Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: Tim Wescott on 13 Oct 2009 17:56 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:27:23 -0700, JeffM wrote: > Tim Wescott wrote: >>If you're a neo (read "fake") conservative in the US these days then >>you're either a religious nutcase or you're operating under the delusion >>that you can use religious nutcases to further your agenda without >>seeing your country turn into a religious nutcase police state. >> > I think JT likes to see himself as a Goldwater Republican. Problem is, > when you vote Red > you don't get any Goldwateresque candidates --any more than Blue voters > get Trumanesque candidates. Yea, the choice is pretty much "nutcase" vs. "nutcase". Usually I try to vote for one flavor of nutcase for prez and the other for congress, because gridlock is better than either side getting its way unobstructed. That didn't work out this time, alas. At least the swing-state Democrats are kinda sorta dragging their feet, sometimes. -- www.wescottdesign.com
From: Bill Sloman on 13 Oct 2009 21:29 On Oct 13, 4:47 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:35:48 -0400, Stephan Goldstein > > > > > > <sgold...(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:00:23 -0700, Jim Thompson > ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:52:18 -0700, Jim Thompson > >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:35:01 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky > >>><nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >>>>Jim Thompson wrote: > > >>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-.... > > >>>>Comments? > > >>>>VLV > > >>>Sounds fishy, particularly after just watching Al Gore handle a > >>>audience question he didn't like by turning off the questioner's > >>>microphone. > > >>>I live in Arizona, obviously, and the numbers don't gibe. > > >>>I'd be happy to walk, and cut off California's water in the process > >>>;-) > > >>>BTW, Indiana is quite solvent ;-) > > >>> ...Jim Thompson > > >>Usually I can put my finger on a state-by-state <=> Federal flow. > > >>For some reason tonight, I can't seem to find one that's actually per > >>capita. > > >>Past numbers I've looked at certainly indicated that Arizona and Texas > >>would be better off. > > >>I do know, that if we killed all liberals, it would benefit not only > >>the economy but the climate as well ;-) > > >> ...Jim Thompson > > >Is it asking too much to get back to electronics? The spam from > >Google is bad enough, why do we also have to tolerate same > >coming from Arizona, with followups? > > I'm the pro here, so why would I be asking circuit questions ?:-) A rather ordinary pro. and you have asked circuit questions - one of which I answered for you. > And I _do_ respond to valid technical queries. But only from the tiny right-wing minority that you haven't got around to putting in your kill file. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Oct 2009 02:12 Stephan Goldstein wrote: > > Is it asking too much to get back to electronics? The spam from > Google is bad enough, why do we also have to tolerate same > coming from Arizona, with followups? Start a thread and post your question, or go away. -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: Martin Brown on 14 Oct 2009 03:48 Rich Grise wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:56:14 -0700, Joerg wrote: >> Charlie E. wrote: >> >>> The truth is, experiments such as taxuchuses are apparently failing. >>> Universal health care is a fallacy, as not everyone wants to >>> participate! > > Hear, hear! The standard righttard response of kill the poor and sieze their assets. > >> I've lived in Europe. The good thing there is that people with >> pre-existing conditions do not become pariahs like here. We must >> remember that it's not always their own fault. > > Who exactly shoveled those couple hundred pounds of excess fat into their > mouths? What about genetic defects like haemophilia or glaucoma? (ISTR even the US is enlightened enough to give free eye tests to likely suffers). There are injuries at birth like cerebral palsy which in the US are paid for by insanely high medical insurance that pays both the malpractice lawyers fat salary and the unfortunate victims costs of living. I agree that in the USA there is about 30% of the population determined to stuff themselves silly until they get type II diabetes, their knees and hips disintegrate. But that is fundamentally a problem of too much junk food and not enough exercise. A national health system encouraging better diet might actually decrease these costs. The existing private one doesn't care so long as the punters are insured and profitable. > >> However, that system >> often leads to behavior such as going to the doctor for every little >> constipation or demanding antibiotics for minor sniffles. I see similar Most systems have a minimum prescription fee for precisely this reason. To avoid doctors wasting time on hypocondriacs and worried well. Abuse of antibiotics for colds largely ceased in the 1980's at least in the UK. >> habits here with folks like retired bureaucrats who have cradle-to-grave >> healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer. > > Well, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote. > > The solution is to simply make people pay their own damn bills! So you would condemn those unfit to work through no fault of their own to penury? > > Why bother to eat right, get some exercise, and learn how to operate a > first aid kit when you can just go to the local ER for every little > complaint and get a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers? Even in socialised medicine it doesn't work like that. If anything that seems to be what happens in the USA with the uninsured at present. And again a threshold minimum payment per visit is simple enough to discourage time wasters with trivial ailments. Regards, Martin Brown
From: John Larkin on 14 Oct 2009 10:15
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:48:15 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >I agree that in the USA there is about 30% of the population determined >to stuff themselves silly until they get type II diabetes, their knees >and hips disintegrate. But that is fundamentally a problem of too much >junk food and not enough exercise. A national health system encouraging >better diet might actually decrease these costs. The existing private >one doesn't care so long as the punters are insured and profitable. Britain and even France are seeing increasing levels of obesity. Look it up. In the US, we have a large minority population that, I think, is poorly adapted to the european-type diet full of wheat, meat, sugar, and dairy products. Pacific Islanders and native Americans seem most affected - rampant overweight and diabetes - and Africans too. The US policy of keeping up sugar prices hurts too, since corn syrup is probably worse for health than real sugar. John |