'Red Scares'
in [Drive]
|
Prev: The Stupidity of Racism
Next: European Socialsm
From: Free Lunch on 24 Jul 2010 20:23 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:05:57 -0500, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >On 7/24/2010 5:47 PM, Free Lunch wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:03:32 -0500, Rich Piehl >> <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >> >>> On 7/24/2010 1:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote: >>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:37:38 -0500, Rich Piehl >>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >>>> >>>>> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >>>>>> Rich Piehl wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power plants >>>>>>>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their >>>>>>>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are >>>>>>>>> socialistic) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not the one that called socialistic. Larry did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. It's just a chart - I'm probably >>>>>>> missing it but no data that I see. No explanation of how the chart was >>>>>>> arrived at and by what/whose yardstick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But for proof about European socialism just google it. There's all >>>>>>> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break >>>>>> this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha >>>>>> impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear. >>>>> >>>>> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run >>>>> out of other people's money. And that's the direction we're heading in >>>>> here. I'm not quaking in fear. But why go down that road when we know >>>>> what awaits us at the end of it? >>>> >>>> Well, the tea partiers are saying that the elderly and the poor should >>>> die rather than allow taxes to be spent helping them. Many of the tea >>>> partiers are particularly offended that we sometimes help people who are >>>> not of northern European heritage and few other tea partiers call them >>>> out for their racism. >>> >>> >>> Would you care to source your claim? And would you care to source how >>> you arrived at that quantity "many?" >>> >>> I can double source my claim that it's actually Obama advisor Ezekiel >>> Emmanuel that has that opinion that elderly (and children for that >>> matter) should have health care rationed. >>> >>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-advisor-would-deny-medical-care-to-seniors-demented-51414342.html >>> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html >>> >> Health care has always been rationed. > >So it's not. If anything Emmannuel's comments say the opposite has been >true in the past, causing the increase in health care we have today. You are free to misrepresent what is going on. I cannot stop you. >> The question is how it is >> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance >> companies and affordability > >*Failure to source comment about the Tea Party - noted and logged. The NAACP pointed out how the Tea Partiers were quite willing to put up with racists in their midst. The greed and selfishness of the tea partiers is pretty well documented. >*Failure to source comment about about the term "many" - noted and logged > >*Admitting that comments attributed to tea party are instead beliefs >held by "Free Lunch" troll (transference, I believe) to avoid admitting >to indefensible position - noted and logged. > >*Failure to acknowledge the comment attributed to tea party was instead >made by a member of the Obama Administration - noted and logged. > >*Heartless desire not to treat elderly and children by "Free Lunch" >troll - noted and logged. Your notes are entertaining, but they won't change reality. >*Another supposedly compassionate member of the left showing his true >colors again - noted and logged.
From: Rich Piehl on 24 Jul 2010 20:56 On 7/24/2010 7:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:05:57 -0500, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: > >> On 7/24/2010 5:47 PM, Free Lunch wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:03:32 -0500, Rich Piehl >>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >>> >>>> On 7/24/2010 1:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:37:38 -0500, Rich Piehl >>>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >>>>>>> Rich Piehl wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power plants >>>>>>>>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their >>>>>>>>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are >>>>>>>>>> socialistic) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not the one that called socialistic. Larry did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. It's just a chart - I'm probably >>>>>>>> missing it but no data that I see. No explanation of how the chart was >>>>>>>> arrived at and by what/whose yardstick. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But for proof about European socialism just google it. There's all >>>>>>>> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break >>>>>>> this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha >>>>>>> impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run >>>>>> out of other people's money. And that's the direction we're heading in >>>>>> here. I'm not quaking in fear. But why go down that road when we know >>>>>> what awaits us at the end of it? >>>>> >>>>> Well, the tea partiers are saying that the elderly and the poor should >>>>> die rather than allow taxes to be spent helping them. Many of the tea >>>>> partiers are particularly offended that we sometimes help people who are >>>>> not of northern European heritage and few other tea partiers call them >>>>> out for their racism. >>>> >>>> >>>> Would you care to source your claim? And would you care to source how >>>> you arrived at that quantity "many?" >>>> >>>> I can double source my claim that it's actually Obama advisor Ezekiel >>>> Emmanuel that has that opinion that elderly (and children for that >>>> matter) should have health care rationed. >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-advisor-would-deny-medical-care-to-seniors-demented-51414342.html >>>> >>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html >>>> >>> Health care has always been rationed. >> >> So it's not. If anything Emmannuel's comments say the opposite has been >> true in the past, causing the increase in health care we have today. > > You are free to misrepresent what is going on. I cannot stop you. > >>> The question is how it is >>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance >>> companies and affordability >> >> *Failure to source comment about the Tea Party - noted and logged. > > The NAACP pointed out how the Tea Partiers were quite willing to put up > with racists in their midst. The greed and selfishness of the tea > partiers is pretty well documented. Not one word you said (true or false) has anything to do with health care for the elderly. And would you care to offer FACTS of greed that any other political party doesn't have three times over? And the Congress for Racial Equality has found the Tea Party has denounced racism, but the the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't respond because they don't want to lose the propaganda tool of useful idiots (like you). And since the NAACP showed this week that they shoot first and ask questions later they have shown themselves to be irrelevant. And since the head of the NAACP refuses to denounce the racism of the New Black Panther Party it would appear the NAACP are racists and hypocrites, in addition to being irrelevant. You really need to look at more facts than what the Center for American Progress wants you swallow. Come back some time when you can stay on topic...useful idiot.
From: Matthew Russotto on 24 Jul 2010 21:31 In article <g9rm461o1fv6jtc3rf643bhac0271gmlof(a)4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is >rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance >companies and affordability. Equivocation: misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense. Yes, as a technical economic term, "rationing" can cover the situation where a resource is dispensed according to no criteria other than who is willing and able to pay for it. However, the common use of the term, and the meaning intended by those objecting to rationing of health care, does not include that case. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 24 Jul 2010 21:58 > In article <g9rm461o1fv6jtc3rf643bhac0271gmlof(a)4ax.com>, > Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is >> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance >> companies and affordability. Don't we ration food and water and clothes? Should the government hand out those little *Mao suits* to each and every American rather than allowing us to buy expensive designer clothes while the poor have to wear K-mart clothes?
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 24 Jul 2010 22:06
> In article <g9rm461o1fv6jtc3rf643bhac0271gmlof(a)4ax.com>, > Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is >> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance >> companies and affordability. If we followed the rest of life with your logic on HEALTH CARE then we would all drive Mercedes Benz and the NATION would be bankrupted buying Mercedes and keeping them all running. People that can't drive like *blind people* would have a brand new shiny Mercedes that they can't even use, just like healthy people are given health care that they don't use. That's your government Socialist planning. |