| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark K. Bilbo" |
| Date: |
16 Oct 2007 07:33:27 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay’s Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don’t Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“There is always an easy solution to every
problem - neat, plausible, and wrong.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
16 Oct 2007 10:47:12 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:QNCdnbKd8_7KxYjanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
Either that, or just making it painfully obvious that they truly don't care
about the health and well-being of Americans outside of the womb.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 03:30:14 PM |
|
|
On Oct 16, 11:47 pm, "G-Ride" <gridenospa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in messagenews:QNCdnbKd8_7KxYjanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
Either that, or just making it painfully obvious that they truly don't care
about the health and well-being of Americans outside of the womb.
OF course they care about Americans...if of course you limit your
definition of Americans to those making 250K+ a year.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 04:59:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:30:14 -0700, Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote:
OF course they care about Americans...if of course you limit your
definition of Americans to those making 250K+ a year.
The bar is MUCH higher than that now. All 250k means is that you can
order from the left side of the menu. But not in the White House.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 07:32:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:47:12 -1000, G-Ride wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:QNCdnbKd8_7KxYjanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic
Baby holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had
been talking about having children since before they were married. She
further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a
job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the
situation was 'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant
with no health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby
anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
Either that, or just making it painfully obvious that they truly don't
care about the health and well-being of Americans outside of the womb.
"Then they should die and reduce the surplus population!"
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The most dangerous man to any government is the
man who is able to think things out... without regard
to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.
Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the
government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
16 Oct 2007 10:53:48 PM |
|
|
On Oct 16, 8:33 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
No no no. They'd much prefer that they give all their money to
hospitals and very profitable insurance companies, go heavily into
debt, then file for bankruptcy. Not to mention all the anguish, fear
and uncertainty. *That's* the American Way(TM).
A simple, affordable universal insurance medical coverage, like
offered in pretty much every developed, modern countries, is
unpatriotic and communistic, and should be avoided, well... at all
costs...
Olrik
(Sorry if this is a dupe, Google is acting up again)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"There is always an easy solution to every
problem - neat, plausible, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 07:33:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:53:48 -0700, Olrik wrote:
On Oct 16, 8:33 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic
Baby holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had
been talking about having children since before they were married. She
further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a
job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the
situation was 'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant
with no health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby
anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
No no no. They'd much prefer that they give all their money to hospitals
and very profitable insurance companies, go heavily into debt, then file
for bankruptcy. Not to mention all the anguish, fear and uncertainty.
*That's* the American Way(TM).
A simple, affordable universal insurance medical coverage, like offered
in pretty much every developed, modern countries, is unpatriotic and
communistic, and should be avoided, well... at all costs...
Absolutely! Except that bankruptcy part. Since the credit industry
rewrote the law, no bankruptcy for you!
(Only businesses and the people that count, you know, rich ones)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“Communism, like any other revealed religion,
is largely made up of prophecies.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 01:52:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:33:46 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Absolutely! Except that bankruptcy part. Since the credit industry
rewrote the law, no bankruptcy for you!
(Only businesses and the people that count, you know, rich ones)
Exactly. The hospital gets government money (which, by some
mysterious, "there are things we're not meant to know" way, ends up in
the personal accounts of the people running the "not-for-profit"
hospital) and then files for bankruptcy. Which the court, since the
hospital has no money left, doesn't question.
(And it's a violation of national security to disclose the connection
between the hospital and the insurance industry.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 09:18:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:52:39 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:33:46 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
Absolutely! Except that bankruptcy part. Since the credit industry
rewrote the law, no bankruptcy for you!
(Only businesses and the people that count, you know, rich ones)
Exactly. The hospital gets government money (which, by some mysterious,
"there are things we're not meant to know" way, ends up in the personal
accounts of the people running the "not-for-profit" hospital) and then
files for bankruptcy. Which the court, since the hospital has no money
left, doesn't question.
(And it's a violation of national security to disclose the connection
between the hospital and the insurance industry.)
Long as somebody wealthy is getting wealthier, that's all that matters
isn't it?
(Dammit, I'm getting tired of these "ethics" things. Where do I sign up
to screw people over for millions? The RNC?)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"What the hell is an aluminum Falcon?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
18 Oct 2007 07:34:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:18:24 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:52:39 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:33:46 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
Absolutely! Except that bankruptcy part. Since the credit industry
rewrote the law, no bankruptcy for you!
(Only businesses and the people that count, you know, rich ones)
Exactly. The hospital gets government money (which, by some mysterious,
"there are things we're not meant to know" way, ends up in the personal
accounts of the people running the "not-for-profit" hospital) and then
files for bankruptcy. Which the court, since the hospital has no money
left, doesn't question.
(And it's a violation of national security to disclose the connection
between the hospital and the insurance industry.)
Long as somebody wealthy is getting wealthier, that's all that matters
isn't it?
(Dammit, I'm getting tired of these "ethics" things. Where do I sign up
to screw people over for millions? The RNC?)
That seems like the place ... but could you really do it?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of
magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the
price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent
enough."
- Aldous Leonard Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
18 Oct 2007 09:54:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:34:14 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:18:24 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:52:39 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:33:46 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
Absolutely! Except that bankruptcy part. Since the credit industry
rewrote the law, no bankruptcy for you!
(Only businesses and the people that count, you know, rich ones)
Exactly. The hospital gets government money (which, by some mysterious,
"there are things we're not meant to know" way, ends up in the personal
accounts of the people running the "not-for-profit" hospital) and then
files for bankruptcy. Which the court, since the hospital has no money
left, doesn't question.
(And it's a violation of national security to disclose the connection
between the hospital and the insurance industry.)
Long as somebody wealthy is getting wealthier, that's all that matters
isn't it?
(Dammit, I'm getting tired of these "ethics" things. Where do I sign up
to screw people over for millions? The RNC?)
That seems like the place ... but could you really do it?
specially, since the first requirement of joining the RNC is to suck
Cheney's *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
19 Oct 2007 07:27:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:34:14 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:18:24 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:52:39 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:33:46 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Absolutely! Except that bankruptcy part. Since the credit industry
rewrote the law, no bankruptcy for you!
(Only businesses and the people that count, you know, rich ones)
Exactly. The hospital gets government money (which, by some
mysterious, "there are things we're not meant to know" way, ends up in
the personal accounts of the people running the "not-for-profit"
hospital) and then files for bankruptcy. Which the court, since the
hospital has no money left, doesn't question.
(And it's a violation of national security to disclose the connection
between the hospital and the insurance industry.)
Long as somebody wealthy is getting wealthier, that's all that matters
isn't it?
(Dammit, I'm getting tired of these "ethics" things. Where do I sign up
to screw people over for millions? The RNC?)
That seems like the place ... but could you really do it?
Sigh... no.
(Or at least not without getting rid of all the mirrors... or would I
even be visible in them after that?)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
- Dr. House
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
16 Oct 2007 11:56:56 PM |
|
|
On Oct 16, 8:33 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
No no no. They'd much prefer that they give all their money to
hospitals and very profitable insurance companies, go heavily into
debt, then file for bankruptcy. Not to mention all the anguish, fear
and uncertainty. *That's* the American Way(TM).
A simple, affordable universal insurance medical coverage, like
offered in pretty much every developed, modern countries, is
unpatriotic and communistic, and should be avoided, well... at all
costs...
Olrik
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"There is always an easy solution to every
problem - neat, plausible, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
16 Oct 2007 10:06:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:33:27 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bays Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Dont Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
Not exactly.
The conservative position is that citizens should to take
responsibility for their own actions and not expect the government
<The taxpayer> to bail them out when they make bad choices.
It's a valid argument because the more "freebies" government offers
the more people will take.
And what some consider freebies aren't freebies at all.
They are paid for by the taxes raised by local, county and state
governments as well.
So hard working people making good choices are forced through ever
increasing property taxes, increasing taxes on food and every other
item they buy including clothing and school supplies for their
children to pay for those who make irresponsible choices.
The liberal on the other hand will likely take the view that it isn't
the child's fault that her parents made bad choices and she shouldn't
have to suffer for them.
That is imo an equally valid argument.
I suppose it's a choice as usual of the lesser of the evils.
I found this interesting.
The writer says:
"Why is it that conservatives can't let anybody disagree with George
Bush without trying to destroy them personally? Are they really that
insecure? Or are they just naturally so mean?"
"And don't tell me there's no difference between the two parties.
This is decidedly NOT a case where both parties are the same.
Democrats aren't perfect, but there is no way any Democrat would ever
attack a seventh-grader and his family.
No way. Democrats just wouldn't do it.
They're better than that."
Then he goes on to say:
"Take the debate over stem cell research, for example.
Several times, in order to make the case for vetoing expanded stem
cell research, George Bush surrounded himself with families and their
*snowflake babies.*
A distain for families and derogatory term for innocent babies?
Is he really that insecure? Or is he just naturally so mean?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58094
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
16 Oct 2007 10:40:03 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:rotah3pqrj46k87t1mj7qrrtsq23m5vl34@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:33:27 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
Not exactly.
The conservative position is that citizens should to take
responsibility for their own actions and not expect the government
<The taxpayer> to bail them out when they make bad choices.
It's a valid argument because the more "freebies" government offers
the more people will take.
And what some consider freebies aren't freebies at all.
They are paid for by the taxes raised by local, county and state
governments as well.
So hard working people making good choices are forced through ever
increasing property taxes, increasing taxes on food and every other
item they buy including clothing and school supplies for their
children to pay for those who make irresponsible choices.
The liberal on the other hand will likely take the view that it isn't
the child's fault that her parents made bad choices and she shouldn't
have to suffer for them.
That is imo an equally valid argument.
I suppose it's a choice as usual of the lesser of the evils.
I found this interesting.
The writer says:
"Why is it that conservatives can't let anybody disagree with George
Bush without trying to destroy them personally? Are they really that
insecure? Or are they just naturally so mean?"
"And don't tell me there's no difference between the two parties.
This is decidedly NOT a case where both parties are the same.
Democrats aren't perfect, but there is no way any Democrat would ever
attack a seventh-grader and his family.
No way. Democrats just wouldn't do it.
They're better than that."
Then he goes on to say:
"Take the debate over stem cell research, for example.
Several times, in order to make the case for vetoing expanded stem
cell research, George Bush surrounded himself with families and their
*snowflake babies.*
A distain for families and derogatory term for innocent babies?
Is he really that insecure? Or is he just naturally so mean?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58094
What is insecure, derogatory or mean about using an acceptable term to
describe the children Bush surrounded himself with to support his stem cell
veto? It is a term used to describe children that came from embryos left
over from in vitro fertilization.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
16 Oct 2007 11:00:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:40:03 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:rotah3pqrj46k87t1mj7qrrtsq23m5vl34@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:33:27 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic Baby
holding up a crayon sign that says 'Don't Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She further
admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a
country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was
'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health
insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
Not exactly.
The conservative position is that citizens should to take
responsibility for their own actions and not expect the government
<The taxpayer> to bail them out when they make bad choices.
It's a valid argument because the more "freebies" government offers
the more people will take.
And what some consider freebies aren't freebies at all.
They are paid for by the taxes raised by local, county and state
governments as well.
So hard working people making good choices are forced through ever
increasing property taxes, increasing taxes on food and every other
item they buy including clothing and school supplies for their
children to pay for those who make irresponsible choices.
The liberal on the other hand will likely take the view that it isn't
the child's fault that her parents made bad choices and she shouldn't
have to suffer for them.
That is imo an equally valid argument.
I suppose it's a choice as usual of the lesser of the evils.
I found this interesting.
The writer says:
"Why is it that conservatives can't let anybody disagree with George
Bush without trying to destroy them personally? Are they really that
insecure? Or are they just naturally so mean?"
"And don't tell me there's no difference between the two parties.
This is decidedly NOT a case where both parties are the same.
Democrats aren't perfect, but there is no way any Democrat would ever
attack a seventh-grader and his family.
No way. Democrats just wouldn't do it.
They're better than that."
Then he goes on to say:
"Take the debate over stem cell research, for example.
Several times, in order to make the case for vetoing expanded stem
cell research, George Bush surrounded himself with families and their
*snowflake babies.*
A distain for families and derogatory term for innocent babies?
Is he really that insecure? Or is he just naturally so mean?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58094
What is insecure, derogatory or mean about using an acceptable term to
describe the children Bush surrounded himself with to support his stem cell
veto? It is a term used to describe children that came from embryos left
over from in vitro fertilization.
Thanks for the info.
Given the parenthesis I should have looked it up before I posted it.
I hereby deny having referenced it ;-)
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 07:31:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:06:26 -0500, atheist wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:33:27 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:
Not happy with attacking 12 year olds and their families, the reich is
after a 2 year old and her family:
http://tinyurl.com/98ek5
This one, over at NRO, I thought was interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hzd
"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered
around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad
behavior. While USAction and a labyrinthine maze of leftist activist
groups prepare to rally around images of Tampa Bays Most Photogenic
Baby holding up a crayon sign that says 'Dont Veto Me,' Dara and Brian
Wilkerson are real poster children--for irresponsible decisions.
"On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been
talking about having children since before they were married. She
further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job
at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation
was 'unmanageable.' From there she took a job at a restaurant with no
health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway..."
Okay so the reich thinks she shoulda had an abortion?
Not exactly.
The conservative position is that citizens should to take responsibility
for their own actions and not expect the government <The taxpayer> to
bail them out when they make bad choices.
Unless it comes to the biggest expansion of the welfare state in forty
years: Medicare part D.
Or balancing the budget. Or staying free of "foreign entanglements". Or
debasing our money to bail out the stock market. Or...
I can deal with conservatives. But not people who bust the budget with
military adventurism, expand the powers of the government faster and
broader than we've ever seen, drive the dollar into the toilet pumping
money into the system to bail out investors who were too stupid to figure
out the meaning of "sub-prime" and were shocked when people with
disastrous credit ratings, no assets, and meager incomes couldn't make
house payments that were ten times their paychecks...
<deep breath>
And then ***** about a program that costs about a week's worth of the
***** and Bush show in the ME.
It's a valid argument because
the more "freebies" government offers the more people will take.
And what some consider freebies aren't freebies at all. They are paid
for by the taxes raised by local, county and state governments as well.
So hard working people making good choices are forced through ever
increasing property taxes, increasing taxes on food and every other item
they buy including clothing and school supplies for their children to
pay for those who make irresponsible choices. The liberal on the other
hand will likely take the view that it isn't the child's fault that her
parents made bad choices and she shouldn't have to suffer for them.
That is imo an equally valid argument. I suppose it's a choice as usual
of the lesser of the evils. I found this interesting.
I have a hard time with the idea that the penalty for screwing up your
finances is suffering and death. I enough trouble with the death penalty
given how often we flat out ***** up and get the wrong person (because
*somebody's* gotta die eh?) but punish people with disease and death
because they made stupid financial decisions?
Besides, that begs the question. ***** happens. You're not as secure as
you think. None of us are.
My friend Bob who died in '05 worked all his life in the corporate world,
built up his retirement, paid his house note, saved and invested.
When he became seriously ill, he was dumped out of the system onto a
state run (and very crappy and underfunded) "high risk pool" (partly by
dishonest maneuverings of his last employer who I was gearing up to sue
before Bob died). Ruled disabled and put on SSDI but got stuck in that
odd two year gap between starting Social Security and being put on
Medicare.
All those years of being a regular tax payer, paying his bills, holding
down jobs he wasn't enjoying, and doing all the right things came to
NOTHING in the end. It was a constant struggle. I had his power of
attorney and it turned into almost a full time job fighting with
insurance companies, pharmacies, agencies, doctors, you name it.
And then he died.
Yeah, I'm *reeeeeeeeal* impressed with how we run things around here.
Canada covers every citizen for HALF what we spend per person. Insurance
companies are being allowed to squeeze out the people who might need
insurance so they can have only the healthy people who pay premiums.
Companies all over are jettisoning health insurance as a benefit. Health
insurance companies continue to "innovate" with such lovely things as
"retro-active denials". In which *after* they approve and make payment,
they change their minds and sue you.
Allstate, for example--though not in health that I'm aware, is pulling
out of the entire Texas Gulf Coast region. And what are they telling
people? Go get on the state insurance.
Flood insurance is a government program. Earthquake insurance is a
government program. Now insurance companies are pushing wind (that is,
hurricanes) onto the government.
But the insurance companies squawk about the "eeevils of socialism" any
time anybody notices and asks, "So what do we need you for again?"
I can't get health insurance. I've tried.
At 46, some the worst things I've gone to a doctor for are an ear
infection years ago and sometimes doing things around the house I get
stupid and strain my back or something like that. In the past two years,
I've seen a doctor twice. One was a "hi, I'm a new patient" visit and to
get my anti-depressant (which I've taken for over a decade now and it
works).
In the mean time, other than the post-Katrina period in which I didn't
get much exercise and gained a lot of weight, I could bench 250 (and
climbing). I had been--prior to all hell breaking loose--been aiming for
300 by 45 years old.
I have allergies but never take anything more than over the counter stuff
(which often doesn't work and I've gotten to where I don't bother more
often than not).
The worst health issue I have left is I haven't (yet) quit smoking. Right
now, I'm not willing to risk the stress. It's too soon after what
happened.
I made the mistake of being honest and now I can't back out. See, I
admitted I take PRILOSEC (you know, you can buy it at the grocery store).
The Bilbo stomach is an acid machine. Grandpa Bilbo was so used to severe
heartburn, when he had his first heart attack, he took Rolaids.
(No *****, he couldn't tell the difference between his indigestion and a
heart attack.)
I admitted I'd been seeing a counselor after the Year of Hell. Made the
mistake of using the word "trauma".
You should have seen what came back.
I was denied because I'm prone to heart burn, felt kinda crappy for some
months after the biggest natural disaster in US history and a friend
dieing, have allergies, and smoke.
Now, since 9/22/05 (yeah, I'm looking at my personal finance software),
my doctor expense has been:
$456
My prescription expense in the same period has been:
$496.69
(That includes my regular Zoloft which just went generic and is dropping
in price mind you)
$500 a year in medical expenses in the last two years.
FIVE HUNDRED FUCKING DOLLARS A YEAR. But the insurance companies are
telling me to go to the state high risk pool.
They also lied. I have *never* been diagnosed with PTSD and am not
getting medication for it. But they said I was.
I really thought the part about the acid reflux was the stupidest. Since
starting Prilosec, I haven't had any. That's been *years* now. I started
taking Prilosec when I was in LA the first time. That's more than four
years ago at least.
But a nurse relative of mine told me they figured soon as I got
insurance, some doctor would talk me into surgery and they don't want to
pay for it (plus, the surgery for acid reflux often just makes things
worse).
I don't *want* surgery. Not if I can avoid it. I don't even like going to
doctors. And I fight with them over any medication they try to give me. I
don't *want* the expensive, fourth (fifth, whatever) generation anti-
biotic. Gimme the $10 a bottle stuff that's always worked. Save the rest
for something serious for crying out loud (anti-biotic overuse almost
killed my mother, doctors pass the stuff out like candy).
AND I was applying for a $7,500 deductible. Which I tried to push them
into raising to $10,000. All I want is something that takes over should
something catastrophic happen. ***** happens.
The state insurance is high. Two times average by law. We're talking I'd
have to pay about as much in one month as I usually spend per year on
average to get a high deductible plan.
Considering I'm getting older, I will probably in the near future get on
the high risk pool. Since the insurance companies are backing me into a
corner.
You tell me. I wasn't asking them to pay for *anything*. My regular
medical bills wouldn't even begin to approach the deductible. I only
wanted them around just in case something serious happened.
Now what?
Well, if something catastrophic happens to me before I can get the
finances arranged to pay out the nose for government run insurance, YOU
are going to pay for it.
Because while my assets are better than zero, they won't last long
against a hospital (average cost for one of those crappy little rooms is
now in $2,000 to $2,500 per DAY range... there better be blow jobs
involved!).
Yeah, I made all kinds of "bad choices." I went to college and got into
computers. That was a big fucking mistake. They've since shipped that
industry to India and a middle aged guy with two decades of experience is
a pariah (seriously, there are a LOT of us out there the industry won't
touch but they're pressuring Congress to raise the H1-B visa cap because
they have a "shortage" of IT people).
I failed to drop out of college and stick with my Wal-Mart job. I was
with them when they were in only 19 states and had just opened this new
thing called "the superstore". Just the one.
With their stock plan, I could buy and sell you now if I'd stayed. But
nooooo, I had to go get an education and work in the IT industry.
I'm such an irresponsible *****.
But I can only blame myself right? I mean, it's not like my skills are
needed. You are enjoying your clear and understandable user documentation
for all your exciting products and are getting excellent tech support
these days.
Right?
RIGHT?
Well, the important thing is insurance companies make money. So we
shouldn't complain that they're pushing everybody who needs insurance
onto tax payer supported systems and keeping the people who are healthy
and never file claims. That way, the insurance companies only collect
premiums and the tax payers pay for the rest.
Ah, the wonders of capitalism...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their heart's desire at last, and the White House will
be adorned by a downright moron.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
18 Oct 2007 12:52:25 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I can't tell you how much I sympathize with what you wrote. While I was
taking care of my dad I had cause to be glad again and again that his
retirement benefits included such amazing health insurance, or he would
have been wiped out.
They also lied. I have *never* been diagnosed with PTSD and am not
getting medication for it. But they said I was.
This is the only practical thing I can ask about. Did you consider
contacting the consumer protection bureau of the state attorney
general's office? I've dealt with them before when I've had problems,
and they were very efficient. If you were denied coverage because of
something that never happened, they may be able to help. I don't know
anything about insurance coverage myself (*sigh*), but surely that would
also constitute fraud, if they decline to insure you for made up
reasons.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
19 Oct 2007 06:50:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:52:25 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I can't tell you how much I sympathize with what you wrote. While I was
taking care of my dad I had cause to be glad again and again that his
retirement benefits included such amazing health insurance, or he would
have been wiped out.
They also lied. I have *never* been diagnosed with PTSD and am not
getting medication for it. But they said I was.
This is the only practical thing I can ask about. Did you consider
contacting the consumer protection bureau of the state attorney
general's office? I've dealt with them before when I've had problems,
and they were very efficient.
Here? In the state of DeLay and Bush? I thought they'd defined consumer
protection an anti-American act of subversion.
If you were denied coverage because of
something that never happened, they may be able to help. I don't know
anything about insurance coverage myself (*sigh*), but surely that would
also constitute fraud, if they decline to insure you for made up
reasons.
I'm not up for a fight just now. And my income is being flaky right now.
I couldn't really afford much in premiums. I'm going to give it a few
months, try again, then get nasty. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“Communism, like any other revealed religion,
is largely made up of prophecies.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
19 Oct 2007 11:45:29 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
This is the only practical thing I can ask about. Did you consider
contacting the consumer protection bureau of the state attorney
general's office? I've dealt with them before when I've had problems,
and they were very efficient.
Here? In the state of DeLay and Bush? I thought they'd defined consumer
protection an anti-American act of subversion.
When dealing with politicians any sort of garbage can happen, but most
functionaries are just people doing their jobs, and unless you hit on
one who's trying to claw his way to the top, you'll be working with a
normal, decent person. I spent two months dealing with a problem which
the SAG's office wrapped up in less than 10 days when I finally asked
them to deal with it.
If you were denied coverage because of
something that never happened, they may be able to help. I don't know
anything about insurance coverage myself (*sigh*), but surely that would
also constitute fraud, if they decline to insure you for made up
reasons.
I'm not up for a fight just now.
I completely sympathize with that. It was only this past summer I got
back to normal after the last few years.
And my income is being flaky right now.
I couldn't really afford much in premiums. I'm going to give it a few
months, try again, then get nasty. <g>
I'm currently signed up with the predominant US insurance plan, Hoping I
Don't Get Really Sick Anytime Soon. It's sponsored by the Republicans,
so you know it's What's Right for America.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 03:15:07 PM |
|
|
On Oct 17, 5:31 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
I have a hard time with the idea that the penalty for screwing up your
finances is suffering and death. I enough trouble with the death penalty
given how often we flat out ***** up and get the wrong person (because
*somebody's* gotta die eh?) but punish people with disease and death
because they made stupid financial decisions?
Besides, that begs the question. ***** happens. You're not as secure as
you think. None of us are.
My parents, who were both Republicans and old-style Barry Goldwater-
type conservatives, were both believers in Universal Health Care.
They both worked like *mules* all their lives, but my dad worked for
himself - and got no benefits - and Mom was deathly ill so often that
they never got a chance to save or invest.
And they raised 3 kids. They never had a snowball's chance in Hell of
either qualifying for private health insurance, or being able to
afford it. Yet Mom's medical bills kept piling up.
<Snip, for bandwidth's sake, Bob's story>
And then he died.
Yeah, I'm *reeeeeeeeal* impressed with how we run things around here.
Me too. <Spit>
Canada covers every citizen for HALF what we spend per person. Insurance
companies are being allowed to squeeze out the people who might need
insurance so they can have only the healthy people who pay premiums.
Companies all over are jettisoning health insurance as a benefit. Health
insurance companies continue to "innovate" with such lovely things as
"retro-active denials". In which *after* they approve and make payment,
they change their minds and sue you.
<Snip>
I can't get health insurance. I've tried.
At 46, some the worst things I've gone to a doctor for are an ear
infection years ago and sometimes doing things around the house I get
stupid and strain my back or something like that. In the past two years,
I've seen a doctor twice. One was a "hi, I'm a new patient" visit and to
get my anti-depressant (which I've taken for over a decade now and it
works).
In the mean time, other than the post-Katrina period in which I didn't
get much exercise and gained a lot of weight, I could bench 250 (and
climbing). I had been--prior to all hell breaking loose--been aiming for
300 by 45 years old.
I have allergies but never take anything more than over the counter stuff
(which often doesn't work and I've gotten to where I don't bother more
often than not).
The worst health issue I have left is I haven't (yet) quit smoking. Right
now, I'm not willing to risk the stress. It's too soon after what
happened.
I made the mistake of being honest and now I can't back out. See, I
admitted I take PRILOSEC (you know, you can buy it at the grocery store).
The Bilbo stomach is an acid machine. Grandpa Bilbo was so used to severe
heartburn, when he had his first heart attack, he took Rolaids.
See, now, this ties in with a particular hypothesis of mine: Vikings
get worse heartburn than other people. Both my parents were heartburn
sufferers, and I'm on 80 mg of Nexium a day, and it only barely
controls the heartburn. And in April of this year, a small infarct
started showing up on my EKGs, which I'm getting as a regular part of
a Fibromyalgia drug study. I had a full cardio workup 2 years ago -
the EKG was pristine then. Somewhere between September 2005 and April
2007, I had an infarct. For which I did the samething that Grandpa
Bilbo did - I took some antacids and kept on truckin', because I
thought it was just heartburn. (A recent endoscopy showed that my
esophogeal sphincter is frozen open, and has probably been that way
for many years.)
(No *****, he couldn't tell the difference between his indigestion and a
heart attack.)
Neither could I. I mean...how are you supposed to know that a
particular episode of hearburn *ain't* heartburn?
<Snippage>
But a nurse relative of mine told me they figured soon as I got
insurance, some doctor would talk me into surgery and they don't want to
pay for it (plus, the surgery for acid reflux often just makes things
worse).
WebMD recently ran an article about the 5 surgeries you should *never*
get. The heartburn surgery ("Fundoplication") only has about a 40%
success rate, and there are a *bunch* of things that can go wrong.
Like, for instance, you end up not being able to burp.
I don't *want* surgery. Not if I can avoid it. I don't even like going to
doctors. And I fight with them over any medication they try to give me. I
don't *want* the expensive, fourth (fifth, whatever) generation anti-
biotic. Gimme the $10 a bottle stuff that's always worked. Save the rest
for something serious for crying out loud (anti-biotic overuse almost
killed my mother, doctors pass the stuff out like candy).
AND I was applying for a $7,500 deductible. Which I tried to push them
into raising to $10,000. All I want is something that takes over should
something catastrophic happen. ***** happens.
Mark, were you applying for generic health insurance, or strictly for
"catastrophic" insurance?
The state insurance is high. Two times average by law. We're talking I'd
have to pay about as much in one month as I usually spend per year on
average to get a high deductible plan.
Considering I'm getting older, I will probably in the near future get on
the high risk pool. Since the insurance companies are backing me into a
corner.
I shudder to think where I'll be, medically, once I retire and don't
have health coverage through my employer. I've got the Book-of-
Revelations acid reflux, *plus* Fibromyalgia, *plus* (apparently) a
bit of a heart problem. Not to mention really, *really* weak eyes.
(Dang all those light-eyed Viking ancestors of mine!)
And my kid brother, who's 8 years younger than I am, had a bad heart
problem - had his first heart attack in 2001, at the age of 43, and
who has sky-high blood pressure and thromboflebitis in his legs. He
recently got divorced and lost his health insurance, which was through
my ex-SIL. He was able to transition to a COBRA plan, but the
premiums are killing him.
You tell me. I wasn't asking them to pay for *anything*. My regular
medical bills wouldn't even begin to approach the deductible. I only
wanted them around just in case something serious happened.
Now what?
Well, if something catastrophic happens to me before I can get the
finances arranged to pay out the nose for government run insurance, YOU
are going to pay for it.
Because while my assets are better than zero, they won't last long
against a hospital (average cost for one of those crappy little rooms is
now in $2,000 to $2,500 per DAY range... there better be blow jobs
involved!).
Er, don't get your hopes up, Mark. <G>
As a wrap-up, unbridled capitalism is *not a good thing*, anymore than
unbridled socialism is. There are some things that are taken out of
the for-profit sector, and health care is foremost among them. The US
could, if it wanted to, run an at-cost health care system where
*everybody* got what they needed to stay healthy.
Of course, some minor aspects of health care should remain the
financial responsibility of the patient - cosmetic surgery (unless
gross disfigurement, such as burn scars, need to be corrected) comes
to mind, as do fertility treatments.
Take care of that heartburn, Mark, and stop smoking. (My reflux was
the major reason I stopped smoking, lo, these 12 years, 2 months, 5
days, and 46 minutes ago. Not that I'm counting, or anything.) No,
seriously, STOP SMOKING. NOW. Yes, it's a *****. Yes, it's
stressful. Yes, it's nerve-wracking. But it *can* be done, and
you'll thank yourself once you do it. When you quit, the withdrawl
lasts only a finite time. The rewards are infinite.
If you need further incentive, go look up "Barrett's Esophagus" and
"Esophogeal Cancer."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 05:14:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:15:07 -0700, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
wrote:
Neither could I. I mean...how are you supposed to know that a
particular episode of hearburn *ain't* heartburn?
After a couple of heart attacks you learn the subtle difference in
location and feeling. (A heart attack is more like a sore throat but
further down. Kinda-sorta.)
As a wrap-up, unbridled capitalism is *not a good thing*, anymore than
unbridled socialism is. There are some things that are taken out of
the for-profit sector, and health care is foremost among them. The US
could, if it wanted to, run an at-cost health care system where
*everybody* got what they needed to stay healthy.
And the average tax increase would be a lot less than the current
average insurance premiums.
Take care of that heartburn, Mark, and stop smoking. (My reflux was
the major reason I stopped smoking, lo, these 12 years, 2 months, 5
days, and 46 minutes ago. Not that I'm counting, or anything.)
Who counts? (11:45 AM, April 16, 1996.)
seriously, STOP SMOKING. NOW. Yes, it's a *****. Yes, it's
stressful. Yes, it's nerve-wracking.
It's a lot easier to do it in the coronary section of the hospital.
Trust me.
When you quit, the withdrawl lasts only a finite time.
So does the weight gain - only the rest of your life.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
19 Oct 2007 09:06:10 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tt1dh3d7msddmge8bd5rreovkem628vd5d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:15:07 -0700, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
snip
Take care of that heartburn, Mark, and stop smoking. (My reflux was
the major reason I stopped smoking, lo, these 12 years, 2 months, 5
days, and 46 minutes ago. Not that I'm counting, or anything.)
Who counts? (11:45 AM, April 16, 1996.)
seriously, STOP SMOKING. NOW. Yes, it's a *****. Yes, it's
stressful. Yes, it's nerve-wracking.
It's a lot easier to do it in the coronary section of the hospital.
Trust me.
When you quit, the withdrawl lasts only a finite time.
So does the weight gain - only the rest of your life.
Hey, the weight gain is NOT mandatory. That's the excuse my SILs use for
not quitting.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
19 Oct 2007 08:27:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:06:10 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tt1dh3d7msddmge8bd5rreovkem628vd5d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:15:07 -0700, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
snip
Take care of that heartburn, Mark, and stop smoking. (My reflux was
the major reason I stopped smoking, lo, these 12 years, 2 months, 5
days, and 46 minutes ago. Not that I'm counting, or anything.)
Who counts? (11:45 AM, April 16, 1996.)
seriously, STOP SMOKING. NOW. Yes, it's a *****. Yes, it's
stressful. Yes, it's nerve-wracking.
It's a lot easier to do it in the coronary section of the hospital.
Trust me.
When you quit, the withdrawl lasts only a finite time.
So does the weight gain - only the rest of your life.
Hey, the weight gain is NOT mandatory. That's the excuse my SILs use
for not quitting.
Not mandatory but difficult to avoid. You have to, heh, out run it?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The religious man, starting out with an outfit of
irrational postulates and untenable hopes, tries to
fit them into the facts of a harshly material world.
In the process he must do violence to both.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
20 Oct 2007 04:06:16 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:aNSdnb9ayOYfxITanZ2dnUVZ_vfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:06:10 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tt1dh3d7msddmge8bd5rreovkem628vd5d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:15:07 -0700, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
snip
Take care of that heartburn, Mark, and stop smoking. (My reflux was
the major reason I stopped smoking, lo, these 12 years, 2 months, 5
days, and 46 minutes ago. Not that I'm counting, or anything.)
Who counts? (11:45 AM, April 16, 1996.)
seriously, STOP SMOKING. NOW. Yes, it's a *****. Yes, it's
stressful. Yes, it's nerve-wracking.
It's a lot easier to do it in the coronary section of the hospital.
Trust me.
When you quit, the withdrawl lasts only a finite time.
So does the weight gain - only the rest of your life.
Hey, the weight gain is NOT mandatory. That's the excuse my SILs use
for not quitting.
Not mandatory but difficult to avoid. You have to, heh, out run it?
Damn straight! Quitting smoking was the primary goal, but NOT gaining
weight was a secondary goal ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 06:07:27 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tt1dh3d7msddmge8bd5rreovkem628vd5d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:15:07 -0700, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
wrote:
Neither could I. I mean...how are you supposed to know that a
particular episode of hearburn *ain't* heartburn?
After a couple of heart attacks you learn the subtle difference in
location and feeling. (A heart attack is more like a sore throat but
further down. Kinda-sorta.)
As a wrap-up, unbridled capitalism is *not a good thing*, anymore than
unbridled socialism is. There are some things that are taken out of
the for-profit sector, and health care is foremost among them. The US
could, if it wanted to, run an at-cost health care system where
*everybody* got what they needed to stay healthy.
And the average tax increase would be a lot less than the current
average insurance premiums.
Take care of that heartburn, Mark, and stop smoking. (My reflux was
the major reason I stopped smoking, lo, these 12 years, 2 months, 5
days, and 46 minutes ago. Not that I'm counting, or anything.)
Who counts? (11:45 AM, April 16, 1996.)
seriously, STOP SMOKING. NOW. Yes, it's a *****. Yes, it's
stressful. Yes, it's nerve-wracking.
It's a lot easier to do it in the coronary section of the hospital.
Trust me.
When you quit, the withdrawl lasts only a finite time.
So does the weight gain - only the rest of your life.
The weight gain has been the only downside to me quitting cigarettes. But I
can't blame it all on not smoking. A steady relationship that evolved into
marriage has helped. But mostly it's been my lazy ***** not getting out and
exercising like I should.
Jan. 1 will mark 5 years for me since I quit smoking.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 07:45:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:07:27 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The weight gain has been the only downside to me quitting cigarettes. But I
can't blame it all on not smoking. A steady relationship that evolved into
marriage has helped. But mostly it's been my lazy ***** not getting out and
exercising like I should.
Me too - marriage and a lazy *****. And a see-food diet. Lost 70,
gained back 45.
Jan. 1 will mark 5 years for me since I quit smoking.
But, as Brenda said, who's counting? :)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
17 Oct 2007 10:00:33 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:01bdh3p384mq39h33p855t5sqj7n61684m@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:07:27 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The weight gain has been the only downside to me quitting cigarettes. But
I
can't blame it all on not smoking. A steady relationship that evolved
into
marriage has helped. But mostly it's been my lazy ***** not getting out and
exercising like I should.
Me too - marriage and a lazy *****. And a see-food diet. Lost 70,
gained back 45.
Yeah, I forgot the see-food diet I'm on. So there's that too. I've been
working on doing better these days, but still have a ways to go
lifestyle-wise.
Jan. 1 will mark 5 years for me since I quit smoking.
But, as Brenda said, who's counting? :)
--
Exactly.
Although, I used to have one of those meters on an older computer. Every
once in awhile it was nice to fire up the program to see exactly how long it
had been. I had to do a little mental research to remember how long it had
been for my previous post.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
18 Oct 2007 07:36:48 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:00:33 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Although, I used to have one of those meters on an older computer. Every
once in awhile it was nice to fire up the program to see exactly how long it
had been. I had to do a little mental research to remember how long it had
been for my previous post.
My last one was 15 minutes before my first heart attack, so it's not
easy to forget.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
18 Oct 2007 07:56:29 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ipkeh3popb3c7jk02ned2aleg7m9c6g7uf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:00:33 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Although, I used to have one of those meters on an older computer. Every
once in awhile it was nice to fire up the program to see exactly how long
it
had been. I had to do a little mental research to remember how long it
had
been for my previous post.
My last one was 15 minutes before my first heart attack, so it's not
easy to forget.
Must have been one hell of a cigarette!
I still remember the month and day (it was a new years day, so pretty easy)
and approximate time of my last cigarette, I just have to think a bit to
remember what year it was.
Congrats on surviving the heart attacks!
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Smearing two year olds, what's next? |
18 Oct 2007 10:18:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:56:29 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ipkeh3popb3c7jk02ned2aleg7m9c6g7uf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:00:33 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Although, I used to have one of those meters on an older computer. Every
once in awhile it was nice to fire up the program to see exactly how long
it
had been. I had to do a little mental research to remember how long it
had
been for my previous post.
My last one was 15 minutes before my first heart attack, so it's not
easy to forget.
Must have been one hell of a cigarette!
I still remember the month and day (it was a new years day, so pretty easy)
and approximate time of my last cigarette, I just have to think a bit to
remember what year it was.
Congrats on surviving the heart attacks!
The first one was what the surgeon called a "good heart attack". My
main coronary artery was about 85% occluded. (The attack was due to
another artery clogging.) If I hadn't had that warning, and the
angio, I would have been dead in 12-18 months.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear
to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave
mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
- Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
