From: Dave Head on
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:23:31 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)> wrote:

>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)> wrote in message
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:26:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)> wrote:
>>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)> wrote in message
>>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:39:44 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)> wrote:
>>>>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> I knew that. So, did you sue the insurance company?
>>>>>> I just meant that this move to get everything under the gov't plan
>>>>>> will result in a Medicare-like gov't entity doing the insurance
>>>>>> eventually, and if they refuse it, you can't sue 'em about it because
>>>>>> they're the gov't.
>>>>>Do you think suing the insurance companies would be any more successful?
>>>> Yeah. The local TV has several lawyers that advertise their eagerness
>>>> to skewer insurance companies that don't honor their contracts.
>>>> They've been doing it for at least a decade that I've seen 'em, and if
>>>> they weren't successful, they wouldn't be making any money, so would
>>>> quit investing in advertising for that. So... they must be
>>>> successful.
>>>Dead men can't sue.
>> But their families can.
>It doesn't matter. The insurance companies killed somebody. They're dead.
>They can't do anything. And the insurance companies are never charged with
>murder. If I kill somebody, I go to prison. If an insurance company
>employee kills somebody, they get a raise.

They do have some slimy practices that I would like to see outlawed.
And it sucks that the courts move so slowly that the victim dies.
There should be punitive damages that come within a hair's breadth of
bankrupting a company that refuses treatment in contravention of their
contract and it causes a death. There's just no excuse.

>May an insurance company deny you life-saving coverage someday. Then you
>might see the error of your ways.

A bit harsh, don't you think? I know they're slime-balls sometimes,
but then there's the Medicare bunch, that deny even more. Them you
can't sue.
From: Dave Head on
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:26:54 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)> wrote:

>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)> wrote in message
>>>Less taxes = shoddy government.
>> The Fair Tax would equal what the income taxes deliver now.
>Then why bother?

Because the effect on the economy would be to supercharge it. This
recession would be OVER.

>Trading the devil you know for a devil you don't know for
>another isn't progress.

Yes, it would be.

>> Nope. They're trying to keep the gov't from failing. The Fair Tax is
>> one way to do it, and actually the best way.
>Bullshit. The GOP has been trying its damndest to make government fail for
>at least 40 years if not longer.
From: bugo on

"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)> wrote in
message news:4C4CDC99.4000707(a)
> On 7/25/2010 5:35 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <gmjo461vf228o2k9r60ag1oemg3gdqqpsr(a)>,
>> Dave Head <rally2xs(a)> wrote:
>>> Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th
>>> Amendment.
>> Now you've done it; now Larry is going to call you a racist.
>> (It's the 16th amendment... the 13th amendment bans slavery)
> the 16th creates Slavery....

Overexaggerate much?

From: bugo on
"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)> wrote in message
> The Fair Tax is applied as a sales tax on new items and services sold
> at retail. Things sold at wholesale, or for use in commerce, are not
> taxed. So, Farmer Brown's seed stock for the year is not taxed, nor
> is his tractor. The corn you buy from him is taxed since it is sold
> to you at retail. Every new item and every service, save one, is
> taxed. The only service not taxed is tuition.

So corporations get off scot-free. No wonder why you corporate-loving
Repubs like it so much. In your distorted world, corporations can do no

From: bugo on
"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)> wrote in message
> Interesting. You think Mike has charisma. Hmmm... Palin moves people
> so much more easily I think. I don't understand Mike having charisma.
> I don't see him as that influential.

Huckabee has a lot of down home, good-ol-boy Southern charisma. He's a very
likable guy. I disagree with him politically on pretty much everything, but
his likability scale is high.

Palin, on the other hand, is only as popular as she is because she says
shocking, lowest-common-denominator things. She knows (because her handlers
told her, not because she's smart enough to figure it out on her own) what
to say to get the GOP base fired up. She has no charisma. Her voice is
shaky and she sounds way underconfident. She would make a HORRIBLE
president, even worse than Bush, if that's possible.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Prev: The Stupidity of Racism
Next: European Socialsm