Gunner: I'm back

Many people in the libertarian party would not have done these things. However, it _is_ the poor, the ignorant, and the homeless who will never vote for a libertarian. We live in a Democracy. In this type of government, the politician who promises everything to the masses and will make evil rich people pay usually gets the votes. In Californian, a Republican is almost no different than a Democrat where I come from. Both advocate a lot of state control over a person's life. Sometimes you have some decent Republicans that are true conservatives, but not that many. So basically, when you say it is these folks who did all these things...who voted them in? Was it the homeless? The poor? The people on welfare? If so, then indirectly they are responsible for the way the city turned out. You get what you ask for.

In Message-ID: posted on Wed, 23 Jun

One of the few:

"Ryan" wrote in message news:rbdCc.163506$Ly.20690@attbi_s01...

(snippage)

In Californian, a

(snippage)

Absolutely. This is on a tangent from the original thread, but such a good example of the above. A federal law was passed last year called,"The Fairness to Lens Consumers Act." The main point of the law, from the_government's_angle, was to allow contact lens wearers to be able to get their prescription numbers from their optometrist and take them anywhere else,(cheaper), to get their lenses made. The same thing that eyeglass wearers have been able to do since 1976. But the fine print of the act says that it is now against the law for any optometrist or lens seller, (i.e., Pearle Vision, Lenscrafters, etc.), to grind an eyeglass lens or make a contact from a prescription that is more than 2 years old. Almost all people my age, 54, don't need any step changes in their prescriptions for many, many years. The eyes of most people who require corrective lenses stop changing, or slow way down, after about age 18. Rep. Richard Burr, R., NC, along with the American Optometric Assc. got that paragraph put in there. ( The maggot is from my home state, too). All four people in my household require corrective lenses. Got two boys in college whose eyes have passed the rapidly changing period. I'm trying to cut corners every way possible to make it financially and now this gets strapped on to me by the government. All you guys that break a lens in the shop, you can forget just going to get another one made if your prescription is more than two years old. Even if you know the prescription is still fine. You're going to have to pay ~$100 more for an eye exam. That you don't need. I'm quite sure I'm capable of determining when my eyeglass prescription needs changing, as is anyone else reading this. It's a real money maker for optometrists. I'm writing my congressman, for all the good it will do. By the way, the PAC for the American Optometric Assc._really_passed out some money in 2003. Okay. Rant off.

Garrett Fulton

||Absolutely. This is on a tangent from the original thread, but such a good ||example of the above. A federal law was passed last year called,"The ||Fairness to Lens Consumers Act." The main point of the law, from ||the_government's_angle, was to allow contact lens wearers to be able to get ||their prescription numbers from their optometrist and take them anywhere ||else,(cheaper), to get their lenses made. The same thing that eyeglass ||wearers have been able to do since 1976. But the fine print of the act says ||that it is now against the law for any optometrist or lens seller, (i.e., ||Pearle Vision, Lenscrafters, etc.), to grind an eyeglass lens or make a ||contact from a prescription that is more than 2 years old. Almost all ||people my age, 54, don't need any step changes in their prescriptions for ||many, many years. The eyes of most people who require corrective lenses ||stop changing, or slow way down, after about age 18. Rep. Richard Burr, R., ||NC, along with the American Optometric Assc. got that paragraph put in ||there. ( The maggot is from my home state, too). All four people in my ||household require corrective lenses. Got two boys in college whose eyes ||have passed the rapidly changing period. I'm trying to cut corners every ||way possible to make it financially and now this gets strapped on to me by ||the government. All you guys that break a lens in the shop, you can forget ||just going to get another one made if your prescription is more than two ||years old. Even if you know the prescription is still fine. You're going ||to have to pay ~$100 more for an eye exam. That you don't need. I'm quite ||sure I'm capable of determining when my eyeglass prescription needs ||changing, as is anyone else reading this. It's a real money maker for ||optometrists. I'm writing my congressman, for all the good it will do. By ||the way, the PAC for the American Optometric Assc._really_passed out some ||money in 2003. Okay. Rant off.

I had a running email discussion last month with the CS rep from the online contacts place I've been using. Until the most recent order, they did not require a current prescription. Last time I reordered they wanted a prescription, even providing an online list to "Select your eyecare provider by Zip code". So I did that, even though I never had used the local shop. They actually called them, and of course they didn't know me from Adam ;) So the last message I sent them said "Look, if I had a current prescription I could go to any number of local places and buy my lenses for less than what you charge. I trade with you because I have not (until now) had to spend $100/year for a piece of paper that said, in effect "Yours eyes are unchanged from last time"". Next email from them "Your order has been shipped. I had them double the order.

Texas Parts Guy

Today, you would likely be referred to an orthopedist, or the on-call orthopedist would come to the ER to set your leg. Additional imaging may be ordered. You would also likely get physical therapy services. If it is a difficult or complicated fracture, surgery may be in order, and the odds of full recovery are much greater. Complication rates are also lower today than in years gone by, when your leg may have been set by a GP in the ER. There is a qualitative difference in the care received.

Jeff

LOL... come sit in a polling booth in Santa Cruz... it ain't the poor, homeless and retards voting.... the poor are moving out in drove.... can't affort to live in Santa Cruz where a 1 room kitchnette converted garage rents for $1100 per month...... and a job down at O'neils pays $10 per hour... or $8.25 per hour at Pleasure Pizza... or $ 12.32 per hour at Mr. Peets after you been there for 6 years..etc...

Maybe I live in the wrong part of town.. but I when I vote.. I see older, 50 plus voters.. waiting in line... white... and pretty well off.. as I take time off work and go during the day.. when ost are working...

never seen the poor, homeless or stupd waiting in line...

Mike

Nope, personal experience.

Strider

I've got to fly up to St. Louis and drive back next week. I'm going to stop and see an old bud from High School back in Indiana who's now an optometrist. I want the straight skinny on this law, and how much it's being enforced.

Garrett

As a young man, my dad liked Kool-aid with lemon and a little sugar. It was really lemon aid with Kool-aid extra kick. Martin

There are still 411 operators, there are still operators for operator assisted or collect calls. There aren't very many of them compared to the number of operators needed when operators connected every call, but they're still out there.

However, the *bulk* of the operator workforce, and it was *huge* in the days before you could dial your own calls, were laid off fortuitously at a time when a very large demand for women to work in defense plants arose (WWII). It is true that not every ex-operator became a Rosie the Riveter, but they largely did fill jobs that had previously been held by men, or took new jobs created by the war effort.

If it weren't for the war siphoning men off from the civilian workforce and creating a demand for war material which cranked up the economy, the economy couldn't have supplied enough alternative jobs to employ those women. (It couldn't even employ all the men, ie Great Depression.)

The laying off of literally millions of telephone operators (one of the very few job fields open to women at the time) would have had a devastating effect if the timing hadn't worked out such that they could almost immediately move into war work.

Gary

Sort of a redneck with money, eh Tim?

Harold

Rednecks are a better class of people.

Strider

Watch it, Harold! You're insulting decent rednecks, now! :-)

-tih

Chuckle!

Harold

The Independent wrote in news:40DDC2FB.B63E3B7F@web- ster.com:

Um , they DID , but were rejected at birth .

Now they are known as sex objects , every time they go looking for sex , all they get is objections....

Gulp!! Hadn't thought of that!

To all good and respectable rednecks: I honestly did not mean to slander you by implying you were anything like Tim.

Hope you can accept my apology.

Harold

Nitwit. You shouldn't be posting to Usenet. I assume you know that the word "gullible" is not in any dictionary in the English language?

--Tim May

Lighten up, Tim. We all get a turn in the barrel.

Nitwit? Me?

Sigh!

Harold

Harump..Ok boys..you can put the rope back..he appoolygized.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell