Ah. If I was only as good and correct and brilliant as you are. All knowing. Just being the solution to humanity's problems with one small detriment. Having to post it in an obscure Usenet newsgroup rather than being out in reality doing something.
Hey .......... pssssssssssttttttttttttttt. Your beanie propeller isn't turning. Better check that out.
It must suck to be you. I'd rather be human.
Steve
"TinLizziedl" wrote
I do not have, nor have ever had any reservation toward a logical sensible approach to coverage for the working public. Just as Social Security, some security that we won't be on the street some day with no care. I just find it objectionable to fund any plan that would benefit people who will not work, and people who are in our borders illegally.
That being said, I do not believe that citizens should have a gold plated guarantee to insurance or care for the aged. But I do believe that they deserve a reasonable compense.
Steve
AND, I have a problem with all the $80k plus bennies workers it takes to administer said programs. I want THEIR healthcare plan and pension plan.
Steve
On the other hand, would you sign a contract that stated that in the event any weld that you made did not pass x-ray that they would cut off your right hand and fire you?
That seems to be what you are talking about in the context of finances. After all there have been gas pipelines fail with severe damage to property, life and limb. I'm sure that the people who lost kids and kin would have been willing to pull on the rope that lynched the welder who made the bad welds.
It is one thing to cry out for change but (usually) quite a different thing to actually propose a logical cure - what are you proposing?
Cheers,
Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
snip
The thing that gets me is that there are a lot of people in jail or paying off fines or have spent some nights at the crossbar hotel for taking far far less money or value. And with far less criminal intent, aforethought, and foreknowledge. (if that's a word, I don't know until I spelchek, and then if it's not, I'll just make it a word officially by hitting ADD ..... here goes) ....................................
Steve
That's the opposite extreme. What we need is a stable middle ground. Any professional weldor should take pride in, ownership of, and responsibility for, their welds.
In this situation, I feel that if your critical weld does not pass x- ray, it would always be cut out and re-welded, until it does pass. Each weld should be documented. Should you reach some pre-determined percentage of failed welds, your employer should either fire your butt or at the least require you to re-test. They should also recommend to the authority that certified / licensed you that you be sent back to school for retraining (lists of such welders would be publically available, so they are not hired again before getting re-certified). The agreed upon percentage of bad vs. good welds will be in the binding contract you sign with the employer, and in this case should be very low ( That seems to be what you are talking about in the context of
That we all tuck our heads between our knees and kiss our rumps goodbye.
I don't hold out any real hope for change- I've become too cynical. The President's speeches are good, but Congress is incapable of getting anything worthwhile done. The Left-Wing uber-liberals are starting to feel disenchanted because their demands aren't being met, while the Right-Wing neocons are still hunting for their holy grail- proof that Obama isn't an American citizen. Both sides are too busy screaming their nonsense at the gullible american public to actually pull their heads out of their @sses and do the work we elected them to do.
They also kowtow to the special interests far too much. Why is there not a "public-option" on the table in our healthcare debates? Remember, the insurance companies are for-profit corporations. They exist to make money, first. The insurance lobby is one of the most powerful in DC. They have donated hundreds of millions of dollars (your premiums, mind you) to prevent or at least severly limit any potential competition that a public-option government plan might give them. It would cut into their profits, force them to actually provide service to everyone who applies, and would help expose the feather-bedding that has been going on for decades.
The insurance lobby is supposedly pushing for healthcare reform (if you believe their commercials)- Why?? Because without a public-option available from the government, everyone will have to buy insurance from private companies. What a cash cow!! Legalized, enforcible (pay penalty if you don't buy a plan) profiteering. No wonder 100% of Republicans and the "Blue Dogs" are all against a public option.
Look at the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. There is no consensus as to what should be done. Climate change and Cap-n-Trade. No consensus. We as individuals all have our opinions, but our elected representatives are often working for the special interests who pay for their elections before they think of us poor dumb grunts that actually do the voting.
I read up on both sides of the debates, I listen to the radio, watch some CSPAN, and I vote accordingly. By and by, it seems to me that the R's are much too concerned with "saving" individual morality, while abandoning any attempt to control our impacts upon our planet. On the flip side, the D's are consumed with saving our country's "face" and our planet's biosphere. Both sides are needed in any debate, but alas, that's all they do- debate.
I don't know who said it first, but they are right- You'll never succeed at anything if you don't even try.
Yep. Madoff was made an example of. Most of those guys spend a few months at a walled country club, pay the fine from their petty cash account, then live happily ever after off their swiss savings accounts.
I am amazed at American political thinking. During the primary and campaigning for the election nearly every news broadcast was about how much money the candidates had or were raising. It was obvious that the amount of money a candidate had in his war chest was indicative of how his chances were. In fact, didn't Mrs. Clinton resign solely because she couldn't raise as much money as O'Bama?
With this kind of emphasis on money is it such a surprise that successful candidates likely feel the necessity to pay something back, in cash or kind?
The Vietnam war probably did more damage to the American political system than anything previous, except possibly the Civil War. But does anyone learn? As far as I can see, NO! If you believe that the politicians, or the American public for that matter, did learn anything kindly explain the rational for Iraq II, that the U.S. is still embroiled in?
I suggest that any politician is primarily interested in getting reelected.
Cheers,
Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Pretty much. Money has become a surrogate for votes, since many people choose to believe political ads. Whoever can buy the most air-time typically wins an election, unless they do something really stupid and get caught in an outright lie. Even then, they can backpedal and say they were "misinformed" and by replacing the political hack at their side, stay in the race.
Exactly. I would like to see every candidate limited to and supplied with the same amount of taxpayer money. No amount shall be accepted from any corporation, business group, political action committee, or any other private source. All ads submitted by or payed for by a political action committee must suffer FULL disclosure, right down to publically available lists of all donors (corporations and individuals) to the PAC. After all, if you're ashamed to be caught supporting a cause, perhaps you shouldn't be supporting that cause. Each ad must be followed by a direct rebuttal from an opposing party. It may be that rules like these might force these twits to become a little more honest with the american public, though I'm not holding my breath.
The rationale given for the second Iraq war was not rational. There were no WMD, and we knew that. There were no ties to al-Queda, and we knew that. There were no attempts to buy fissile material, and we knew that. Each rationale provided by that administration has been proven false by independent, third-party investigations. We're still there because we were the "bulls in a china shop," and since we broke it, we're at least moral enough to buy it.
Afganistan is another story. There are proven links between al-Queda and the Taliban, many terrorist training camps, and attempts to aquire WMD. However, since we toppled the Taliban and put Karzai in power, his "democratically elected" regime has become fraught with fraud, including the egregious ballot-box stuffing in their recent election. This man is our most important ally in our war on terror? It's starting to look like we can: pull out, create another Saddam Hussein, or engage in another round of "regime change" since we're so good at it.
Yep. The desire to benefit the public wears off pretty quick once in office. Soon, the impetus is to keep the salary, bennies, perks, and mistresses....
Except we did find WMD, we did find fissile material and so forth.
But hey...live in your own dream world if it makes you feel better.
Shrug
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Hey! I don't live in America and don't have access to all your news services. I thought that they didn't find any WMD. How about give me a reference to this.
Cheers,
Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Shrug
Gunner
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
I missed this one also
Gunner
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Yes, I did a little research and it appears that the first knowledge that the West had of Iraq using a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" was in August 1983 and again in 1984, 85, 86, 87, and 88. Apparently for some reason it was not a reason for an attack against Iraq during those years, nor was it given as a reason in 1991. Why was it justification in 2003?
An additional thought might be that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" apparently is not thought to be a broad base justification for invasion - think of N. Korea, Israel, Iran, and the many other nations that either are developing or have already developed them.
Your reasoning seems to be extremely selective.
Cheers,
Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
What reasoning would that be? That I stated, provably..that the original poster was flapping his jaws in utter error?
Was there something else you think I claimed? If so..please provide citations to back up your imagination...err...your claims.
Gunner
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
I just love arguements like these! We'll convince everyone who already agrees with us that the other is foolish.
Your "proofs" are not factual, and the only reason so many people believed that hogwash was because they were bombarded with it from so many sources of "news". Repetition does not mean truth. Once the real investigations got fully underway and then started reporting results, many people turned off their brains and started getting very mad at or simply dismissing anyone who asked questions....
A great many people refuse to accept than our presidents are not annointed by God, and may make human mistakes. Unfortunately, those mistakes have costs, and we're still paying for this one in blood.
Once the actual investigations started taking place, the reasons given for the war started changing. First it was all about 9/11 and links to al-Queda, then when those were proven false, it changed to WMD. When that didn't pan out for them, it became about ending ruthless regimes and spreading democracy.
Enough. We could fight over this forever, but what's done is done. I'd much rather weld....
Then Im sure you can provide citations to your claims.
Trot them out if you would be so kind.
Ill indeed be waiting.
Gunner
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
If you guys are going to keep this up, how about a nickel a post so I can go to Gunner's and pick up a big load of much needed items?
Steve ;-)
I stopped responding to this thread in the hope that you'd shut up, or at least take your nonsense to a more appropriate group. But since you won't do that, then I have a couple of simple questions for you.
Why would you want to fund gummy's deadbeat hypocrisy? Why do you imagine, even in jest, that anyone else would want to do it?
I respectfully suggest that any readers who might be in a position to buy anything from gummer read this post
Wayne
Wiki "Iraq WMD" and start reading some very well cited history. However, I'm sure that no matter what proofs I or anyone else give you, you will stand fast by your revisionistic beliefs. You cannot even wrap your mind around the dates and actual statements made within your own citations.
I was stupid to even try. I'm ending my part in this thread. You can have all the last words you want. I should have known better.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.