Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Canuck57 on 22 Mar 2010 22:00 On 22/03/2010 1:35 PM, larry moe 'n curly wrote: > > > Canuck57 wrote: >> >> On 21/03/2010 9:17 PM, edspyhill01 wrote: >>> On Mar 21, 9:08 pm, Canuck57<Canuc...(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> >>> So what countries are governed "correctly" in your opinion? What >>> countries do you consider not leftist? >> >> None are perfect. But left-socialist and marxist all die eventually. >> Just takes time. >> >> China. It's free market is blowing away the US so bad, already >> outproduces America for autos. > > China is proof that free markets don't require freedom. Either you're > kidding, or you have no idea what a brutal dictatorship Communist > China really is. The reality is while DCC politicians pander, screw up, take bribes... while China is not a democracy, they have more integrity and honor on how they run their country. Less debt too. >> I figure inside a decade, they will have a GDP larger than the >> US itself and will repalce the US as number 1 superpower. >> In many ways they already have. > > In no ways have they already done that, and even when they become the > largest economy, in about 10-20 years, the average Chinese will be > much less affluent than the average American. Also despite the US > having only 1/5 as many people, we're still the third largest nation > in the world, our population isn't shrinking (thanks to immigrants), > we have 15-17 of the best 20 universities, and it's easier to raise > capital for new businesses here than about anywhere else. Autos. China now makes and out sells the US in autos. Get over it. It is already a happening. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Canuck57 on 22 Mar 2010 22:04 On 22/03/2010 5:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: > > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:IvydnWaEjYOjajrWnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> larry moe 'n curly wrote: >> >> <...> >> >>> Our hospitals are great; it's our private health insurance system >>> that's bad. >> >> Close. The problem is that we don't have a private health insurance >> system. We have a bunch of companies out to make a buck. > > That is what companies are supposed to do. They should still have some > morals though, but they cannot offer free coverage. Liberal leftist losers want winners and producers to pay for it. Will they be disappointed at this bill. It will seperate health care for upper-middle class up, and the rest can get rationed sub standard Obama care. Hell, a goo doctor making say $200/hr isn't going to go to Obama Care for $30/hr, no way. Obama Care will bring in under qualified from India and Africa. Will be a two teir system. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
From: Dave on 22 Mar 2010 22:38 "charlesgrozny" <n5hsr(a)sprynet.com> wrote in message news:QfidnTL_h9fnizXWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Dave" <hairy411(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:80qieaFp64U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "charlesgrozny" <n5hsr(a)sprynet.com> wrote in message >> news:W-WdnQdUSrcoJjvWnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message >>> news:80nqlsFcjU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> FatterDumber& Happier Moe wrote: >>>> >>>>> ...Something had to be done... >>>> >>>> Yep - typical government solution: Got a bad situation - someone broke >>>> a leg so you put a tourniquet on their arm. Problem is the leg is >>>> still broken, and now you have to amputate the arm. >>>> >>>> Yeah - I love the "But we *have* to do something!!!" crowd. >>>> >>>> How about fix it with solutions that would really accomplish something? >>>> What a concept. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bill Putney >>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>>> address with the letter 'x') >>> >>> Don't waste your time arguing with either Fathead Moe or any of the >>> other liberals here. They don't listen to any opinion they don't agree >>> with. They think all people that don't agree with them are righttards, >>> and they quickly degenerate into namecalling. They've smoked the hopium >>> and their minds are blown. >>> >>> Charles Grozny >> >> Oh, the irony............. > > Plonk. I'm tired of arguing with idiots like you. Go do something > anatomically impossible to yourself. After you go play on the freeway. > > Charles Grozny Damn, did I hit a nerve?
From: Dave on 22 Mar 2010 22:46 "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message news:80qkrdF4liU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Dave wrote: >> >> "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message >> news:80qe0bF1t5U2(a)mid.individual.net... >>> larry moe 'n curly wrote: >>> >>>> Our hospitals are great; it's our private health insurance system >>>> that's bad. >>> >>> Then we should fix them. What just got voted in the House yesterday is >>> the equivalent of putting a tourniquet on your arm when you have a >>> broken leg, with the result that you still have a broken leg, and now >>> you also need your arm amputated. >>> >> >> You seem to quite proud of that analogy, since you keep repeating it. How >> about explaining the relevance. > > Yes - it's a pretty good analogy. I wouldn't think it would need to be > explained, should be pretty obvious. But here it is: The action that was > taken does not fix the problem (in my analogy - the leg is broken, but the > "cure" does not fix the problem), *and* the action that was taken creates > new problems that are even worse than the original problem that it was > *claimed* was being "fixed" (what was previously a perfectly good arm has > to now be amputated due to the action that was taken). So now, you are > stuck with the original problem *and* a new, even worse, possibly > irreversible, problem. > > That had to be explained? I mean - you recognized that it was an analogy. > Yet you could not make the connections (and I have a sneaky feeling that > will be the case, or at least will be pretended to be the case). If so, > then there is no use in me explaining it further. > Obviously, with enough imagination you could connect that analogy to almost anything. You are proof of that.
From: Bill Putney on 22 Mar 2010 23:45
Dave wrote: > > "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message > news:80qkrdF4liU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Dave wrote: >>> >>> "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message >>> news:80qe0bF1t5U2(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> larry moe 'n curly wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our hospitals are great; it's our private health insurance system >>>>> that's bad. >>>> >>>> Then we should fix them. What just got voted in the House yesterday >>>> is the equivalent of putting a tourniquet on your arm when you have >>>> a broken leg, with the result that you still have a broken leg, and >>>> now you also need your arm amputated. >>>> >>> >>> You seem to quite proud of that analogy, since you keep repeating it. >>> How about explaining the relevance. >> >> Yes - it's a pretty good analogy. I wouldn't think it would need to >> be explained, should be pretty obvious. But here it is: The action >> that was taken does not fix the problem (in my analogy - the leg is >> broken, but the "cure" does not fix the problem), *and* the action >> that was taken creates new problems that are even worse than the >> original problem that it was *claimed* was being "fixed" (what was >> previously a perfectly good arm has to now be amputated due to the >> action that was taken). So now, you are stuck with the original >> problem *and* a new, even worse, possibly irreversible, problem. >> >> That had to be explained? I mean - you recognized that it was an >> analogy. Yet you could not make the connections (and I have a sneaky >> feeling that will be the case, or at least will be pretended to be the >> case). If so, then there is no use in me explaining it further. >> > > Obviously, with enough imagination you could connect that analogy to > almost anything. You are proof of that. Keep thinking about it - it will come to you. The concepts are pretty simple and obvious. I typed it real slow, but I don't know if that helped you or not. Like I say, if you can't grasp it, wait a few years, and the meaning will be obvious to you. I have trouble believing you are as slow as I think you are pretending to be. In either case (i.e., (1) you really are that dumb, or (2) are just pretending to be), it's not worth my time explaining further. Somehow I think you get it. Bye. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |