrong.  I'm not dismissing anything "through equity".  I merely
stated that assets are not a clear indication of a family's ability
to pay for a sick child's medical costs.  Equity is what you have
after you subtract debts from assets.  Without knowing that, stating
that they have a home valued at $nn is meaningless.

>> Nope.  They attacked a sick child.
>
> NO.  they attacked the democrats for claiming this unfortunate sick
> kid couldnt afford health insurance while his parents owned a HALF
> MILLION DOLLARS worth of assets.

I heard some of the things that people like Rush were saying and they
most certainly did attack the child and his family.  Meanwhile you
are continuing to pretend you know what the family's assets are.

>>> GWB liberated an entire country...
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"

Translation.  The Shrub has destroyed a miserable country, turning
oit into an even worse hel hole than it was.  In point of fact, there
never was any intention of liberating anyone.  Bush wanted to get
Saddam for several reasons.  On the surface it might appear that he
was miffed because Saddam tried to have Bush I killed.  The reality
is that Dubya hates and envies his father -- always has.  He even
challenged Bush I to a fistfight once while the old man was
president.  What he really wanted to do was show up his dad by taking
Saddam out -- something Bush I regrettably failed to do when there
was justification.

Once it was shown that excuse #1 (WMD's) did not exist, the Shrub
started this crap about us being there to set the people free,
building a Western-style democracy.  That was pure BS and everyone
but you knows it.  After a while it became apparent that the Iraqis
are not interested in democracy.  Had Bush actually read any history
books instead of spending his highschool and college years high on
cocaine and alcohol, he would have known that.

So now we're there fighting a "war on terror".  That sounds like a
nice catch phrase except that it's a ludicrous idea to begin with.
Terror is a tactic -- not an army.  You don't make war against a
tactic.  You have to find the enemy and either make peace with him,
kill him or subdue him.  With Bush's belligerant, gun-ship diplomacy
making peace is out of the question.  The Iraq war has actually
strengthened our enemies (even our own national security assessment
says that) so subduing them isn't an option.  For every actual
combatant our forces kill we manage to wound or kill several
non-combatants, turing their entire families into active enemies.
Thus, since killing them all is not an option, there is no way to win
BWII.

> ....GWB liberated iraq, there is no way you can argue that.

The US military obliterated Iraq.  That's different from liberation.

>> Now they are being grabbed and raped by Americans.  Such an
>> improvement.
>
> substantiate this or retract it...

Read the newspapers.  Watch TV news (hint: Fox is *not* news).

> any americans who rape iraqi citizens are held accountable for
> it...

Those who've been caught recently have been held accountable.

> heusseins boys drove around at will pulling pre-teen virgin girls
> from their homes, from their parents and raped them at will and
> there was nothing that anybody could do about it.

No one is saying that Saddam was good or that life under his regime
wasn't horrible.  But make no mistake about it -- every time news
media polls Iraqi citizens they say that things are far worse under
Dubya.

>>> GWB did the right thing in invading iraq and the world is better
>>> off for it...
>>
>> I wondered if there was anyone left in the world who still
>> believed that Bush-shit.  Thanks for clarifying.
>
> it has nothing to do with bush.  this is a simple matter of right
> and wrong.

It has everything to do with Bush.  The right and wrong part is
simple -- we had no right to invade a non-agressor nation, regardless
how we feel about their politics.  Knowing that, Bush and Cheney lied
to Congress (felonies), lied to the American people (typical of all
politicians) and went in against all international treaties (war
crimes?).

>>> i do have to ask sir, have you _ever_ been in the military?
>>
>> Have you?
>
> http://utilityoffroad.com/images/nathan/gi.jpg enlisted at 17 years
> old and a whole 125 pounds.  95B, military police.  you?

Nope.  I wasn't elligible -- minor medical issue.

>> Do you understand the difference between small arms, grenade
>> launchers, etc., and weapons of mass destruction?
>
> who is talking about small arms??

You are if you're speaking of the weapons caches we found.  Not one
single WMD was ever found -- none, zilch.

> you never heard of heussein gassing his own people with biological
> weapons?

Yep.  That was years before and there was no evidence of continuing
production.  We've been all over the place for years and our people
found nothing, zip, nada.

> if you really havent ill dig up some links, it _clearly_ shows he
> has them.
>
> ...er, HAD them.

He had them many years ago, yep.

>>> which means the potential exists for them to eventually surface
>>> here...

No, it doesn't.

>> So now Syria is shipping WMDs here?
>
> NOT what i said sir...

You said you think he sent his non-existent WMD's to Syria and then
you said they can surface here.  If the fictitious weapons are in
Syria when will they surface here?  Before or after someone actually
builds them?

> please do not twist my statements...

This is ASA.

> to suit your argument.  i _clearly_ stated (as shown above), the
> POTENTIAL EXISTS.

That doesn't clearly prove anything.  It's just your unsubstantiated
opinion.  Russia had the POTENTIAL of sending *real* WMD's here.  For
some reason we thought it not a good idea to attack them.  Maybe it
was because they actually had weapons -- not "potential" ones.

> it most likely wouldnt come directly from syria, but they could
> potentially sell them off to those wishing to harm us directly.

Syria has been sending weapons to Hamas for years.  If they had a
bunch from Saddam's garage sale they would have been used against
Israel long ago.  Fact is they don't exist.

>> You really think Bush is a good guy?  He's killed far more
>> Americans than Saddam.
>
> americans have died while fighting evil...

In this case the evil participant is the coward, GW Bush -- the one
who started this stupid war.  Pardon me for using Bush and stupid in
the same sentence (it's redundant).

>> Clinton had him surrounded in the mountains of Afghanistan and
>> then decided to pull his troops to go attack Saddam?
>
> you keep throwing this out as if it were fact.  show me supporting
> evidence (NOT from moveon.org) that substantiates we EVER had him
> surrounded and let him go....

Even the Bush administration claimed they had him penned in.

> not blind liberal speculation, show me fact.  fact is, syria
> offered bin laden to clinton.  they had him in custody and offered
> him to clinton who declined.

You're right about that.  But then, after 9/11, when our soldiers had
him trapped in the Afghan mountains, Bush ordered them out so Bin
Laden could get away.

>> Bullshit!  They're mercenaries.
>
> they are _not_ mercs.  do you know the definition of a merc sir?
> they do _not_ engage the enemy.  they _respond_ to attack.  they
> are security contractors.

Bullshit!  They're a bunch of murdering scum.

>> All kidding aside, I have nothing against private gun ownership.
>> I only want folks who own guns to keep them secured when not in
>> their direct possession or that of a trained, competent user.
>> Beyond that, if you want to store a munitions dump in your barn I
>> could care less. That's your right.
>
> fair enough.  how do you feel about the individual right to carry
> responsibly?

No problem, as long as you're responsible and sane -- not some
nutcase.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>