AmbergrisCaye.com Home

Most egregious event

Posted By: Anonymous

Most egregious event - 11/10/06 03:25 PM

OK. Elections are over, Dems are celebrating (like OBL in his cave) Republicans are pi**ed at Bush and everyone else.....SO....what one(two if necessary) event of 2006 reeeealy pi**ed YOU off the most? (political,social, personal, sexual whatever) No holding back now!!!

(Please not Britany/KFed breakup - Thankyou)
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 03:28 PM

Nice segue there rykat, I guess everyone can now freely speak their positions without fear of being labeled unpatriotic.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 03:35 PM

Right?!
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 03:38 PM

you know, this is like the 10th time (at least) i have seen a republican call a democrat the equivilent of a terrorist lover. WTF?????

i just want us outta there & the $$$ to stay here where we need it. i honestly do not care if iraqi's go civil war & kill themselves, we don't belong there (except so bush & fam can protect their own personal business dealings?) we are STILL in vietnam, nothing solved. why???

my deal is: stay the hell outta my home and my personal life. america is supposed to be about freedom, stop looking up our asses with microscopes when you all have your own ethical issues. why don't we work on fixing america b4 we try to fix someone else.
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 03:44 PM

Hear hear, SJ. I also think you may have stumbled upon something, asses and microscopes, could that be the genesis of a speed dating event for protologists?
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 03:59 PM

my understanding is that there is more terrorist activity in saudi arabia, but we didnt go there bcuz a) we prob would lose, and b) the bush family has close ties with the oil there (in personal business, not govt) and they are protecting themselves and their business associates.

did you guys see that part in farenheit 911 where we are spending lotsa tax dollars for the secret service to guard the saudi embassy? more than for our ex-preses? and how close the bushes are tot he saudi's in business???

thanks, dp, but i think you just took the wind outta my sails. funny, but not funny. i feel pretty strongly about what i said, hope it is taken seriously.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:01 PM

British Man Injured After Lighting Firecracker in Buttocks Actual news story.

It ****es me off when expat Brits comment on how screwed up Americans are.
:p Am I missing something Jane, I haven't noticed the gov in my house or personal life. All orifices also intact.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:03 PM

Janie, I'd be willing to bet you're a bit more to the right than I am. Mandatory sterilization shouldn't even be up for discussion. And while I agree the government is way too intrusive, there are exceptions in terms of when I want them coming into homes - incest is the first extreme I can think of. Probably because I've seen up close what it does to kids.
Obviously I'm adamantly opposed to the Iraq situation, but we've made a mess now and there are no easy answers about how to fix it. I DO care if they go into full blown civil war and kill themselves, in large part because we helped create the circumstances that are setting that up.
That said, you and I agree more than most around here! smile
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:06 PM

Sorry SJ, I agree with you, and I didn't mean to dilute or trivialize your point.
Posted By: Otteralum

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:10 PM

Borders! There are very few responsibilities that the government has constitutionally -- this is one of them. Regardless of how you feel about the current illegals -- you can't do s**t about it until you stop more from coming in.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:12 PM

Well, Otter, here's a place you and I disagree. I don't think immigration (legal or illegal) is that big of a problem. And we wouldn't have the numbers we do have if our activities in other countries were more just.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:14 PM

Ticks me off to no end the way the US gov't discriminates against same-sex couples. I just don't understand why they care?????? Or why they think it's any of their business!!!!
Posted By: KC Jayhawk

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:20 PM

Law, I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying people in other lands want to emigrate to America because America is unjust in its treatment of other lands? How does that follow? confused
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:25 PM

My hats off to you SJ! I totally agree! Let's stop handing money to other nations, keep it here and work on improving ourselves (read: America's problems, poverty, homeless, etc, etc, etc)
Funny dog!
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:25 PM

nsn, how is the US government discriminating against same sex couples? I am not arguing, I would like to be enlightened.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:27 PM

law, as usual, i DO agree with you, just didnt want to take up so much space here. and, yeah, i have a teeny little right in me (bruce calls it standards or values). and, i too disagree with otter (sorry). don't think it so much a problem. up here, hispanics often come to do jobs others dont want. i believe this country was built by immigrants (arent we all immigrants to some extent?), and they have as much right to try to improve their children's futures as anyone else.

yes, we started it, that i regret, and would feel the guilt. totally agree on the incest thing, and have also seen it, and sure, go on in if they are dealing crack to kids as well. i only say the sterilization thing cuz so many just WONT use birth control, or keep their knees together, and the population control isnt so much about illegals, i see single (unemployed) moms with 6 kids on maury or whatever constantly.

i was wondering (no offence to nsn) if anyone is keeping count on how many canadians are coming in?
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:28 PM

bobber, i think same sex marriages is the issue, not couples. they should be elegible for the tax and healthcare breaks as any other married couples.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:34 PM

KC, what I mean is that many of the US's economic policies and big business practices have made earning a living wage in other countries impossible or close to, so people want to come here to enjoy the economic advantages that the US has helped to strip from their countries.

SJ - IMO education is always a better option. If we put half the money into prevention and early intervention that we pour into building prisons we would see some marked societal changes. Of course building prisons is much more politicallly expedient because you have the instant result factor. Education could take a generation before results are obvious.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:46 PM

yes to your first point. again, we are mostly immigrants ourselves. and, we were founded on religious freedom (supposedly), i don't get why the christian right is imposed on us.

on your second point, again, i agree. the problem is putting this great theory into practice. quick fixes LOOK better, politically speaking. also, tying the two together, there is so much talk of putting christian g-d back in the schools they will doubtfully allow prevention education. heck, evolution isn't allowed to be taught in many states, let alone birth control.
Posted By: JZB

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:50 PM

What ticks me off is when ILLEGAL immigrants start making demands from the govt....say.. drivers licenses, saying they deserve it. They are not suppose to be there in the first place!

I also agree that it is none of the governments business if two consenting adults sleep together and spend the rest of their lives together, no matter what sex.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:55 PM

I disagree with the same-sex-marriage concept. My thought process is that marriage is an institution designed to protect ultimately the children. Keeps the male legally involved to take care of mother/children and support them also when the woman is pregnant and may not be able to fend for herself. I do not believe that "marriage" has anything to do with sexual preference by definition.

Law, it seems that throwing more money at education hasn't really improved the quality of said education. Perhaps more effort should be put into what is being taught. Also, our citizens are really upset about so many jobs being outsourced to other countries. I would think that this would tend to move more money into those countries. Granted that their standard of living is not the same as ours, but I would think that the wages they are paid would result in a better condition than if they were not employed at all. So many shades of gray. Kind of like a bubble in a water bed. Squash it down in one spot, and it reappears in another.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 04:59 PM

Clarifying my position in light of JZBs statement. I too do not particularly care who is sleeping with who, or what. But if they want to call it a marriage in order to obtain government largess, then it is government business in that respect.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:05 PM

Bobber, if your view of the purpose of marriage was the standard it would leave me out - I can't have children. From a historical perspective women were never the true beneficiaries of marriage as it was the husbands who had the legal right to divorce at will.

As for education, just because there's more money doesn't mean it's been spent well. In my opinion, our educational system sufferes from the same problems as every other institution run by our govt.: too much ineffective, overpaid administration.

Saying being paid some wage is better than being paid no wage completely misses the point of striving for economic justice.

Amazing; our politics are pretty far apart, but you are still one of my favorite people in the world! smile
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:06 PM

jzb, good point.

bobber, do you realize what you said can be interpreted this way:

men are incapable of staying in a monogomus relationship unless required to by law. AND, pregnant women are unable to fend for themselves.

conversely, i know of married men who DO NOT support their wives or children, and unmarried ones who do.

common marrige vows do not include children, as i recall. they say love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health from this day forwad, etc.

just an observation.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:14 PM

Jane, you apply current situations to something that was instituted a long time ago, when women and children were not necessarily taken care of by the state, and pregnant women , especially in the latter stages of pregnancy, were not able to hunt and gather (or take care of any previous small children). Men are capable of staying in a monogamus relationship,of course. Never mind the divorce rate and the number of "fatherless" families. Common marriage vows are more religious and personal, and have no bearing on legal status of the relationship with the government.
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:15 PM

I think everyone is forgetting that our forefathers wore wigs and satin Capri pants.
Posted By: JZB

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:18 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Bobber:
Common marriage vows are more religious and personal, and have no bearing on legal status of the relationship with the government.
Exactly!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:23 PM

I've thought there might be a dual system - civil unions provided by the government that provide all the tax advantages, etc. and then a "marriage" by the religious institution of one's choice. Religious institutions already have the option of saying who the will and will not marry anyway.

I don't have real strong feelings either way about who can or can't get married becasue in today's society as a whole marriage isn't taken all that seriously anyway. The question I kinda can't get past is if we start redefining it, where does it stop? Can three people get married? Can you marry your dog?
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:24 PM

bobber (you know i like you), i wasnt opposing what you said, just having you look at how it looked written down. a bit off, to me.

law, very interesting points.

and, LOL @ dog. i love how you have a way of putting things into perspcetive! (don't forget they also had slaves and were boinking whomever they wanted, without having to support those illegitimate children. i love coming full circle).
Posted By: Denny Shane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:26 PM

I am soooooooooooooooo staying out of this one. eek
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:29 PM

Law, was "marriage" something that was originally proposed by someone, or was it something that evolved? I would imagine that the woman's ability to bear children may have been a moot point from that perspective. There are places in the world that women who are unable to bear children typically aren't considered marriage material. You also indicate that marriage benefitted the male only, reducing the women to a status of possession. Even in that instance, they would derive benefit. Why would a man want a woman anyway, if it wasn't for their childbearing capacity? (There is a reason. Do you know what it is? Sure you do. And it ain't cooking).
This kind of points out that if you stand on the left, things appear differently than if you are standing on the right. Like the blind men and the elephant. Law, you are a product of the genetic crapshoot and your life experiences, as I am also. You are a much favored friend.
Posted By: KC Jayhawk

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:30 PM

Denny, that sounds like "cut and run" to me!! Wise, wise move. There is no shallow end to this pool. smile
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:31 PM

What did our foremother's wear? I hope it was cute. And from France. :p
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:32 PM

hey law, i saw on tv the other day that a man in UT (of course) had 70 wives. seriously. this is ok, and i THINK a man can legally marry a transexual. (anyone?).

and, you're so right, it is so common to ask a couple if they are a "first marriage". weird. i never believed in divorce, yet i am divorced.

oddly, don't know about you all, but when i married, i got two certificates, a religious one, and a legal one.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:35 PM

70 wives, hmmmm. Ostensibly, there would have to be more than one home/household, which means that poor sucker would be moving furniture for the rest of his life.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:36 PM

KC - well said! smile

Bobber, everything evolves. Biblical passages give explicit instructions about how to treat the slaves you own. Males caught in adultry were required to pay a fine, women caught in adultry were required to be stoned. We wouldn't agree with either of those practices today. Historically women and children were considered property. If you are arguing that there are advantages to being owned, I suppose you may have a technical point, but there is no way it can be argued the advantages were mutual. Many of these attitudes are still prevelent today - even in the American legal system.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:38 PM

Anybody watch "Big Love" ? smile
Posted By: KC Jayhawk

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:38 PM

70 wives? He'd have to have one house just for the shoes. laugh
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:39 PM

oh, I'm sure he intends to keep them barefoot and pregnant
Posted By: KC Jayhawk

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:40 PM

Volley and return!! Nicely done, Law.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:42 PM

wink
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:45 PM

law - you are on fire today, girl! yeah, i saw it once, know the concept. creepy to me, i ain't the kind that has any interest in sharing my man.

early marriages also, in addition to all law stated regarding ownership, often had to do with dowry, or political or business gain, ie, two sultans or regents wedding their offspring.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 05:47 PM

why thank you Janie! smile I don't own a TV, but have a Netflix subscription and for some reason have become facinated with that show. Don't know exactly what it is, but I'm almost done with the first season.
Posted By: KB

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:00 PM

Bobber - marraige has always been and will always be about property. Women needed marraige to give them a guarantee of property rights - something single women were not allowed in most countries until recently (last 100 years). Like most things.....it's about the money stupid!!! Common law marraige and same sex marraige are not recognized in most states so not only are gay couples not protected, neither are women who live in a common law arrangement. All the talk about "family values" is a bunch of crap - a legal contract is the only way to protect the interests of both parties and that is what a marraige is.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:08 PM

Historically a woman's right to inherit real property terminated upon divorce, so even marriage offered no guaranteed protection. In California, real property held in joint title was legally presumed to belong to the male. This was true as recently as 1975, still is true in some states.
Likewise, in many states present day criminal penalties for having sex with a minor are much harsher if it's the neighbor's kid. Growing your own victim entitles you to much less severe sanctions, a holdover from the days when children were viewed merely as property.
Posted By: shuffles

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:08 PM

Just my three cents' worth but I have a bigger stake this time....my 20 year old nephew is coming to US from Okinawa next month for two weeks, then it's off to Iraq.....great kid....I worry about him even now and he hasn't even gone yet.
The quote below is about Vietnam, but hmmm sounds like.................
“This war started off as a nation building exercise within the context of the Cold War as early as the 1950s. The US began to set in place diplomatic missions aimed at creating a US friendly puppet govermnent based on a prior success in the Philippines. The Eisenhower administration, under the influence of Allen and John Foster Dulles meddled in local politics and stood in opposition to what would have been a successful national election of Ho Chi Minh in 57. We also made the mistake of supporting the French in their attempt to re-take their former colony of Indo China.

It’s the ultimate hypocrisy that rather than respecting the political process of national elections, the CIA and State Dept found a local leader (DIEM) who would act as a political figurehead and maintain a regime aligned to US interests The country divided and under an escalating civil war, the US began gradually building up a military advisor presence, directing relocation and control of the local population, and training the ARVN forces to combat the growing resistance.
This whole thing was tragically avoidable. I am mindful of the parallels to the war in Iraq. Again, America has betrayed herself and again we have been lied to. “

David Halbertsom, The Best And The Brightest, A Bright and Shining Lie,
Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:09 PM

law, explain to me how your netflix subscription works without a tv?

(i netflix too, LOVE it. just started Weeds now, did all of scrubs, ab fab, coupling, curb your enthusiasm, dead like me, etc. LOVE it!)

kb - good points, historically speaking. (sounds like you are not a fan of marriage, tho). agree with you that family values have little to do w/ marriage. conversely, boyfriend & i said vows alone on a beach a year ago, and stuck to them as if married, just no legal benefits. and had nothing to do with money, as i am more 'comfortable' than he is.

all very interesting information.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:12 PM

dang, this thread is moving so fast i am falling behind...
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:14 PM

What is this? Marriage has evolved since biblical times? What a bunch of hogwash. :p
I am glad it is done evolving wink
Posted By: San Pedro Daily

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:16 PM

Quote
Originally posted by shuffles:

It’s the ultimate hypocrisy that rather than respecting the political process of national elections, the CIA and State Dept found a local leader (DIEM) who would act as a political figurehead and maintain a regime aligned to US interests The country divided and under an escalating civil war, the US began gradually building up a military advisor presence, directing relocation and control of the local population, and training the ARVN forces to combat the growing resistance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now the US is screwing around with Venezuela, a nation with a democratically elected leader.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:18 PM

SJ - I have one of those little portable DVD players.

Bobber, I missed your point? confused
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:18 PM

SweetJ - can't give you numbers on how many Canadians live/work in the US, but bet your bottom dollar that they are more educated and qualified than the average Joe - we'd like to keep 'em here (doctors, engineers, etc), but our salaries just can't compare overall. If you check your welfare rolls, you'd be hard pressed to find many Canadians.

Bobber - As for the issue of same-sex marriage, simply put , anyone who pays the same taxes as I should have the same rights as I do. I can't marry my dog or brother (UGH on both), but I can and did marry the love of my life.
Posted By: ChrisW

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:22 PM

I think the first solution to the same sex 'marriage' controversy is to get rid of the term marriage when it comes to the legal part of a marriage. Marriage has got too much religious baggage that gets people all emotional and defensive. People hear same sex marriage and immediately think that their church and religious beliefs are under attack, but that is not at all the case.

If a church wants to say that same sex marriage is wrong and not allow same sex marriages in their church, that is no problem. That is certainly their right.

If on the other hand, the government does not allow same sex "marriages" (or should we call them life partnership contracts) there is a big problem. It creates a group of second class citizens who are essentially punished for their lifestyle.

One of the ways they are punished is inheritance tax. Normally when a man or woman dies his spouse gets all the money tax free. Where as a same sex couple under the same circumstances could end up owing millions.

Another way they are punished is by getting paid less for the same work as a heterosexual counterpart. Health insurance benefits to spouses and childern are worth thousands of dollars a year and same sex couple in most cases are not entitled to them. Over a 30 year period you could be talking about 150k or more that they lose out on by being gay.

And then there is social security. Same sex couples pay the same into social security as everybody else. Yet they get the short end of the stick in different situations. Take, for example, a couple where one works and the other takes care of the kids. The working partner dies. Normally the non working partner and the children would be given social security benefits until the children were 18, but what a mess if this is a same sex couple.

In the end (no pun intended) its all about the money. The religion thing is just something people bring up to pull peoples strings. Business and governments are against same sex marriage because they dont want to fork over the money that same sex couples rightfully deserve. Everything else is just noise being made to keep people looking the wrong way.

Oh next time you meet a same sex couple you might want to thank them for carrying more than their fair share of the tax burden and the group insurance burden.
Posted By: JZB

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:25 PM

Of course marriage has evolved and will continue to evolve as long as people and society does. It is now more of a contract between two mutual parties instead of business contract or ownership contract. You are no longer required to say 'love, honour and OBEY.'...except if you get married in the Belize Catholic church of course...
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:28 PM

Chris, those are some of the reasons I believe a dual system might be in order; but I do still have some concerns about where the re-defining stops, or if it does.

Many states have enacted domestic partnership laws that offer the protections you describe above. The federal government has not followed suit.
Posted By: shuffles

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 06:30 PM

Weather, yes... but not a leader "hand picked" by the US....just another country in a long line... the more thing change, the more they stay the same.....great thing about being expat....you don't have to hear/see/live the CNN/GWB/almighty $$ crap every minute of every day. Ok, there's lots of other good stuff too.... smile smile
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:12 PM

nsn - please, i said no offense. i love canada. i was just making a point. (btw - not to compare, or generalize, but the hispanics up here [down here, to you] may not be educated, but they are very hard workers). feel free to plug asians, or anyone else, instead.

chris, extremely well put. yet, i didnt marry for money or tax benefits, i married cuz i wanted to be with that person, and to show the world i meant it. same reason i am doing it this time too. jzb, i said cherish, not obey.

shuffles, those are some reasons i hope to be an ex-pat somewhere someday.
Posted By: Denny Shane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:16 PM

You may be an ex-pat someday... legally but never morally... you'll even get a bigger lump in your throat everytime you hear the Star Spangeled Banner or America the Beautiful... and always deep down in the bottom of your heart you'll always wonder if you did the right thing. eek
Posted By: PalapaBob

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:18 PM

I would tend to agree Denny.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:19 PM

I dunno Denney, that may be true for you, but not for everyone. I am not especially patriotic, and tend not to agree with the "we are the best country in the world" sentiment.
Posted By: GAY AND DAVID

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:22 PM

COOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEE!

what is egregious confused
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:24 PM

e‧gre‧gious  /ɪˈgridʒəs, -dʒiəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-gree-juhs, -jee-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake; an egregious liar.
2. Archaic. distinguished or eminent.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:27 PM

denny, fellow philadelphian, i was raised believing this was the best country in the world. i live near an airbase ans the "sounds of freedom" as they put it made me well with pride. BUT...the more i travel the world, and the more we get screwed up, the more i see how the US is seen from the other side, the more embarrassed i am to be american. i am sorry, and i may grow to change my mind, but it is MHO for now.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:27 PM

yeah, what she said. unless you weren't asking what it meant and instead were asking what I think the most egregious event of the year was, in which case my answer would be something else entirely. wink

Hi Gay!!! Miss you guys. Are you working today? I'm having a day off, not to be confused with an off day. :p
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:42 PM

SweetJ - When I said what I did it was not to say that Canadians are better than others that leave their homelands to move to the US, just, generally, more educated. We have it very easy here, compared to most immigrants, and our main reason for leaving is greed. Most who immigrate do so because of poverty, war or total lack of opportunities.

As for "plugging" asians, I could not and would not - nor could I "plug" any other group. My family and friends are like the United Nations and I like it that way! :p
Posted By: San Pedro Daily

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:48 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Denny Shane:
You may be an ex-pat someday... legally but never morally... you'll even get a bigger lump in your throat everytime you hear the Star Spangeled Banner or America the Beautiful... and always deep down in the bottom of your heart you'll always wonder if you did the right thing. eek
You are very wrong on this!
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:49 PM

ok, agreed on everything you said. i guess i didnt state it well. i was wondering if any other ethnicity was being under scrutiny for immigrating other than mexicans, and only asking cuz it would be so ridiculous to picture a wall being built between the us & canada.

my thoughts are flowing in the right direction, but my words aren't.

i never mean any offence to anyone. i was born jewish, which relinqushes my right to judge anyone's ethnicity.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 07:52 PM

ps - where ever i go, if i go, i would maintain my citizenship, either solo or dual.

i have always lived by this credo: i make the best educated decisions i can, with no regrets.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 08:34 PM

Chris, Nsn, still disagree with you. I will go with Law, a possible dual system. Leave the term marriage to it's previously determined definition.
Posted By: snorkelgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 08:35 PM

Law,

(back on page 1)
"I DO care if they go into full blown civil war and kill themselves, in large part because we helped create the circumstances that are setting that up."

I care right along with you if there's civil war in Iraq...but let's be fair here, sectarian violence would have been occuring whether we interrupted or not...it was going on there for centuries before we arrived, and I'm sure it will continue when we're gone.

Comparatively, it would be like Catholics killing Baptists killing Presbyterians etc....here in the U.S.

Did we destabilize the Iraqi status quo by entering? Yes. But the civil war was just behind a curtain, simmering. Now it's exposed. And now Americans are supposed to be able to stop it?

Now we've just given fanatics a new chant....

We need to realize that democracy has to be not only "for the people and by the people" but also wanted by the people. We can't force it first, then expect a nation to buy into it.

Even still, I am happy to be an American, where we are allowed to speak about our government pro and con, without fear. God Bless America (anyway).
Posted By: seashell

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 08:45 PM

As was pointed out in earlier posts, marriage was about ownership . .but also about heirs. Men needed to bind women to them to ensure that they left their estates to their legally first born son. If they were married, they believed they had some kind of insurance that the baby was indeed their own.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 09:06 PM

snorkelgirl, I would tend to agree. I said we helped not that we caused.

I prefer to ask that God bless everyone as I'm highly skeptical that we're His favorite.
Posted By: seashell

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 09:20 PM

I think I should marry my best friend. That way we can take advantage of the tax benefits. Why should two people have to be in love (at least when they first marry) to be able to enjoy the advantages afforded by our governments . . .?

I don't have a dog.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 09:24 PM

good job on the clarification there, ss wink
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 09:37 PM

that's a can of worms alright, ss, but women marry men (and visa versa) for the wrong reasons and take advantage of the laws all the time, too.

i'll stick with what i have been telling my kids for years: people suck.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 09:41 PM

SJ - what are you still doing here?
my opoinion (not that anyone asked :rolleyes: ): only mean people suck
the rest are pretty okay most of the time.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:10 PM

Bobber - it's not about the word "marriage", that's just 8 letters that mean something different to everyone that defines them. It's more about rights and respect and acknowledgement and a hundred other things that "straight" couples have that gay couples don't. As for a dual system, what the hell's the point of that???

When my hubby and I got "married", we had no church nor religious figure involved, but we publically changed our legal status to reflect our love, commitment and all that goes along. We had gay couples at our wedding that were unable to do so (legally) for another 2 years (Thank you, Nova Scotia government). Now we can participate in the celebration of love and commitment of those friends that celebrated with us.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:20 PM

Still not convinced.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:36 PM

Hi This is Mr Nuts here - first ever post - not because this is so important that I can't stay off - but the beer is good right abt now. My opinions have moderated over the years. I had a gay brother I was embarassed to acknowledge for years. He's dead now. We have wonderful gay friends that are just people, and they love each other. Love is a precious thing and I wish everyone had it in their lives. Let them have it. They're gay - get over it. Interestingly enough, when we got married, we lost financially, as our wonderful gov't then combines incomes and cuts out things like child $ allowances that we both had as single parents - gov't makes $. For gays - gov't and employers are against it, as spouses are entitled to a percentage of spouse's pension if they die - a new batch of spouses as opposed to a bunch of single gays that will die without a legal survivor saves gov't/employers $. Phew - enough for now ...thirsty
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:44 PM

Mr. Nuts! Hi! I know how you feel. My aunt is gay and has had the same partner for quite a few years now. As long as they love each other and take care of each other that is more than fine with me. I love them both very much.
LOOOOOVEEEE IS A MANY SPLENDID THING!!!! (sung in a way that would make a dog run!) laugh
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:44 PM

oh, Cold beer in 20 min........19.....18.....
come one 5:00!
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:47 PM

If you get a divorce in Saskatchewan...are you still brother and sister??????
Posted By: PalapaBob

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:50 PM

Geez DC, going on 6 here. And yes, the Friday evening cold one is very refreshing!
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:53 PM

I categorically state that I am not against love in any form. Love is hope for the world. I am also not a homophobe, I give respect to everyone until they prove they are not worthy of it. I do however, prefer to call a duck a duck, and would prefer not to have any geese or swans demanding to be called ducks.
I am currently fixing a picture of that cold beer in my mind.
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 10:55 PM

Pop-a-top-again!!!! Outta here for the first (of many)cold one of the night. C-ya!
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 11:02 PM

Bobber, what the hell do ducks have with human rights? We, straights, have bastardized marriage, in any definition, to the point that I'm kinda suprised that gays want anything to do with it. Ultimately, its simply not about the word - it's about the right to be equal - and how this is any of anyone else's business, I'll never know. We're not talking science here, those facts have already been argued and proven. It's about individual rights of people. Two consenting adults. If my neighbor marries a gal or a guy, what, exactly, does it have to do with me?????? I just don't get it! You're using the same bloody arguments that were used when women and then blacks wanted to vote. It does not diminish you to elevate (or acknowledge) others. Don't get me started!!!!!! wink
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 11:04 PM

I think gays should be allowed to get married...

Why can't they be as miserable as the rest of us????
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/10/06 11:09 PM

MrNuts here - lets try this - one of the reasons I got married to Mrs Nuts is that due to my love of her and us sharing our lives together and hopefully growing our net worth together - I want her to be looked after if I die, especially prematurely. Without the marriage certificate - she gets nothing. What is different with a gay couple? The gay guy and I both pay our taxes and into a pension plan. My spouse and the gay guy's partner do the same - why do our families not get to keep the same amount - guess they should be punished for ...?
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 12:08 AM

It boils down to all the god and jesus malarkey. What peeves me off moreso this year than others? The "we are praying for the troops" or any other reference to prayer or god in media and government. As well the notion that only good christians are entitled to the benefits of society moreso than others.

Spirituality is not the exclusive domain of one group.

I feel for any service man or woman out in the field but this prayer crap has gotta stop. The christian "right" is wrong.
Posted By: Pedro1

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 12:13 AM

Why would anyone own a woman-it costs enough to get a divorce-owning to get rid of would surely be more expensive-marriage should be viewed as a renters contract
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 12:25 AM

I hope they legalize gay marriage nationwide soon.

It creats a whole new cottage industry...divorce, child custody/support, alimony, etc.

Then I'll get mrs. reaper to stop putting bad guys in jail and start a civil practice handling all of the new gay marriage issues! Then we'll finally be able to afford that condo in San Pedro!

(disclaimer; the following is just an observation of a demented mind, no animals were harmed in the posting of this drivel.)
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 01:48 AM

OK, plain and simple. I do not have the right to marry another man. I do have the right to marry a woman.
A given gay person does not have the right to marry someone of their own sex. They do have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
At this point it seems our rights are pretty much equal, wouldn't you say?
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 01:50 AM

You get to marry the person you love, they...???...unequal I think!
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 01:57 AM

This is where sexual preference comes in. How about if I preferred young children, hmmm? Would I be granted the right to amend the laws to allow me to marry one. But, that's not fair. How about if I preferred farm animals? Not fair, I would cry.
Subject closed, as far as I am concerned. Life is not always fair, and you cannot pass laws to make it so.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 02:10 AM

Typical illogical argument of someone who just doesn't get it. What the hell does paedophilia have to do with the topic of gay marital/union rights and equal access to benefits extended to hetero couples?

In some states in your country folks under 16 can get married. In some states like Utah they are doing it anyway...marrying off young pliable girls to horny old men masquerading as religious leaders.

Get real. Most of your paedophiles by the way are straight.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 02:20 AM

Bobber, the one thing I've wondered about the view you hold is in what way do you see homosexual marriage threaten hetrosexual marriage? How would marriage as it is defined today be harmed by broadening the definition?
As I've stated, I have some other concerns with the idea, but I don't get the feeling threatened part.

Just a thought, what if the government removed the legal and tax advantages of marriage, then would gays want to marry?
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 02:27 AM

You are right. You have typically taken a statement and turned it into something else. Pedophilia has nothing to do with it. But, if I wished it to, could I not claim "no Fair"? How about bestiality? Could I not claim unfair? Where are these "benefits" coming from? Society? The government? Who gets to say who gets what? The people at large, or some judge (unelected)?
Didn't I just see something about the legal age (of consent) in Canada for girls being 14? Hmmm, some group must not have been happy waiting till they were older, and decided to change things.
Just doesn't get it? How typical.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 02:28 AM

Law, there are reasons.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 02:37 AM

The legal age of consent in Canada is not gender-specific. That consent law was directed towards teen sex and not an endorsement of some horny old fart getting his or her rocks off with a bopper. Why don't you take the time to look up the law instead of hypothesizing?

The "arguments" that you toss around btw are called RED HERRINGS; statements meant to direct one away from the initial argument.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 03:01 AM

Have another drink. wink
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 03:07 AM

I'm off to do just that! smile
See you all tomorrow!
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 03:23 AM

May as well have a drink then maybe some of the stupider remarks may just make sense. Some bourbon oughtta do the trick...that's a good republican, manly type of drink. No water, no ice...straight up.

Bar Wench! Some Knob Creek please! Make it a double!

I keep asking myself this one question - if Amerikkka is so great then what are some of you doing here?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 09:07 AM

OK ladies, (and Bobber) now that the problems of: mandatory sterilization, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, patriotism and drunks have been solved (and the appearance of Mr Nuts) THAT'S IT? Nothing else has pi**sed you off in the last 12 months? Where's the outrage? wink laugh
Posted By: KC Jayhawk

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 01:19 PM

I am absolutely opposed to the mandatory sterilization of patriotic gay drunk illegal immigrants. This shall not stand!! :p
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 01:24 PM

Heheheheh...good one!
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 01:27 PM

Bobber, here's the current Canadian law:

"The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code."

So now you know.

As far as your argument about animals and children, the whole point of granting rights to gay couples is about TWO CONSENTING ADULTS - having sex with animals or children has no place in this discussion.

Put your big-boy panties on and pay attention!!!
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 02:04 PM

Nuts....thanks for digging out the exact wording. He must watch Fox News or something. Kill Anne Coulter NOW!!!! Or at least put her in a room with fatso Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Carlson, Falwell and the head of Focus on the Family. Give em' some porn and condoms and psylocibins and let em' have at it! Hell toss in a couple of midgets in drag from MIND OF MENCIA (brilliant show on comedy central) and see what happens.

Who was the virulent christian leader recently whp got caught doing some butt-action?
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 02:38 PM

Obviously I have better things to do than read any farther than the Canadian newspapers when I am there. I don't bother delving into the actual law, as I don't plan on having sex with any Canadians, underage or otherwise.
The arrogance of the elite boggles the mind and is humerous at the same time. Are you rich? If not, why not?
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 03:28 PM

Bobber - "The arrogance of the elite boggles the mind and is humerous at the same time. Are you rich? If not, why not? "

- Care to clarify your statement/questions?
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 03:33 PM

Hey Rykat...The Steelers being 2-6 realy has me ****ed off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: klcman

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 03:38 PM

Outrageous!!!! how do you sleep at night Reaper????
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 04:12 PM

yeah and Rutgers beating Louisville is pretty outrageous also? eek (dee-da-dee,CB. evrything else ya said sucks but Mencia rocks)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 04:23 PM

What happened to the idea of having a debate between people with differing views without name-calling or insulting? :confussed:

Come on, it's not like someone's trying to charge $5 for something anyone can get for free on line! laugh
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 04:24 PM

pardon, I retract forementioned statement (especially about Rutgers)! laugh
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/11/06 05:07 PM

ok, I'll give you a "kinda funny"
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 12:19 AM

in the spirit of not letting this thread wither away, cause I'd like to hear more, here's a happenin' that ticked me off. I know I don't live in New Orleans, I'm not poor and I'm not of African descent HOWEVER - the re-election of Ray Nagin lit a fire under my a**. HOW?!? mad confused
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 12:55 AM

He rivals Marion Berry for "Most Watchable Mayor Ever!" Can't wait to see what he does next!
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 12:56 AM

Well unless he does crack, he'll be hard pressed to truly rival Marion Berry! laugh
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 02:20 AM

forgot about him in DC, you're right but Nagin's re-elect peed me of just as much. Have they no shame?
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 05:06 AM

To mistah Bobber....if you cannot get past Canadian newspapers then please don't make assumptions about Canadian law. This Canadian, when discussing affairs of the United States of America,speaks from experience, research and having lived there off and on for many years.

I reported on the political scene there for many years for American and Canadian media outlets. I didnt give a hairy rats arse if they were left or right so long as they paid. That crap only started a few years ago and its a bloody shame.

So what is wrong with being informed before making silly assumptions and thus potentially making an arse out of oneself? Rather be informed than look an idgit.

Rykat....Nagin should not have been re-elected but that is a topic to discuss on its own sometime. And yes, MENCIA ROCKS! He cracks me up...my kind of humour - not politically correct but informed and cutting edge.

Bobber, as to my monetary status? Well, I am doing what I wanna do and in my own time and living down here so I must be doing just fine.

LIVE LARGE...that is my motto!!
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 12:21 PM

You have to admit that Boober's soapbox is sturdy enough to propel him to a zenith of idiocy.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 12:27 PM

There goes that growly germaine shepherd again! laugh
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 03:11 PM

I might assume here that the "smart" people who refer to me as an idiot are taking offense with my statement about 14 year old girls being of the age of consent. I was wrong. No, wait, I wasn't. It is also been indicated that old men did not make these laws. Who did? 16 year old boys? Dog and Cool, you are so smart, you must be extremely rich. Good for you. Someday I may be smart and rich also.
Have a good day. wink
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/12/06 03:39 PM

There are people that aren't all that smart, yet they are rich because they have sturdy soapboxes.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 03:43 PM

bobber, ususally i like what you have to say, but here i too am a bit befuddled of what your point is. i, like the nuts, will have to file seperately when i am married, as i have more assets then the future mr, (thank you divorce in the usa) and actually stand to have him lose money on taxes. yet we WILL marry, for love and comittment.

and, as said, what does marrying for love have to do with pedaephiles or beastiality? some laws ARE their for the good of the public. what two consenting adults do has little bearing on children and animals.

and , please, yes!!! get god outta politics. put the teachings of buddah or ghandi in there, then we can talk.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 03:50 PM

Hallelujah....Praise the lord and pass the mofo loot! BTW Bobber, I am maintaining just fine. The Belikens are cold now and are saying to me "drink me, drink me (hics soon to come)."
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 04:42 PM

Marriage for the CHILDREN? (from first page of thread) Don't like children, don't want children, do my best to stay way far away from them....but I'm married. ...??????head shake?????...

I'll second: It pi**es me off that the gov't gets into peoples personal lives. Example...Seatbelt law. Didn't you have some other worthwhile cause to spend the money on than creating that idiotic law?
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 04:49 PM

True Malibu (seat belt law) Heck, If I want to get in a crash and smash my face on the windshield or get thrown from the car, I will! Just another way of grabbing money from our pocketbooks. If I don't want anyone to watch over me, I won't ask them too. Otherwise I think that I'M the one to judge on whether or not to wear the dang thing. If I'm in the INDY 500, heck yeah, I'll wear the damn thing. Or if I'm driving in Mexico City, I might put it on, but in my little town of 6,000, the likelyhood of me getting in a 2 (or more) car pile up is pretty much remote!
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 04:56 PM

I state an opinion, based on my life's experience and predisposition based on the makeup given me in the genetic crapshoot. Unlike some others, who consider their opinions to be much more valid than mine for some obscure reason, I have my reasons to think as I do. I have learned much from this discussion, such as marriage is about love, it is about ownership and money, and assuring paternity. If you love a rock, you should be able to marry it. I have learned that the government and God should stay the hell out of my life and just intrude in others that are on the dole. Are all of these opinions? I think so. Have a nice day, people. You have not managed to sway my thinking. wink
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 04:59 PM

Glad we cleared that up.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:00 PM

In Canada you can only marry a rock if it is an adult rock that has consented to the marriage. wink
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:04 PM

I don't believe that anyone considers their opinions more valid than yours. At least it hasn't been blatantly stated.

What is the big deal about assuring paternity anyway?

The makeup given you in the genetic crapshoot....hmmmm....that because you are male you have to espouse certain points of view? Or that once you hit 40 you should vote Republican or that because you breed you should be married?

Start reading theories on environment vs. heredity and you may be surprised. That is if you are still into learning new ideas. I do not know you personally so I do not know how receptive, Mister Bobber, you are to those notions.

Not all males are dinosaurs, patriarchal in their leanings or whatever. We are all individuals and in an intelligent society we are allowed to progress. I always thought progression was better than regression.

Mommmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeee! Bring me anuddah beer!!!
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:06 PM

personally, i wear my seatbelt ALL THE TIME, use turn signals, and never had a moving violation, BUT...

can you prove the rock freely consents? and i specifically said god should stay outta govt, not anyone's life. that to is a personal choice. and i said the govt should stay outta my home, not my life.

bobber, you are my friend, but, mess up the facts properly, plz.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:07 PM

Ho Hum. Coolbummings, are you one of those elitists? Just wondering laugh
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:08 PM

coolb - you mean nature vs nurture? i love subjects like that (eek, my open mind is showing again) eek
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:14 PM

Janey, you said "my deal is: stay the hell outta my home and my personal life." Feel free to spank me, but only if I have been bad. wink
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:15 PM

Now you've got it bobber! wink

PS I always wear my seat belt too.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:17 PM

yeah Sweets...THAT argument. Could spend the rest of my life on that one.

I have been called many names in my life - a**hole comes to mind....but ELITIST? I will not apologize for using my brain for more than just carrying bar trivia altho' I am a whiz at bar trivia and am formidable.

Like I stated before Bobber, I am financially comfortable and doing my own thing but if Bill Gates asked me to take one for the team for twenty mill or so? I would seriously consider it. No pain no gain right?

Wealth is defined many ways. You seem to be hung up on just one definition. I would advise the purchase of a dictionary.
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:17 PM

Gov't published Food Pyramid. Thoughts?
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:20 PM

Evil conspiracy by agrocommerce to make us eat more Kashi.....YECK!!! I hate hippie food. laugh
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:20 PM

I think purchasing a dictionary is a good idea, because I think someone is redefining elitist as liberal.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:23 PM

What is this "american" hangup with liberal vs. conservative really all about? A voice for guys that got cut from the team when they were in highschool? I have covered politics for over twenty years and am still muddling over that one.

Give me a good argument anyday, minus the flippin' histrionics...

BTW hippie food still sucks. Prime Rib Baby! And if it wouldn't give me a massive coronary to do so I would eat it everyday.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:25 PM

bobber, my life as a citizen vs. my personal life. i'm not so sure that is the same thing for many of us. (according to this thread of what i do in my own home, if i spank you, i could be busted for assault)

cb - we could have some great chats in a social setting.

malibu ?????? if they enforce what i consume, 'nother story.
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:26 PM

cool, you've somehow missed the newly published pyramid, you poor dear. Grain is no longer at the top. I wonder how much was spent on that <tongue in cheek> worthwhile read.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:27 PM

As long as the bartenders are good lookin' and know what "a twist of lime" actually means.
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:30 PM

hopefully, you are referring to female bartenders, not that's there's anything wrong with that other pyramid.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:30 PM

Malibu...this is what happens when you reach a certain age. You realize that death is inevitable so why worry about ditching bad habits. I will however look at the new pyramid...hehehehe.

EAt, drink and be merry for tomorrow?
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:32 PM

SJ, we are not far off from gov't enforcing what we consume. The gov't publishes that items are good for us according to whomever bid the highest payment to them. Sick....money makes the world go round.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:33 PM

Ok I just looked at the pyramid...does it not mean that what is at the bottom should be consumed more? Like grains and all that crap? I do not think the USDA would want us to eat more chocolate than bread.

Oh well....gotta go marinate some beef. Beef, real food for REAL people.
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:33 PM

CB I wasn't going to throw the age card but I feel I must tell you, I have no idea what hippie food is as I am not old enough to have been alive when hippies were roaming. I have heard tale of them though laugh
Posted By: Sir Isaac Newton

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:37 PM

If God didn't want us to eat animals, then, why did he make them out of meat?

SIN
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:41 PM

Quote
Originally posted by coolbummings:
What is this "american" hangup with liberal vs. conservative really all about? A voice for guys that got cut from the team when they were in highschool? I have covered politics for over twenty years and am still muddling over that one.

Give me a good argument anyday, minus the flippin' histrionics...

get back on topic! long as i can still eat conch fritters occasionally, dont give a flying f about the food pyramid.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 05:50 PM

CB's dictionary of Hippie food....
(this is purely for humour as I have been known in secret to enjoy some of this crap)

Yoghurt
low-fat milk
soy cheese
tofu weeners
trail mix (real hikers eat homemade deer jerky from a deer they shot and dressed themselves)
tofurkey
Hell, just about anything marked vegetarian at your local market.

Ah heck let's get real....Vegans, many of them aging hippies, love to tell the rest of us how to eat and why and all that crap. Anyone who politicizes their food should be buried now. Food fascists...hahahahahahahahaha....but Thai-style deep-fried tofu with a tangy dipping sauce is damned good eats.

I have to refine this dictionary. Hippies still roam; they have settled in Berkeley and shop at the organic produce market there. Hell, California is Hippie zone central. Wavy Gravy runs a camp for crying out loud.

And the rest of them are planning their retirement funds like that ad on tv....a generation in denial with backache, grey hair and saggy asses. hehehehehe...feel the evil. Bring it on.

But yeah, government? DO NOT TELL ME HOW TO EAT, SCHTUPP, DRIVE OR OTHERWISE. There...still on topic.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 06:28 PM

i thought i used to be a hippie (ok, 10 years too late, but ...) and i never ate any of that crap. i thought the essence of being a hippie was to be an individual with your own thoughts and style, promoting peace, answering to no one.

and...leave my saggy ass outta this.

now, where is the liberal vs conservative debate? i am still trying to figure out what makes a liberal the same as a terrorist lover/supporter.

(edits for spelling errors only, edit police)
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 06:40 PM

It was in jest Sweet. I was thinking of Eric Cartman and his I HATE HIPPIES or SCREW YOU HIPPIE diatribes. And then I remembered a horrible dinner I was invited to where the hosts were VEGANS....I went out for a burger afterwards.

Yeah back on topic....why the liberal vs conservative arguments? I am waiting for Ry and a few others to weigh in....

But I do know some ex-hippies who now vote republican so that kind of goes back to my genetics vs environment thing - as we get older why do some of us become more conservative?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 06:41 PM

Quote
Originally posted by MALIBU:
I'll second: It pi**es me off that the gov't gets into peoples personal lives. Example...Seatbelt law. Didn't you have some other worthwhile cause to spend the money on than creating that idiotic law?
I personally don't care if one wants to drive like a maniac and not wear a seatbelt or helmet. I'm just opposed to the government having to pay all the medical costs associated with trying to scrape that person's brains off the roadway and put them back in his/her head. In my view, as long as the government has to pay for the damages, they ought to get to legislate what causes them.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 06:48 PM

If you're talking about the states then do not worry too much. A friend of mine recently broke her leg while visiting her grandkids in Texas and now she is about 40 g's in the hole.

People dying on the highway sort of plays into the
darwin awards/Malthusian population control thing. wink laugh
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 06:51 PM

Think she'll ever be able to pay that 40 g? If not, who do you think absorbs the cost? And if she's one of the smart few who purchased adequate insurance, what do payouts like that do to rates for the rest of us?
It's not the dying on the highway that costs so much, it's the trying to keep 'em alive that costs so much.
Posted By: JZB

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 07:18 PM

Why the heck does a broken leg cost 40K?? Maybe thats where the problem lies?!
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 07:21 PM

Yes she will be able to pay it and she will be left with not much other than her social security to live on. Lucky for her she owns her property outright and has little overhead down here.

Oh and as to the remark about the smart few who purchase adequate insurance? Nice if they have the money to do so. My friend is a widow on a fixed income who has been living down here for 15 years.

Why should a broken leg cost 40 grand to fix up? Or is it because some doctors (and some lawyers) want to maintain the status quo? Geezus Christ you oughtta reread what you just wrote Miz SCROOGE! I bet you would have sued Tiny Tim for taking up sidewalk space.

God this whole argument could easily segue into the "we keep our property prices higher in order to attract a certain crowd" discussion.

I still cannot believe what you wrote Law. Someday a tragedy may befall you and you will be left with much more modest resources. I hope for your sake that day never comes.

Screw the government. They waste so much money on war. What the hell is wrong with spending some of the filthy lucre on quality of life issues?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 07:35 PM

cool, I'm not sure we're talking about the same issues here. My initial point was that I believe if the government is going to be expected to pay the costs associated with accidents they should be able to enact legislation designed to lower those costs.
You noted that your friend incurred 40 k in med bills due to a broken leg. Did her injuries result from her failure to wear a seatbelt? If not, I'm not sure what the connection is.
If so, then my comments are relevant. Indeed, you have helped make my point; many are not able to afford adequate insurance, thus hospital and tax costs rise for us all, as the cost of medical care for the indigent must be recovered from somewhere. With respect to why a broken leg should cost 40 k, I don't know the answer to that as you did not provide the specifics of your friend's injuries. Was it a compound break? Was hospitalization or surgery required? Did she have to undergo physical therapy? Lots of factors come into play. I never implied the accident was your friend's fault. You, however, posted the account immediately following my post about the government's right to legislate.
I will say I do agree that the US government has squandered much too much on "war" and that doing so has been to the detriment of many other areas they should have been addressing.

As for me personally, I don't think you know enough about me to know whether tragedy has befallen me or not. Nor do I think that is germane to this conversation.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 07:36 PM

God, Law...what you wrote reminded me of the arrogant legal eagles from San Francisco whose big nasty dog ripped out their neighbour's jugular vein in the hallway of a Pacific heights apt. building. The two lawyers BLAMED the victim and said her scent must have provoked the beast. It was quite the famous case back in 1999.

So someone who cannot afford medical insurance or who gets involved in an accident but does not have the means to pay is at blame and ohmigawd is gonna cost the poor ole taxpayer money?

Then you better get ready to sue all the drinkers, smokers, dopers, crack and meth babies and members of the military and let us not forget, GOVERNMENT, for costing the taxpayer too. I see years of litigation in front of you. Better put that expensive holiday off for awhile. You are gonna be one busy gal.

I am sorry to a certain degree for this voice but but that one statement you made about folks who are smart enough to buy medical insurance? Think hard about what you said. It comes across as being very insensitive and oh, dare I say, ELITIST?
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 07:45 PM

Why would it matter how she broke her leg? But if you really want to know she broke it walking down the steps into her daughter's backyard. THE LAG ON THE POSTING...SORRY as I missed your other post.

What steams me is the lack of decent, cost-effective medical coverage for all "americans" in the states. Not everyone can afford insurance. Folks who live paycheck to paycheck, folks who live on minimum wage, folks who are single parents...the list could go on. All it takes is one setback and the downward spiral begins.

Yeah tragedy is germane to the conversation because all of us who have the means to live well could easily find ourselves in a position of vulnerability if we were to suffer a financial setback. And could we expect the government to help out? I doubt it.

Yes, she had to be hospitalized, yes, she had to have surgery. 40 grand is ridiculous. It is a farce and it is butt reaming joke on the american working classes.

Oh yes, tragedy no matter how major or minor is germane. I do not wish tragedy on you nor penury but it is so easy to put the blame on others when one is existing higher up the socio-economic ladder.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 07:51 PM

cool, I've already agreed with you that not everyone can afford to purchase adequate insurance. None of my comments related to assessing blame; rather they were about the reality that someone must bear the cost of providing medical care to those without adequate insurance. I don't understand that to be elitist, it is simple economic fact.
I also never mentioned suing to recover those costs and am at a loss as to how you arrived at that supposition.
It appears that you might have confused some issues, but I'm frankly unable to tell. As for your attempts to insult me personally, I don't mind but neither do I see the relevance.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:02 PM

this interests me, one, bcuz it is the first time i saw cb lose his cool, and 2, 1st time i've seen law have to resort to this type of behavior, and 3, you guys are also talking about me.

this year i lost my med ins due to divorce. i am a part time worker and a part time single mom. i had no house and an 11 yr old car when i was asked to leave.

as a single mom, i had to buy a house (rents up here are worse than mortgages), get a new used car (the body started rusting outta the old one), and i had to pick up med ins. (as well as little things like a bed, dishes, EVERYTHING).

i was told just what you said by the ins guy: we pay the rates we do bcuz we have to cover the med expenses of those not insured. so, i got a fairly cheap policy with a hefty deductible, but you better believe i got a policy.

while i feel for cb's friend, as we all know stuff happens, that is why we all need to have insurance. i do think the govt needs to get involved here, but for now, they arent. just my 2 cents.
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:13 PM

Jane Sweetie, the topic IS 'What ****ed you off in 2006'. The food pyramid is what ****ed me off. And That IS On The Topic.

Law, I am ashamed at you! 1. I said I do wear my seatbelt. I don't think the gov't should tell people what to do.....like wear a seatbelt 2. What makes you think people who don't wear seatbelts don't have the money to pay for themselves to be scraped of the sidewalk? You, an attorney of all people should not make this assumption. ...tsk tsk.

Why indeed does a broken leg cost 40K? Yes Virginia, This Is The Problem. And PS you get a HUGE discount if you don't have insurance....I choose not to have it, I pay cash up front and get a 20% to 50% discount on all medical services (except for lab if it is done at a lab; I do labs at the hospital and viola, they give me a 45% discount.) LOTS better than the $850 a month in health insurance that it went up to a couple years back.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:13 PM

Nah wasn't trying to insult....just doing a free form rant. Sometimes its just how the old brain works. Like I said before - the lag on the postings is to blame here because I never got to read your one post Law because I was in the process of posting mine.

I have visceral reactions from time to time and if it foments discussion and ideas then I am doing great.

Remember Law, lawyers have been disliked since the days of Billie the Shakes.

SWeet...your two cents is invaluable. Thank you for "keepin' it real."
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:20 PM

Quote
Originally posted by MALIBU:
Law, I am ashamed at you! 1. I said I do wear my seatbelt. I don't think the gov't should tell people what to do.....like wear a seatbelt 2. What makes you think people who don't wear seatbelts don't have the money to pay for themselves to be scraped of the sidewalk? You, an attorney of all people should not make this assumption. ...tsk tsk.
No assumptions here, Mal. You might be enlightened by doing a bit of reading on the legislative history. The information regarding how much injuries resulting from failure to wear seatbelts and helmets cost us all is well documented. I rarely assume - you know what they say about that. Seems you might have assumed I did though . . . laugh

CB - "lawyers have been disliked since the days of Billie the Shakes" confused In my opinion, those kinds of generalizations serve no one well. I'm not saying you are generalizing, just that it's not so helpful for those who do...
Posted By: RI Beth

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:23 PM

This is a very sad subject - but folks who suffer from catastrophic injury usually end up in state care. Not aware of any health insurance that covers long term acute care.

That is why states have an interest in mandating seat belt use and other safety requirements.
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:26 PM

Well Law being a journalist (former these days) I am just about as equally despised so I hold a tankard of Beliken up to you and salute you for your tenacity. I do sincerely mean that. Cannot always be a curmudgeon. wink cool
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:30 PM

CB, Cheers! smile
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:31 PM

Down the hatch!! (gulp, HIC!!)
Posted By: Adman

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 08:51 PM

I understand how many of you feel regarding the "government telling us what to do". I do not like to be told I have to wear a motorcycle helmet or buckle my seatbelt. However, there is one thing that upsets me even more than that...and that is taxpayers (you & I) paying the hospital bills for individuals who did not and were seriously injured in accidents.

Apparently many of you have not had medical trouble lately....but the $40,000 figure is not suprising at all. I had a very simple surgery last year...1 night in the hospital....$53,000! My surgeon's assistant made $5,000!

The bottom line is that somebody is going to pay for these skyrocketing medical bills. Many people have insurance, but that is often not enough. When a person runs out of money, the hospitals must still provide care. The buck finally stops with the taxpayer.

I do not want laws telling me what I can do...but it is the lesser of the evils in my opinion.
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 09:13 PM

It's a vicious cycle. Mounting costs because of not enough ins. coverage (or no insurance at all), taxes keep rising to pay for the indigent, (meaning more money being taken out of my paycheck) paycheck getting smaller so I opt out of medical coverage so I can at least keep gas in my car to get me to work, pay for food, and pay for child care, but because of everyone else's costs going up, they go up on charging me.....
Where does it end?
BTW I don't have kids and no, I still have insurance coverage (quite adequately I might add) I'm just pointing out what is happening in a lot of one-parent American households. I know two women who were faced with that problem. Tsk, tsk, it's easy to point and say for shame, not having insurance, but try living that life. It's not fun. I was there 10 years ago. But for the grace of God, that I now have a good job w/ benefits and a 401K! I was finally able to move up the raise ladder to be able to take money out to put into the 401K last year. SO rest assured oh keepers of the government grail....I am covered and I am helping to pay for indigents also. Long as Uncle Sam keeps his hands in my pocket, I guess I'll have to keep mine there also!
Posted By: Adman

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 09:28 PM

dcg I never mentioned anything about the indigent, and I certainly did not mean to imply it. There are many people who have insurance and good paying jobs, but soon find they can be financially wiped out with medical costs.

Insurance is a help...not a solution for the rising medical costs.

As RI Beth stated....."This is a very sad subject - but folks who suffer from catastrophic injury usually end up in state care."
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 09:31 PM

Two words folks - Socialized Medicine! Doesn't fix everything, but goes a long way!
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 09:33 PM

I know Adman, I was just merely making an observation from the previous posts. Slow posting. And just putting in my 1/2 cent worth. Pennies are just not pennies any more!
Posted By: coolbummings

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 09:44 PM

Ah but nuts you said the evil word....SOCIALIZED. Uninformed republicans hate that word because to them it is synomynous with COMMUNISM. Heaven forbid we, the state that we pay for, looks after everyone equally (or a reasonable facsimile thereof).

Yes, the system in Canada is far from perfect but one won't go broke if they break their leg.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 10:21 PM

rub it in, nsn. all for it here.

glad to see every one else made nice-nice.

dc - boyfriend was in same boat as your old one. left this job partially cuz his raises were amounting to less pay cuz his outta pocket healthcare continued to rise at a greater percentage. so, after 3 years, he was making less money then when hired. bizarre.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 10:29 PM

One of the "problems" of socialized medicine is doctor's salaries. They make an extremely good living here, but there's even more to be made south of the border, so those with greedy bones make the move which then puts more strain on the remaining doctors. Not a huge problem, but frustrating for those on waiting lists to have their own GP. Clinics and emergency room often have to deal with all the minor issues that normally would be handled by GPs.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 10:43 PM

While I would truly like to see a uniform health care plan, I wouldn't want to see it run by the government - they've already proven how inept they are at managing stuff. I also have many Canadian friends who tell nightmare stories about the wait for non-emergency medical care.

I was the one who used the term "indigent" and I meant it in the broadest sense of the term - those who cannot afford to purchase insurance. There are many who make too much money to qualify for medi-cal or medic-aid, but not enough to pay for private insurance. Their costs are absorbed by the system and passed on to the rest of society.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 10:50 PM

there are ways around: joining group plans. when my ex was self employed, we joined a buisness owners' group. this time, i am in a travellers' group, and thus get group rates. it is still out of pocket, but i would say what i pay is quite reasonable, and if something big should happen, no one else has to foot my bills.

law, what then is the healthcare option if not govt subsidized? not being flip, being serious.

nsn - i heard what you said about md salaries. but...md's here really bitch about malpractice ins rates (due to lawsuits). which is worse? like dc said, a vicous circle?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 10:53 PM

I didn't say not government subsidized - just not government managed!
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 11:16 PM

sweetjane - malpractice lawsuites here are simply not the norm. In fact, they're about as rare as hen's teeth. I lived in New York City for nine years and can comfortably say that our system here works so much better. Yes, it is run by the government - but what are the options - big business??? Thats when greed/profits start to come before health. We also have a large number of natural health doctors, many of their services are covered by the additional health insurance most purchase (which is very affordable). Yes, as law said, there are waits for non-emerg care, but not nightmare waits - that characterization is a little extreme. Increasingly, preventative medicine is a focus of the government. Nutrition, exercise, etc. etc. starting at the elementary school level. Long term focus to lower long term costs. Makes sense.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 11:26 PM

I work in a busy emergency room 60 miles from the Mexico/US border. If only you could spend the next 2 days at work with me, 24 hours of your time. You would see why health care is so expensive & the abuse of the people that go to the emergency room rather than manage their health with practioners on a regular basis, or better yet - use a little common sense. These people aren't spending $100 copay per visit. By far, the majority are there on our tax dollar.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/13/06 11:36 PM

desertrat - that's part of the point: how are those who don't have any insurance or means to get it supposed to pay for consistent preventative doctor visits? There are no doctors who will see them to "manage" their healthcare if they can't pay for services, so oftentimes the emergency room is the only option. A terrible, wasteful, expensive option, but the only one nonetheless. Seems to me the tax dollars would be better spent helping do preventative healthcare than dealing with emergencies, or things perceived as emergencies by those without other viable options.
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:02 AM

Hmm...I agree with both of you. There are those who truly need our help, and I really do want them to get the help they need, and then there are those who have learned to use the system, abuse the ER's where they get a medical screening, prescriptions, and sometimes "samples" all the while knowing they won't have to pay a dime. If they went to their own PCP, they would have to pay at least a ten buck co-pay. In the ER, they can have their acrylic nails, cigs in the diaper bag, and still ask for samples, because they don't have money for the babies medication. So, they will get it, because after all, it's about the baby, and then they will have party money for Friday night, all on us...the taxpayer. I know I'm cynical, but can't help it. I think every community should have a free clinic, manned by volunteer docs and nurses, and maybe we could help east the congestion in the ER's just a bit. I wouldn't mind volunteering a day or two, if it would make my days in the ER less stressful.
Posted By: iluvbelize

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:09 AM

This is the type of spirited ranting I miss when I don't lurk around very often. Lots of food for thought.
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:14 AM

911 call abuse, Emergency room abuse, lack of education/common sense, indigent care, lawsuits, education costs for Dr.s/nurses/health care professionals, etc. all contribute to rising healthcare costs.
After visiting desertrat at the ER, come ride along with me at the fire dept. for a few shifts. It will be an eye opener!
And to a point we do have socialized medicine in the US. If you call 911 in America you cannot be denied transport or treatment. If someone has a stubbed toe and wants an ambulance ride we have to send them. If we don't it is "abandonment" and will be in big trouble with the law. The local ambulance companies get hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to cover indigent patient care. If you want to see the EMS system abused to the fullest just spend an evening at USC Medical Center in LA.
Trauma Centers around America are closing because the can't recover their costs.

And just a public service announcement...
If you don't wear a seatbelt or helmet you're clearly unaware of the dangers you face daily.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:14 AM

Law - my point is that many of these people CAN see doctors regularly, but choose to utilize the most expensive method - Emergency Rooms - for their care, frequently because a) want drugs, narcotics & sedatives, #1. b) convenience, always open, all the time, don't have to make an appointment to keep. c) they need a get out of work excuse, because they don't want to go to work TODAY. Blah, blah, long list. There should be a way to sift thru these people, but they hit the door & we must treat. Those soaking the system the very most are not in need of medical attention, in my experience, daily. Our welfare medicine is so easy to take advantage of. I have friends in Canada & England on waiting lists up to 2 years long to have their gall bladders removed. Other nations don't have it figured out, either, but the systems aren't as simple to abuse. Then, we have so many illegals. Go into labor, go on a shopping trip across the border. We take those in, too.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:29 AM

Reaper, those people that get the ride in come to me every day. I've done both ambulance & flight duty in my career at 2 trauma centers. That's my point.
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:29 AM

nova'nuts...what percent of income tax and provincial(GST,etc.) tax do you pay?

What percent for booze/smoke tax in Canada?

Fuel Tax?

Can you write off your mortgage interest?

Are taxes so astronomical in Canada due to the national health plan?

Ralph Klein layed off lots of healthcare workers in Alberta about 10 years ago. The system was in shambles, taking 2/3 years for service. Now Alberta has a HUGE surplus of $$$, but it still took a friend of mine a year to get a need MCI knee repair!

Just food for thought.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:33 AM

reaper, those are the kinds of stories I've heard from Canadian friends
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:34 AM

You are so right, desertrat. I'm sorry it's as bad in your area as it is in ours. We have started giving the seekers a letter stating they won't get anymore narcs from us, without a follow up history from a pain clinic/neuro/orthopod, etc., depending on their complaint. We give out notes for work like candy, and those who want out of work are lucky they have a job, and I can't understand why they would want to go without a paycheck, but what the heck...it won't hurt me to give it to them. We laugh at the prospect, but a drive-thru ER would work great on a Thursday evening, percocets at window 1, notes for work at window 2, no need to park the car and get out. Sure would save us the triage time, the exam time, and the discharge time. Usually, nothing much wrong with them, they just wanted the preps for the weekend. Wow, I AM cynical...and probably a little burned out.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 12:46 AM

I find it very hard to not become so cynical. I work that narc abuse letter in with the discharge instructions & get a signature on it, put that on file as well. It seems every day I'll see a large percentage of abusers & users, and while they're throwing a tantrum because we're not giving them any more narcs, I'll have a tragic, unfortunate, genuine emergency that really could use our time.
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:05 AM

Yep, I agree. I had to laugh a couple of months ago...I was triaging someone when one of the nurses stuck her head in the booth and said we had a full arrest coming in via squad. The guy I was triaging had knee pain, and said "well, I guess I'M not going to be seen soon, am I. Do you think this will take very long? I have somewhere I have to be in a little while." I replied, not to worry. We'll put the dying man in the hall so we can be sure to get your knee Xrayed and be sure you are out of here in time for your appointment. I'm sure he won't mind...
Of course, the guy got very indignant with me, butI so didn't care. Sometimes you just have to say what's on your mind.
But, on the other side of the coin, we have many hispanic people who almost always bring an interpreter in to help, and are so thankful for any treatment/help they get. If they treat us with respect, I sure don't mind helping them. But it's the ones who act like we OWE them treatment, the ones who come in with an attitude who totally tick me off.
It's nice to know you are here...that I'm not the only one who deals with this kind of crap every day...
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:23 AM

yes, I know you understand. The stories we hear aren't even convincing. They know we're bound by law & ethics & what ever to treat them.
That we are able to speak Espanol is frequently an expectation of people here. I know enough Spanglish to get thru a simple conversation, but I needed to give instructions to an elderly man for eye drops so that he wouldn't lose his eye. I asked for his son to come in from the waiting room to translate. The son was appalled, 'YOU DON'T SPEAK SPANISH !!?? you're 60 miles from the border !' I, too am outspoken - I said 'Yeah, 60 miles THIS SIDE of the border.'
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:26 AM

What? You are not required to provide an interpreter? Here in MN, the doctor has to pay for the interpreter, any language, and can't charge the patient (or the insurance company). confused
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:29 AM

Well, desertrat, I found in my stays in Montreal that there are people who can throw a rock across the border and can't speak English. Nor should they be required to, as long as they are in Canada. Fortunately, French is spoken almost everywhere in the US.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:30 AM

more rediculousness. that interpreter is not going home with the old, senile guy.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:32 AM

that should be 'ridiculousness'
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:36 AM

An interpreter...there are over 130 languages spoken in SoCal...we're gonna need a lot bigger fire engine for everyone to ride on!!!!!! :rolleyes: laugh
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:42 AM

most hospitals use 'cyraphones', interpreters over the phone at a huge expense, and the operators frequently have little & no understanding of medical terminology. More tax dollars. I was just trying to save the guy an eye.
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:45 AM

Too funny, Reaper. I had the same thing happen to me, Desertrat. I was taking care of a 16 year old girl in labor, and she didn't speak any english. When I asked her sister to interpret, she yelled at me "Why you no speak spanish"? I said, I'm an American in America. Why you no speak English? We got one of the housekeeping crew to interpret for us, and delivered a beautiful little girl.
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:49 AM

Is it just here, or do you find the people who aren't paying are more demanding and harder to please? Just curious. I would like to know if this is just a local phenomena.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:53 AM

picture that woman on the dual phone with you, in labor. How practical. Ha.
At one hospital here we were not allowed to use an interpreter of a lesser license to interpret for us, depending on the content. ??? Now there's a politically correct administrative decision for you.
We just voted to keep English as our official language in the state of Arizona. Phew, that was close.
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 01:57 AM

oh Bobber, could get in lots of trouble here. Danger ! Danger ! IMHO the better educated & the better the understanding of what's at stake, the more willing to meet in the middle. When I go to Mexico, I take a book. Sometimes I ask how much something is, and screw up & ask how old they are. The mistake is immediately obvious to all, but it's out of my mouth. Usually received with laughter.
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 02:05 AM

Yes, Bobber. It seems the less likely to pay equals to the more needy, demanding client. Not to say there aren't the "born with the silver spoon in their mouths" who want everything dropped and their wishes granted, but some of the ones who have the least to offer as payment expect the most to be dished out in their direction. Not all of them, though. You can pretty much sniff them out during triage, and give a heads up to the nurse and doc who will be taking care of them.
We use the ATT interpret line on occasion, but thank goodness we have bilingual people on staff. We haven't been banned from using them yet. We were offerd a class of Spanish for Medical personnel, but the hospital wouldn't pay for it, we'd have to pay for it ourselves, so no one took it. Too bad, tho. I'd love to learn to speak spanish. I speak enough to order food, drink, and find the potty. Not near enough for taking care of people. I signed up for the class, but was the only one, and it was cancelled. I may try to take one on campus if one becomes available.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 02:22 AM

Sounds like some of the patients you describe are some of the clients I represent. I suppose it can be difficult not to become cynical.

Humankind. Would that we could all strive to be both.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 02:24 AM

Reaper - can't answer all your questions but will try. GST is 14%, Cigarettes are around $11 per pack, self-serve gas is 90 cents a litre. Yes, we do pay higher taxes than many places, but it is worth it. School system is excellent, standard of living high, unemployment rate lower all the time. You do trade some things for others with this system, but having lived with both systems, this one wins hands down.

Just had a friend have gall bladder surgery - she waited about a week.
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 02:36 AM

nova'nuts-it works because you have an extremely high tax rate across the board, income,GST, goods etc. Here's the cold hard facts. We spend buckets of money here on our military, which also protects Canada. Granted, we probably have way more enemies worldwide (thus all you Canadians wearing maple leaf patches while travelling to avoid any confusion!)than Canada. But no one messes with you guys because they know Big Brother will kick the crap out of them!
So if we could get socialized medicine, better schools and a higher standard of living that would be great, but you guys up north will have to defend us by upping your military budget a few hundred billion dollars and police the world.


Dislaimer-No beavers or moose were harmed in the posting of this opinion!
Posted By: divingcowgirl

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 03:40 AM

Bobber, so true. I find in my line of work, there are quite a few that come in to buy product, and ask me (if I can speak Their language)Nope, No Speak Espanole! Then they rattle off English pretty darn good! Go figure.
Posted By: Adman

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 04:36 AM

I was a dual citizen (American/Canadian)while I was growing up. I chose to have American citizenship because I had grown up here and loved this country.

Although I am a very proud American, I will also be the first to say we need to be less arrogant and learn from other countries. Contrary to popular belief, the USA does not always have the best answers to every issue. We can learn much from our friends to the north and our friends in Europe...but first we must learn to listen.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 04:37 AM

hear, hear
Posted By: seashell

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 05:15 AM

Canada has one-tenth the population of the US. One of the reasons our taxes are so high is because our country is as large as yours and so we have 1/10th the population supporting the infrastructure.

I live in Alberta, we have no provincial tax here and GST is 6%. Actually, GST is 6% in Nova Scotia too but Mrs. Nuts added in their high provincial tax.

Last year, I spent 7 days in ICU, on a bunch of different machines, all kinds of drugs were poured into me . . .never cost me a dime. Oh yeah, and my wait in Emergency was about 10 minutes.

Of course, I did arrive at around 10 a.m. on a Wednesday morning. The wait probably would have been a lot worse on a Friday evening, or if I hadn't been dying.
Posted By: reaper

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 05:39 AM

The sands project up north will keep Alberta booming...are the other provinces still trying to get your revenue? When Alberta was in the doldrums financially a decade ago I didn't see BC or Ontario lining up to help!
A pal had to get 4 stiches from a puck a few years ago in Toronto. We waited in the ER an hour a stitch. Not life, but looks threatening! :p
The ER there was really packed, a monday late morning, with the same lame BS we have here in the states.
I think Canada is about 15-20 years away from most of our problems here. Who ever thought that Calgary would ever need a ghetto bird, and Vancouver and Toronto are no picnic in some areas also.
Is your income tax around 44%?
What was killing you?? Sounded rough! eek
Posted By: seashell

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 06:09 AM

One can only hope it will keep us booming. Yes, the other provinces and the feds always want a piece of us. And yes, you've got that right about the offers of help. Still and all, I have divided feelings about the whole thing. We are one country. It seems a shame that smaller or financially weaker provinces suffer while we prosper. As it is, there are people flocking to us. There are all kinds of jobs, but no place to live. How we end up with 'out-of-work' homeless people is what confuses me.

We got the 'copter when a police officer was run down during a chase on the freeway. His family started the fund. It can be kind of annoying (yet reassuring) when it's flapping around above my house, and I don't live anywhere near the "ghetto". Vancouver and Toronto are still worse than here, by a wide margin.

Yes, my income tax is in that neighborhood.

They never did find out what was causing the problem, but whatever it was gave me "diffuse pneumonia" and/or ARDS. Amazing that they can cure something that they can't figure out, isn't it?

It was scary. Frankly, I'm still a bit scared from time to time. Since they don't know what caused it, I never know if or when it may strike again.
Posted By: JZB

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 02:58 PM

If everyone in the US who can afford health insurance is paying for all the people who can't afford it, why not socialize it? It seems in a round about way that is how its working out anyway.

I'm with Nova, I've used both systems and the Canadian system is by far superior to the US system. I've never had to wait for anything in Toronto. In Texas, I had to wait 2 hours just to see my regular doctor, plus pay close to $600/mo for our health insurance plus a copay, plus it was such impersonalized service.
Taxes are high in Canada but it works out in the end. $600 a month in the US is nothing to sneeze at either.
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 03:05 PM

Good to see this conversation desertrat and sun&sand. So many of us go to emergency for a real emergency only to see the guy you usually see begging at the nearest stoplight and talking to himself being treated before you. In any event we don't understand what is going on in ER's. I waited 1.5 hrs suffering from a kidney stone, my first so I didn't know what it was but the person who signed me in said It's a kidney stone" while people came in with a cold, a sick baby, a narc obviously wanting a fix all went before me. I don't know what the answer is either, public medicine has it's drawbacks as listed above. BTW -- the next kidney stone I knew what it was....stayed home, took a couple pills and 10 short hours later...it passed. Why go to ER and clog the system more.

I know someone whose child is on Medicade who constantly goes to the ER or to the doctor with the child. And I mean CONSTANTLY!!! But her other child who is not on medicade (don't know why?) never goes. Can anyone see through this glass? Every time she goes I feel like just giving her a check in exchange for her giving the kid a tylenol. She always brings me that work letter desertrat was talking about. Meanwhile telling me about the big screen TV they just bought or their new clothes washer or how all the toys can't fit into her childs room. BARF
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 04:49 PM

reaper - Are the beavers, moose, trees and miles of nothing part of that expensive infrastructure ss is talking about?
If Hillary has her way with a Demo' Congress socialized med. is just around the corner. If so, that "change" the Dems were talking about will be the only thing left in our pockets.
Its "socialized" enough(Medicade/Medicare) tweek it-improve it but leave it be.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 05:01 PM

i hear you, the privilidged underprivilaged. weird.

i was in the hospital too last year, but with coverage. i waited for some time, doubled over, to get into the ER, finally my boyfriend got up and asked if i could PLEASE be taken back to be examined (also a never quite determined infection of the inards). y'all prob have an idea what 3 days admission cost the ins co. (i want to say like $16,000) what floors me is the in-hospital pharmacy costs. that tylenol cost like $15, and i also had bruce bring my regular meds from home, can't imagine what they would charge for a xanax! got a yeast infection there secondary to the tons of antibiotics, and over the counter stuff cost $15 more there than the drug store.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 05:13 PM

whats that SJ privileged/underprivileged? The under have a safety net-Medicade. I wouldnt call myself priviliged, have to scrimp and save evry month to come up with $900 for Blue Cross for 2. Few more years Medicare. Improve what we have but no socialized med pleeze.
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 05:24 PM

Y*s R**at, but d*es th*t p*ss you *ff?
Posted By: desertrat

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 05:26 PM

sweetjane, that abdominal series in order to help
diagnose your abdominal pain might be ~$17K all by its lonesome, before you were even admitted.
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 06:32 PM

couldnt remember if it was 16,000 or 32, didnt want to exaggerate. but yeah, ctscan, xrays, blah blah.

other interesting thing is i only saw an actual dr twice for less than 5 minutes each. of course, the nurses were great.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 07:59 PM

I too ended up in the emergency room with severe stomach pain. Ended up having emergency appendectomy (waited long enough for them to remove nail polish and prep me), 2 week stay, 1 of which in isolation, lotsa drugs, excellent care by nurses and doctors - bill....$0.00!

Yep, I'm happy to pay my taxes.
Posted By: RMT

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 08:27 PM

Nova, glad you had a good experience but with all due respect that is not the general story that I hear about what you can normally expect with Socialized medicine. As you know a good deal of my family lives there, many getting up in years and from what I have heard it's always been a LONG wait for any kind of treatment. My parents own a second home in NS ( Cape breton) and one of the reasons they limit their stays is their worry over what would happen if they became ill while there. On the flip side we have a business and so we pay for our own insurance. We pay exactly $1039 a month for a family of three. Expensive yes, but worth every penny due to the peace of mind. We are well covered and never have any us have to wait for a doctor's appointment or a procedure. I guess the bottom line is you ARE paying one way or another. Your HIGH taxes cover it for you. I would rather pay for it myself. I realize there are people without and that is disgrace but I also know I work hard to afford my own. I'm not sure what the answer is but in my opinion I would not want to see Socialized medicine here. Interesting discussion and I do wish there was some way all of us could have that peace of mind.
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 08:42 PM

RMT - I agree with a lot of what you say, however the one difference is is that if I or mr. nuts lost our job tomorrow, we would have absolutely no worries about how we'd pay for health care. All the different stories you hear about the health care system in Canada reflect all the different communities - it really does vary from town to town and city to city. I waited a month for a mammogram, but had no worries about how to pay for it.

Canadians living near the US border do have the option of getting procedures/surgery done more quickly - if they can afford to pay for it. The issue of dual system medicine is being discussed and I can see it becoming a reality in the near future. There's a lot of profit to be made from medicine, and the baby-boomers will likely see that all options are available to them.
Posted By: RMT

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 08:49 PM

I understand Nova and that certainly must make life easier knowing you are covered. I DO plan on losing my job some day though !!!! Hopefully soon too!! laugh Seriously though in my case we have a business and even after we retire we will continue to pay it. I am aware of course though that many cannot do that. I also hear what you are saying about certain areas in Canada being different in regards to quickness of procedure ect.,.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 09:07 PM

no dp, paying a 44% tax rate would pi** me of*! (Oh wait, no taxes in Canada either, OY such a deal!) smile laugh
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/14/06 11:12 PM

Rykat - (Smart-a$$) 44% tax rate is a little high, most folks are in the 35% tax bracket.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:10 AM

Did I hear someone say "yep, I happy to pay my taxes"...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnah, couldn't have!?
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:28 PM

From this viewpoint, we are WAY over paying taxes. Our acct. said that for every $ we make, we give 51 cents to Uncle Sam. That means we work for over half a year just to pay our taxes, and still have to pay for medical care, insurances, prescriptions, ect.
Hubby had a kidney stone attack while we were in AC in August. Total cost for everything including IV fluids, medications, and wonderful Dr. Tina's assistance was less than $250. Here in the states, we went to the ER, I did everything (started IV, gave medications, ordered tests, I was OFF that day) the DR. saw him for about 3 minutes, and the bills are STILL coming in, and I WORK for the stinking hospital. The only paid person who touched him was the Dr. and Xray tech. We have so far tallied over $2000 for just this one visit, not accounting the following lithotripsy, which we won't go into here, but after all of this, which would be the better place to be? Dr. Tina did everything that was done in the ER here, and the outcome was controlled pain, just what we needed. We are paying dearly for every ounce of living in the land of plenty.
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:38 PM

I actually enjoy medical porn.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:39 PM

Unfortunately, it's not the land of plenty for very many. The gap is growing everyday, thanks almost entirely to how the American government is electing to spend the taxes we pay.
Posted By: San Pedro Daily

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:40 PM

Plus, here in San Pedro the doctors will make house calls any time of the day or night.
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:48 PM

Dog, get down and behave. Sit!!!!
I do look forward to getting back to SP and can't wait until we can really call it home. I LOVE my country, but now I am on the down hill side of 50, and lifestyle and cost of living are pretty important issues, and since we are both very healthy as a whole, SP is looking better and better.
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:51 PM

And, Law, what can be done, other than voting the creeps out of office, to get a handle on the way our dollars are being spent? I know a guy who refuses to pay taxes, saying it is a "voluntary thing" and it is against his beliefs to pay them. So far, he's walking around a free man, after ten years of not paying. Granted, he only owns a pickup truck, so not much to attach to, but still...he's enjoying the life here, the police protection, the freedom of speach, and every other right we have, all without paying into the system. How does that work, exactly?
Posted By: klcman

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:56 PM

ask Wesley Snipes
Posted By: RMT

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 03:58 PM

laugh
Posted By: dogmatic prevaricator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 06:34 PM

How long do I have to sit before someone throws me a bone?
Posted By: sweetjane

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 06:39 PM

would somebody pleeeeese let the dog in????
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 06:46 PM

will the dog promise not to pee on the carpet?
Posted By: ChrisW

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 07:00 PM

Ive done some serious research into US Federal Income Tax laws and it turns out the kooks that don't pay their taxes aren't really kooks, but they are brave!

Here are some of my finding:

1. US Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional and more than one non tax filer in the PAST have won court cases to that effect. However dont expect this to work anymore: (currently lower courts will find you guilty and upper courts will not hear your case.)

2. The IRS can and does have the power (but not the right) to enforce the tax code (even though the tax code is essentially illegal).

So people who don't file their federal income taxes are technically correct and possible braver and more patriotic than the rest of us. Unfortunately being on the right side doesn't help when a bunch of well armed, well organized individuals come after you...

Unrelated to that is that the US has the most oppressive tax system in the world. It is the ONLY country that claims taxes from all of its citizens no matter where they live for their entire lives. If you are from any other country and move to say Belize, your home country says you no longer have to pay taxes to them.

The only way to legally remove yourself from the US tax system is to go through an expatriation process which includes paying something like a 40% tax on your networth at the time of the expatriation.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 07:09 PM

49 cents out of every tax dollar is spent on military; 30% on present day military costs and 19% on past military costs (that 19% includes a small percentage for veterans’ benefits but the vast majority is for the 80% of the interest on past war debt still being paid off).
I know a number of pacifists who withhold this portion of their taxes and place it in a seperate account. The IRS eventually attaches the account and takes the taxes, but my friends feel they have lived up to their religious convictions by not voluntarily paying that portion of their taxes which go to support what they consider unjust activity.
There is a long-standing effort to enact legislation to permit those with these religious convictions to avoid contributing to activity which violates their religious principles. See www.peacetaxfund.org.

Think of how much good we could accomplish with even a part of that money.
Posted By: ChrisW

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 07:15 PM

Law have you seen this? Ben Cohen (from Ben and Jerry's) talks about military spending. All I can say is "Yum, cookies!".

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 07:28 PM

Interesting, Chris. Thanks for the link.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 08:00 PM

In the "About Us" section...."non-partisan"...
hahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahah, same old-same old! confused :p
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 08:26 PM

I wouldn't mind debating the issue, if there were someone intelligent enough to add something to the discussion other than labels and name calling.
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 08:28 PM

If you want to see a totally hysterical woman tell me I'm not paying enough taxes. Being self employed (like some of you) and running a medium size company I pay all the stuff regular joes pay AND THEN all the other crap, especially to the ST of TX who sucks every single penny they can out of me. I am sick and tired of it! That really pi$$es me off!

Uhum....now then- sun&sand your poor husband! I know his pain with the kidney stones. I carry around a kidney stone survival pack of Zanex (BTW it is $25 in the hosp, that is before the cash discount), a pain pill, and a phenergan. I take this 'survival pack' with me everywhere I go. The last stone was waited out at home...cost: 10 hrs of pain slightly buffered by above mentioned pills every 4 hours. The minute it passed I passed out from all the pills! Funny they don't work as well when your dying of pain.

Speaking of taxes: a brilliant (gufaw) hopeful politico a couple of weeks ago said: This small % own houses, the rest rent. Lets raise sales tax and lower property tax to spread the burden. Duuuuuuh. Does this guy really thing landlord don't collect an amount to pay their taxes? Or maybe he thinks property that is rental aren't taxes. Wouldn't surprise me. If he were to be elected probably the property tax would be cut .000001% and the sales tax would be raised 10%.
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 08:41 PM

I won't call you names law. But when it came to debate in college I stuck my head in the sand. Only can debate well with Mr Malibu. laugh
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 08:42 PM

HEY!!!!!! I Love being at the top.

Denny,,,,,, I said AT the top, not ON the top.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 08:53 PM

Mal, you never name call. smile
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 08:59 PM

We just shipped out our tax payments on our TX ranch. Can we get out of paying the school tax because we don't live there and don't have any kids in school? Nope. :p
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 09:07 PM

I pay tons of taxes for/because of my company here on the N side of Houston but I can't vote in this district on what happens here. I drive the roads, so do my employees and do all the do here but no say in what happens or how my tax money is spent. Go figure.

Ha Ha, did I just say I have no say in how my tax money is spent? FDLMAO!
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 09:09 PM

Let's see,
T A X E S

T E X A S eek
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 09:44 PM

Hey Bobber, what can you do with novascotia??? laugh (And be nice!!!)
Posted By: Bobber

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 09:49 PM

N O V A S C O T I A

T A X E S, E H ?
Posted By: Nova

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 09:53 PM

Pretty good start - must be an anagram of the Cape Breton way of spelling it... wink

(Sorry RMT)
Posted By: Sun&sand

Re: Most egregious event - 11/15/06 11:32 PM

THIS IS A NONPARTISAN JOKE THAT CAN BE ENJOYED BY BOTH PARTIES! NOT ONLY THAT? It is POLITICALLY CORRECT!!

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in,it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with tha t, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of
it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had
while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have Gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful,
but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here
and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time.
Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."
Posted By: Catatonic Motivator

Re: Most egregious event - 11/16/06 12:15 PM

http://tinyurl.com/yjp3rt
Posted By: ChrisW

Re: Most egregious event - 11/16/06 01:40 PM

The root of higher taxes is deficit spending. When the government spends money they don't have, they have to create more money. When they create more money all money in existance becomes worth less than it was before. So the government can tax you without you even having to send them a check. They just shrink the worth of the dollars in your pocket.

Politicians jawboning about raising or lower taxes is just noise. Its all about the deficit spending. And both parties seem determined to spend us into the ground as far as I can tell.
Posted By: RMT

Re: Most egregious event - 11/16/06 02:02 PM

Hey NSN mad laugh laugh

Sure it wasn't a newfie ..?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 01:25 AM

good article CatMo but no one else hears it or believes any of it. same old rightwing propaganda wink

Nothing to do with this topic but interesting read: "Living in Hell" by Ghazal Omid (heavy but revealing).
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 01:31 AM

Ry - don't you have somewhere to be? :p
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 01:35 AM

Yes early am as in 4 am!! I'll be BAAACK! laugh
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 01:54 AM

I can hardly wait. :rolleyes:
Posted By: TIMO

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 02:05 AM

i hear ya ry...loud and clear!! :p
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 02:16 AM

I'll bet!

Libs free rein for two weeks, enjoy! eek laugh
Posted By: TIMO

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 02:23 AM

no sheet,man i got your back!!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 02:28 AM

stick with it buddy, you are surrounded!!!! eek wink
Posted By: TIMO

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 02:37 AM

my father-in-law was very distraught after the recent turn of events, but i managed to talk him off of the ledge. we've decided it will all work out for the best, once people get to see what happens. eek eek eek
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 02:41 AM

just look at it as part of the "cycle".......................I hope! confused
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 03:09 AM

Ah, now see, that's cute, the two of you bonding and all. wink
Posted By: MALIBU

Re: Most egregious event - 11/17/06 02:07 PM

Cute indeed.
© 2021 Ambergris Caye Belize Message Board