From: George Kerby on

On 9/16/09 1:57 PM, in article
d7da67d5-6f9e-4ef9-9c0c-48451ecbda49(a), "Twibil"
<nowayjose6(a)> wrote:

> On Sep 16, 3:22�am, Chris H <ch...(a)> wrote:
>> On the other hand for cosmetic surgery the US leads the way. �Just look
>> at Michael Jackson.
> Can't.
> They buried him, you know.


From: George Kerby on

On 9/16/09 3:16 PM, in article coh2b5lolbckfci49h9kahflmetnd2bgi2(a),
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote:

> On 16 Sep 2009 17:48:49 GMT, rfischer(a) (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr(a)> wrote:
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
>>>> 1. Members of congress must serve five years in office to receive
>>>> *any* pension. A Senator that retires after one term doesn't receive a
>>>> pension.
>>> Members of congress and other federal employees are *fully vested* after
>>> five years on the job. What a racke. Where does this happen in the private
>>> sector?
>> You bet. Five years is the norm. Three years isn't unknown.
>>>> 2. Members of congress receive a pension based on their years of
>>>> service and the average of the highest 3 years of salary. By law, the
>>>> amount is capped at 80% of their salary the year they leave congress.
>>> Contrary to some popular misconception, Congressman don't receive their full
>>> salary as a pension. But 80% is quite high, again, it doesn't happen in the
>>> private sector.
>> But then $100,000,000/yr incomes
> Hundred million?
You KNOW you are dealing with the Terminally Insane, do you not?!?

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:BdadncP-vJxLly3XnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)
> [.......]
>> Good points, and I agree with most of them. But my problem is the
>> government insists on taking my tax money and giving it away to "the
>> poor", or anyone else who makes less than I do, and I don't know how to
>> stop this. It isn't their money. It's mine. But they have the power to
>> steal it from me under this socialized system, and I don't know how to
>> stop that. During election time, they advertise that if you vote for
>> them, they will steal money from the rich and give it to the poor, and,
>> since there are more who think of themselves as poor than rich, these
>> people vote for them, and then they deliver what they promised.
> [...]
> I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US electorate
> very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically to
> "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
> unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have sold
> to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is best
> for us
> (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a
> fantasy,
> but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
> popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the "anything
> socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to
> mention
> that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is*
> socialistic...
> Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often able
> to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
> repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...
> --DR
Except I was able to work and support a family of 5 and still accumulate a
million dollars during my 40 years. Then, the democrat give away artists
crashed the market and stole half of it away from me, and now they are busy
trashing the value of my dollar in order to get the other half. So it wasn't
a myth. Everyone in this country can become rich. They just have to protect
their money from the thieving democrats after they get it. (I recommend
buying gold)

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
> news:j8ednTpSpe1f7S3XnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)
> [...]
>> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
>> headline saying:
>> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
>> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.
> And in the last couple of days, well over 70% of doctors
> supported the "public option" in another poll I caught on TV.
> Good ol' polls can "say" whatever you want, I guess...! ;-)
> --DR
Yes, well, 40% of doctors are so wealthy, they are considering quitting

From: Neil Harrington on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington <secret(a)> wrote:
>>"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in
>>> Consider: for all the promise of banking "reform," which should have
>>> been
>>> simpler than health care, nothing has actually changed, except that
>>> there
>>> aren't as many banks.
>>And if the health care bill gets signed into law, there probably won't be
>>many doctors.
>>This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
> Ah yes. IBD.
> Do you remember their earlier screed against health care reform?
> They claimed that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he had to rely
> upon Britian's socialized health care.
> People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in
> the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of
> this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is
> essentially worthless.
> Pretty funny given that Hawking is a professor at the University of
> Cambridge in the U.K. and is quite alive thanks to NHS.

Thanks to NHS and several grants from others that paid for things that NHS
did not. And of course thanks to the fact that Hawking is a very famous
celebrity and therefore privileged. Socialism doesn't mean that everyone
gets the same treatment, you see -- whatever the socialist theory is.