Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice

"Peter" wrote in message
...

they is us.

--
Peter
weg9 says: I've heard that, but I have a hell of a time identifying with
all those lawyers in Washington DC.......I would be a lot quicker to say,
"they is us", if they were picked by random out of a hat containing all the
eligible people in the US.....As long as they are buying their places with
the money they got from being bribed by insurance companies, I don't I can
really say, "they is us".

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the
Obama health plan....there is a philosophical difference between people
paying for their own health care and letting the government (taxpayers)
pay for it. If you are paying your own way, then your lifestyle will
(and should) affect your premiums, and the insurance companies will
charge you more for endangering your life and health.But when the
government just insures everyone automatically, then there is no
individual responsibility, and people will drive, eat, drink, and live
generally like there's no tomorrow. Good health care is expensive, and
that's the way it ought to be. By costing you money, it insures that
you will fully realize the cost of not taking good care of yourself.
It's the same old argument....Socialism takes away individual
responsibility, and this also takes away your freedom to do what you
want to do, and pay your own way. I have to pay $1450 a month for three
people, and this is one of the reasons why I no longer ride a
motorcycle, and no longer smoke tobacco. I didn't need any laws to
convince me of this.....It was my own choice.

Your statement has nothing to do with the reality of insurance. At the
present time there is no firm "Obama health plan." However, the gut of
the Senate plan is that insurance companies will be prohibited from
denying coverage based upon pre=existing conditions. Don't confuse life
with health. e.g. There may be an exclusion from coverage for scuba or
stunt driving accidents on a life policy. On a health policy, they don't
do it,unless you get into the catastrophic coverage area.


Peter

weg9 says: And so what would prevent me from living like there's no
tomorrow for N years, and then, when I am getting old and sick, just
applying for the government's health plan where some poor insurance
company is forced to insure me, and then going into the hospital for some
serious late stage health care?


The same thing that keeps me from doing that. It's called a sense of
personal responsibility.
You could always rob a bank, get caught and let the government take care
of you for the rest of your life.

Let's take a different tack. Isn't something wrong when you could lose all
your money because you get sick, even though you have done everything
right? Your long term nursing care isn't covered by your vaunted
insurance. (Unless you have long term care insurance. In which case see
how quickly you will reach the limit.)

Peter

Yes.....To all that. That's why I say that rationing is necessary, and any
health plan will have to include it......It's not a perfect world, and we
will all die some day, and there is nothing either the government or private
insurance companies can do about it. All we can do is the best we can do,
and I claim that the capitalistic system holds the best chance of getting
that for us......It had done pretty well by me so far.....I was not born
rich. I worked and saved and purchased good health insurance my whole life,
and I am happy with where I am right now. When my socialistic government
wants me to pay for the indiscretions of others, it makes me sick.

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:37:12 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:



Tell me, are you in favor of repealing the marijuana laws?

Yes, they are just as ridiculous as you are.

Can we have you and all like you repealed while we're at it?

I also think that abortion should be legal until the 75th trimester. That's
18 years old in case you don't want to do the math. If that option was
available I doubt you would have made it this far to make everyone else's
lives so miserable for so long.

Someone, (probably Ray) says:

Or the classic "guns don't kill people ...".

I guess it will be all right when someone beats him to death with a baseball
bat......In my case, being that I am an overweight 74 year old, I will carry
a snubby 38 to protect myself, thanks.......:^).

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am in
favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone should
have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay for, with or
without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some doctor to have
control over you or your body? He should be paid for his advice, and not
for his power.

Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the powers we
give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split over whether
it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it is not my fault.

My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are forced
to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you would not
be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you anything if I
broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for anyone who is
carried in to them off the street is a liberal law.....It is not my doing.
Today, we have the ability to identify anyone in a few seconds by scanning
their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip implanted under their skin.
We don't have to take care of people who are here illegally, or who who
refuse to buy health insurance. If you want to take care of these
irresponsible people, then do so, but please don't charge me for it.

"We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to control
people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that? Would you like
to live in Iran, where the government controls everyone's morality? then
go there......I would like to control my own morality, thanks. If I want
to drink or smoke myself to death, than why would you care? And, be
careful.....Pretty soon the senate will get around to preventing you from
doing something that you would like to do, and stop it by taxing the hell
out of it....what will you do then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami
sandwiches or egg crèmes are bad for you. Anything that most of them don't
regularly do, as a matter of fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles
without their helmets, so it is easy for them to make a law against
it.......I don't see them making any laws forcing you to wear a helmet on
the golf course......You can get a broken head there, too. I wonder why
not? Is it because golf is an old geezers game, and a lot of them play
it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)

Your problem is that you would let a poor person die in the streets. Does
having compassion for others = morality, you bet it does. Does a failure to
have compassion for others = a lack of morality, same answer.

You never answered what would you do about the person who becomes sick,
through nobody's fault. I say we have a moral obligation to take care of
them. You claim no. If I understand what you are saying that is what we
disagree about. If that is not, please explain your position on the above.


--
Peter

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...


weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am in
favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone should
have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay for, with or
without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some doctor to have
control over you or your body? He should be paid for his advice, and not
for his power.


That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.



Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the powers we
give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split over whether
it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it is not my fault.

My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are forced
to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you would not
be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you anything if I
broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for anyone who is
carried in to them off the street is a liberal law.....It is not my doing.
Today, we have the ability to identify anyone in a few seconds by scanning
their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip implanted under their skin.
We don't have to take care of people who are here illegally, or who who
refuse to buy health insurance. If you want to take care of these
irresponsible people, then do so, but please don't charge me for it.

"We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to control
people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that? Would you like
to live in Iran, where the government controls everyone's morality? then
go there......I would like to control my own morality, thanks. If I want
to drink or smoke myself to death, than why would you care? And, be
careful.....Pretty soon the senate will get around to preventing you from
doing something that you would like to do, and stop it by taxing the hell
out of it....what will you do then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami
sandwiches or egg crèmes are bad for you. Anything that most of them don't
regularly do, as a matter of fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles
without their helmets, so it is easy for them to make a law against
it.......I don't see them making any laws forcing you to wear a helmet on
the golf course......You can get a broken head there, too. I wonder why
not? Is it because golf is an old geezers game, and a lot of them play
it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)


You obviously know nothing about golf,

Tiger the Geezer.

--
Peter

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010010118375427544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-01-01 18:23:22 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201001011738248930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-01-01 17:17:42 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010010117015150073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-01-01 16:41:55 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


Of course one never knows what really went on in another's
house. My point is these guys have no business trying to dictate
to me how I should conduct my family life. How many of these
"family value" preachers turn out to be drug abusers, adulterers
and closet gay. Think attempted pick ups in a bathroom. True one
pixel does not make a picture, but multiple pixels certainly do.
(Hadda get back to photography.)

--
Peter

weg9 says: I agree, but if you don't think the liberals tell me
how to live, then you haven't tried on a pair of my shoes.....How
about their helmet laws? It isn't their business what I want to do
to my head, but they are quick to make laws governing it. And
their tobacco taxes that run the price of a pack of cigs to nearly
$10? No, it isn't just the religious right that sticks its nose
into other people's business.......
Let's take things one at a time:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
lungs with your second hand smoke.

Who said anything about your lungs? I would have to pay $10 a pack
whether your lungs were screwed up or not, so that has nothing to do
with the liberals using the tax laws to control the morality of the
people, does it?


Now let's look at a helmet law. If you brain damage yourself, it
would seem like your business. But, who is going to support you if
you can't work, if you don't have the means to support yourself.
Why should you force me to take care of you in that circumstance.
Come to think of it, why should I pay for your lung disease
recovery, simply because you want to smoke?

Do you also object to DUI laws?



--
Peter

The DUI laws affect other people on the road.....If you are drunk,
you could drive across the double line and hurt me. But why would
you care whether or not I wear a helmet? As a matter of fact, your
chances of surviving an accident with me are better if I am NOT
wearing a helmet. Also, my chances of getting in an accident in the
first place are greater when I am wearing a helmet, which restricts
my ability to see and hear. And, while we are on the subject, I
carry a full boat of health insurance, so you don't have to pay
anything to fix me, buddy.....I pay for my own repair. But this is
typical of you liberals. first, you make a law that steals my tax
dollars and uses them to pay for someone else's health insurance,
than you use that as an excuse to make laws that govern how well I
take care of my self so I don't incur an expense to YOU.....Give me
a break! First, just leave my money alone, and let me take care of
myself with it, and then leave my lifestyle alone, so I can break my
own head if I want to. If you can't see that there is a difference
between DUI laws and helmet and seat belt laws, then there is no way
that we can have any sort of rational discussion on this subject.

You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the
Obama health plan....there is a philosophical difference between
people paying for their own health care and letting the government
(taxpayers) pay for it. If you are paying your own way, then your
lifestyle will (and should) affect your premiums, and the insurance
companies will charge you more for endangering your life and
health.But when the government just insures everyone automatically,
then there is no individual responsibility, and people will drive,
eat, drink, and live generally like there's no tomorrow. Good health
care is expensive, and that's the way it ought to be. By costing you
money, it insures that you will fully realize the cost of not taking
good care of yourself. It's the same old argument....Socialism takes
away individual responsibility, and this also takes away your freedom
to do what you want to do, and pay your own way. I have to pay $1450
a month for three people, and this is one of the reasons why I no
longer ride a motorcycle, and no longer smoke tobacco. I didn't need
any laws to convince me of this.....It was my own choice.

You no longer smoke tobacco!!

Then why even bitch about what a pack might cost you? Thinking of
slipping back into the ranks of the puffers?


--
Regards,

Savageduck


Surely you're not serious? Do you think that we should all only take
care of ourselves, and not pay any attention to the constitutionality
of our laws. How about a law that takes all of Bill Gates' money away
from him and distributes it to the rest of us? We would all vote for
it, (except Bill Gates) because we would all gain from it. That's what
the US Constitution is for.....To protect the minority from the tyranny
of the majority. That's why we don't live in a Democracy, but rather in
a Constitutional Republic. If they can control smoking by simply taxing
the hell out of a pack of cigs, then they can control anything I might
like to do by taxing the hell out of it.....And pretty soon they
will....Tell me, Sduck, what is it you like to do?

First, I don't and never have smoked. I enjoy fine dining a few times a
month and fit that into my budget.
I enjoy an occasional glass of good (not outrageously expensive) wine.
There is certainly tax on that, and Der Guvernator has seen fit to
increase the tax on that, but I deal with that rationally.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


weg9 says: So, as long as the tax laws don't prevent you from doing
whatever it is that you like to do, you will be OK with them, even though
they seriously affect someone else? Kind of a shortsighted view isn't it?
Did you ever here that paragraph about the Jews being oppressed by the
Nazi's.....Written by a catholic priest, I think......About when they
took away some privilege or other, it wasn't your privilege, so you
didn't care, and then another and etc.....Until they got around to you,
and then it was too late......I will have to look that up.....It was a
classic......

Huh?

How not sharing your stance as a tax protester leads you to a spin on
1930's German racial & religious oppression is beyond me.

I dislike having to pay taxes as much as the next man, however I
understand the machine which is our government (State & Federal) and the
services it provides is fueled by taxes. I might not benefit directly from
some of those services, but I am not going to deny society, and those who
need those services because of my dislike for paying taxes.

I think the short sighted view is yours.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


You misunderstand me......I am not protesting all taxes. Taxes are necessary
for government to operate. I am protesting using taxes to control morality
of the people. That is not their purpose. I don't believe the government
should tax cigs more than candy bars or anything else. I doubt if the
soldier on the front line, after firing a shot at the enemy, says, "Well,
before we get back in the trench, I have to fire an extra bullet for Bill
Gates, because he paid more taxes than Bill Graham did."

But you know, we have had this discussion before.....When push comes to
shove, you are never going to understand......I believe you know full well
what I am saying, but make believe that you can't understand me. I have been
down this road many times before. No matter how many times I say it, and how
many different ways, it's a point that the liberals can't refute, and so
they just make believe they don't understand it, or that I didn't really say
it, or something.......They can't seem to understand why I don't want a
bunch of petty ass clerks controlling my life for me. They are happy to give
up freedom for responsibility, and they want me to be happy with that,
too......Well, I'm not. - Sorry about that......

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:33:36 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-01-01 17:17:30 -0800, Gary Theilsen said:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:



If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
with your second hand smoke.

You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bull****!", the
episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE person
has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased and
badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking any
factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers, drug-users,
nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth whenever
possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left off in
exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and exploit
a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now using
that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation tactics
for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how much
money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so terrible
that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes ever
could.

Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks' paranoid
nonsense and stupidity.

So, second hand smoke isn't going to kill me. I'll buy that.

Now tell me how second hand smoke isn't going to make me choke & cough,
my eyes water, my clothes stink, and any other unpleasantness
non-smokers would have to endure so those addicted to a corporate drug
can indulge themselves.

By doing the polite, respectable, and responsible thing for everyone. DON'T
GO WHERE SMOKERS ARE ENJOYING THEIR CIGARETTES, PIPES, AND CIGARS.

If you don't like a restaurant or bar where people are smoking, then don't
go there! It's just that amazingly simple. Smokers will treat you with
respect by not smoking in places clearly deemed for non-smokers only. But
for idiots like you to place blanket laws on everyone based on unfounded
and unproven fears and using deceit and lies to do so, it only makes you
look like the insecure, easily manipulated, control-freak Nazi that you
are.

When I walk into a place where women are wearing cologne so thick that it
would make a pig in a sty gag and puke, I walk out of there. Let them enjoy
their gut-wrenching stank, I have plenty of other places I can patronize.
But you don't see me petitioning politicians to pass laws that all perfumes
should be outlawed in public places do you? No, I respect their
as-stupid-as-they-are decisions to do with their lives as they see fit. The
rare times I venture into a city and get an instant 2-day headache from all
the carcinogenic diesel fumes, I don't go around passing laws to have all
fossil-fuels made immediately illegal. No, I go back to where the air isn't
full of more pollutants and carcinogens than my own home, even with the
cigarette smoke in it.

You're a bloody hypocrite, it's all you are and will ever be.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010010117333643658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-01-01 17:17:30 -0800, Gary Theilsen
said:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"

wrote:



If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
lungs
with your second hand smoke.

You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bull****!", the
episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE
person
has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one
biased and
badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking
any
factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers,
drug-users,
nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth
whenever
possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left
off in
exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and
exploit
a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now
using
that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation
tactics
for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how
much
money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so
terrible
that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes
ever
could.

Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks'
paranoid
nonsense and stupidity.

So, second hand smoke isn't going to kill me. I'll buy that.

Now tell me how second hand smoke isn't going to make me choke & cough,
my eyes water, my clothes stink, and any other unpleasantness
non-smokers would have to endure so those addicted to a corporate drug
can indulge themselves.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


weg9 says: If you really believe its a drug, then why are you happy
letting your government deal in it? Either make a law against it, or
believe what I believe.....That everyone should be allowed access to any
drug they want anytime they want it. (Including prescription drugs)


Do you drink alcohol?

--
Peter
weg9 says: Yes, but I am not addicted to it. I drink about one beer
every two or three months, and perhaps one martini or bloody Mary a
year......for one thing, I take glyburide for my diabetes, and it is
incompatible with alcohol. I am, however addicted to cigarettes......I
haven't smoked a cigarette since July 31st, 1983, but I know that I am
still addicted to them.....All it would take is one cig, and I would be
back on a pack and a half a day in about two weeks......Why do you ask? I
would not support a law against either tobacco or alcohol, any more than I
support laws against pot or any other drug. I think it is deplorable that
when I was young all my favorite movie stars and athletes both drank and
smoked, and it was heavily advertised. I have had many friends die of both
drinking and smoking as a result. I am all in favor of my government
researching the ill effects of drugs and advertising against them. But I
am still a libertarian when it comes to laws......I don't believe it is
the government's business to make laws against stuff for, "our own good."


What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes harm,
should that be illegal?


--
Peter

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:40:25 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Gary Theilsen" wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
with your second hand smoke.

You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bull****!", the
episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE
person
has ever died from second-hand smoke?

That's simply quite wrong. The amount of excess morbidity and mortality due
to second hand smoke is small, but definately not zero. The worst victims
are spouses and children of smokers. (I think that the problem of paying for
the medical care of smokers is serious enough that second hand smoke issue
isn't worth worrying about, though.)

It's a well documented problem. You could read about it and learn if you
wanted instead of taking an entertainment show at face value.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

Yes, let's all reference the very same documents that were thrown out in a
court of law for being deceptively biased and found to be nothing but
blatant misinformation. Shall we?