asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP

>on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

"Beam Me Up Scotty" > wrote in
message
> Me too I hate insurance and I hope that they lose all their customers
> for being a bad service, I hope you and I have to pay cash to get
> medical service, by the end of my life.

Thanks for that ****-poor medical care "reform" bill that passed, it will be
illegal to not have health insurance. I'll never forgive them for forcing
me to deal with those immoral *******s.

"Beam Me Up Scotty" > wrote in
message
>> So you support the legalization of drugs, but you're rambling about drug
>> dealers? If you're going to have opinions, at least have consistent
>> opinions.
>
> Are all alcohol brewers bad since is was illegal.
>
> Once you legalize it and tax it, you can buy it at any Pharmacy then
> they are not "drug dealers...." The dealers are the illegal
> distribution networks and gangs or crime syndicates, I'm speaking of
> dealers as pre legalized drugs.
>
> When it is illegal, they are dealers and they use illegal tactics to
> gain, hold and expand territory. The whole point of making it legal is
> to end the turf wars and smuggling and the tax evasion.
>
> It is very consistent to look at Prohibition and the Smugglers and
> Gangsters and see what happened when a DRUG called alcohol was made
> illegal and then Legalized and taxed.
>
> The money was sucked out of the gangs they were forced to other less
> lucrative ways to pay for their criminal endeavors.

We do agree that the drug war should be ended immediately.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> bugo > wrote:
>>
>>
>>It doesn't matter. The insurance companies killed somebody. They're
>>dead.
>>They can't do anything. And the insurance companies are never charged
>>with
>>murder. If I kill somebody, I go to prison. If an insurance company
>>employee kills somebody, they get a raise.
>
> Insurance companies don't kill people. They do, in many cases, refuse
> to pay for life-saving medical care.

What's the difference? They refuse to pay for health care, which is the
same thing as murder as far as I'm concerned. And if the sick person can't
pay for it, they can't pay for it. A defacto death sentence.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:40:37 GMT, (Matthew
Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article >,
>Free Lunch > wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:53:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote in
>>misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>On 7/25/2010 5:35 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th
>>>>> Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Now you've done it; now Larry is going to call you a racist.
>>>> (It's the 16th amendment... the 13th amendment bans slavery)
>>>
>>>the 16th creates Slavery....
>>
>>That's a core belief of sociopaths.
>
>ROTFL. A sociopath doesn't care whether something is slavery or not;
>by definition he lacks a moral sense and thus lacks moral outrage.

But he knows how to lie about it.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:59:49 -0500, "US 71" > wrote in
misc.transport.road:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote
>
>>
>> The poor don't pay a penny of Fair Tax.
>
>HORSE ****.
>
>I used their calculator which indicated I would pay $3000 MORE a year in taxes
>under their plan.
>
>That's NOT a "fair tax", that's robbing the poor and giving to the wealthy.
>
>
Why do you think the Koch family spends so much on such misleading
claims?

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:38:51 GMT, (Matthew
Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article >,
>bugo > wrote:
>>
>>
>>It doesn't matter. The insurance companies killed somebody. They're dead.
>>They can't do anything. And the insurance companies are never charged with
>>murder. If I kill somebody, I go to prison. If an insurance company
>>employee kills somebody, they get a raise.
>
>Insurance companies don't kill people. They do, in many cases, refuse
>to pay for life-saving medical care. But they don't try to prevent
>you from obtaining the care yourself, the way government does.

That's an easy accusation for you to make, but doing it with evidence is
harder.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:09:22 -0500, "US 71" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:59:49 -0500, "US 71" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dave Head" > wrote
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The poor don't pay a penny of Fair Tax.
>>>
>>>HORSE ****.
>>>
>>>I used their calculator which indicated I would pay $3000 MORE a year in
>>>taxes
>>>under their plan.
>>>
>>>That's NOT a "fair tax", that's robbing the poor and giving to the wealthy.
>>
>> You're poor?
>>
>> Like to see those calcs.
>
>I'm sure you would, but no.

OK. I did the calcs just now, and it said I'd have $4373 more in
spendable income yearly. This year, I'm making less than $100K.

> And I didn't say I was poor,

You seemed to be responding to the statement that the poor people
don't pay any Fair Tax.

>but I'm not Upper Class

Me either...

>who seem to the only ones who benefit...

Like I said, I'd be $4373 to the good with the Fair Tax.

>which is again what the Republicans want.

Replublicans want prosperity for everybody, at least this one does.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:22:03 -0400, Dave Head wrote:

> On 25 Jul 2010 16:08:10 GMT, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:09:12 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>>> Yes we have. Look at a bar graph of the gov't spending that is doing
>>> it. 1 of them is the DoD, a function defined in the Constitution. The
>>> other 2 are social give-away programs, Social Security and Medicare.
>>> Obamacare will absoultely kill this country if we don't get it
>>> repealed, and we will live as the 3rd world people do. Its the
>>> spending...
>>
>>You are a moron. The proper address to this problem is to absolutely
>>separate the Social Security System, the Medicare system, and the other
>>government activity so that honesty can rein supreme. It would mean an
>>increase in Medicare taxes and income taxes and that is about it.
>
> Yeah, that's what would kill the economy. Its doing it already. Raising
> those taxes would simply accelerate the proces.

We appreciate your display of ignorance and idiocy.

>>Social
>>Security is currently drawing a minor amount of its funding from its
>>trust fund and will remain solvent far into the future if the economy
>>recovers and expands as it should.
>
> There is going to be NO economic recovery without nuking the income
> tax. Hell, they're PREDICTING high unemployment all the way thru 2013,
> and they're likely wrong about implying that there won't be in 2014.

And we again appreciate your inability to grasp the basic FACT of the SS
trust fund. That fund is the money owed to the wage tax payers that was
stolen by the Republican tax cuts for the rich thieves.

>>Medicare has a problem because of the Republican hand out to the
>>pharmaceutical companies all dressed up in a "compassion" suit. They
>>provided _NO_ way to support the Senior Drug benefit program.
>
> The whole thing needs repealed, but that wouldn't work anytime soon.

It will _NEVER_ happen if the truth is presented as opposed to Republican
Pig ****.

>>> Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th
>>> Amendment. Not only that, they are HIGHLY REGRESSIVE income taxes,
>>> that take 7.65% out of the pay of even someone making $5K/yr, it
>>> doesn't matter how little you make, that 7.65% happens. It also take
>>> another 7.65% out of what the employer is supposed to cough up, which
>>> incentivizes him to find workers overseas.
>>
>>The segregation of wage taxes to support Social Security was done
>>specifically to thwart the Republican lying pigs. Social Security takes
>>_NOTHING_ from capital and owes _NOTHING_ to capital. And that has kept
>>the system safe from the lying pigs since its inception. The problem we
>>are having with Social Security is the result of off shoring all the
>>jobs.
>
> Yep, and that is happening because of the income taxes.

That may be somewhat true, yet we must have the tax revenues or devalue
the currency. Rebated import tariffs are the correct solution to the off
shoring of jobs.

>>There are not enough payroll taxes because wages and jobs have not kept
>>pace with economic growth and all the money is being diverted into
>>profits.
>
> That's the way industry works. Make it cheap to do business here and
> jobs will come back from overseas. Then we can afford more, and people
> will need to use public assistance less.

Things are being made "cheap" because slave labor is being used to make
the "things". We have no desire to import the concept of slave labor.

>>Medicare is suffering the same fate, but Medicare SHOULD be funded by
>>taxes on wages AND capital. The Medicare tax on profits (starting in
>>1013) is going to be used to fund private insurance subsidies for the
>>working poor.
>
> We should eliminate the working poor, and make them the working
> well-to-do. That can be done by killing the income tax, that has killed
> much of our business, and taken their jobs overseas.

More Pig ****. Tax cuts for the rich have been destroying the American
middle class.

>>>>You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind
>>>>of taxes. FICA taxes?
>>>
>>> Yep. All the F'n income taxes have to go. Every last one of 'em -
>>> personal, corporate, Social Security, Medicare, capital gains, gift,
>>> self employment, alternative mimimum, estate, etc. - I always seem to
>>> forget a category, but if its a tax on income of any sort, it has to
>>> go.
>>> And they all need to be cut to zero. That's 0.0%.
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Lack of response noted.

More unsupported Pig **** undeserving of a response, noted.

>>>>Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and
>>>>non-SS would do what?
>>>
>>> Nothing. We would get the same amount of money from a consumption
>>> tax.
>>
>>The redistribution of economic rent is a proper and just mechanism.
>>That can be done with an asset tax or a highly progressive income tax.
>>We have chosen the income tax method.
>
> Yeah. How's that working out for ya? Lessee, 17% underemployment, jobs
> going overseas still, low paying jobs abound, good ones are now
> beginning to require a masters or a PHD to hold, etc. etc.

Like all Republicans you assign causation as it fits your idiotology. My
mother died late in 2007. So that must be what caused all the problems.
You are a religious idiot.

>>>>Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix
>>>>the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare?
>>>
>>> The Dept. of Education could really be dissolved. It is simply
>>> Federal gov't control of something that is local by nature.
>>
>>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Big gov't guy, aren't you? Gotta control... control.... control...
>
>>> The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible
>>> without adversely affecting lots of people. You could means test, but
>>> that would adversely affect anyone that is not rich, and the rich are
>>> not numerous enough to make much of a dent.
>>>
>>> I'd create a continuously increasing retirement age if I were doing
>>> it, and force people to either use something like a 401K instrument
>>> and save enough to retire as soon as they want to, or not do that and
>>> retire at whatever increasing age that fits the year they were born.
>>> Eventually, people born today, for instance, would never get SS or
>>> Medicare, and would have to save for that. Only Medicade, that simply
>>> keeps people from dying, but you have to be bankrupt to use it, would
>>> be left. We could afford that.
>>
>>Moron alert!!!
>
> Idiot.
>
>>>>The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or
>>>>cut benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH.
>>>
>>> You got it.
>>
>>Nope... The way to fix the system is to NOT offshore all the jobs/wages
>
> So kill the income taxes, and get them back.

Pig ****. We need rebated import tariffs.

>>and to NOT keep allocating so much to profits and instead allocate a
>>reasonable amount of productivity increases to wages. Problem solved.
>
> If business can quit sending their profits to Washington, then they can
> give raises.

They will NOT. They have proved it time and time again. They exist to
create profits for the owners. They are _NOT_ in the employee well
being, or "promote the general welfare" business.

>>>>Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the
>>>>structural deficit.
>>>
>>> Yes it will.
>>>
>>> If you cut the income taxes to zero, the economy will boom. 10 - 15
>>> trillion American dollars that are sequestered overseas, hiding from
>>> the US income taxes, will come back, and be put to work building
>>> factories to make even more money for the people that own this money.
>>
>>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>Next contestant please...
>
>>The investing will take place in countries where wages are already at
>>subsistence levels.
>
> Nope. They'll take place right here, where there is a zero tax
> manufacturing environment. What do they care what the wages are, when,
> IN THIS COUNTRY, we can automate the crap out of the factory, and where
> you used to need maybe 6000 workers per shift to build X product, you
> only need, say, 2000 for all 3 shifts? You can pay 'em well, and make a
> profit too. Build 400 factories in each of the 50 states employing 2000
> people each and the entire population below the poverty line, 40,000,000
> people, would have good jobs.

More Pig **** stupidity. Wages will always move to subsistence level if
governments do not intervene on behalf of the common people. That is
because the objective of any business is to maximize profits.

>>It may be quite humanitarian, but it doesn't help the American middle
>>class.
>
> Killing the income taxes would.
>
>>And we have _NO_ desire to make the rich even richer.
>
> I want EVERYONE to be richer (esp. me...)
>
>>> Inadvertently,they're going to have to hire people to work in the
>>> factories. Those people the general American public, will experience
>>> a rise in income, and will buy things, more things like big screen
>>> TVs, bigger screen TVs, American cars which would be cheper due to the
>>> income taxes on their manufacture going away, and they would then be
>>> paying MORE overall taxes to the treasury than were being collected
>>> before. That is how the deficit dies, with prosperity. No other way
>>> is going to work, we have to achieve prosperity.
>>
>>This is the same "supply side" stupidity that got us into the mess we
>>are currently in. It doesn't work. The reality PROVES that it doesn't
>>work, yet we still have a religious order that will not accept reality.
>
> So there's nothing we can do to put people to work and restore
> prosperity, eh?

Yes! There is! We must tax imports and restore the progressive income
tax system in this country.

> Well, yes there is, and that is to give them good jobs.
> That's best done with _factory_ jobs, that pay well. Attend an
> economics class, you'll find that there are only 3 sources of wealth:
> Agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. Manufacturing has fled the high
> income taxes of the USA and that has also crippled some of the mining
> industry. No wonder we're in such a fix.

I see your problem: You are a neoconomist. You have swallowed the
neoclassical pig crap and the supply side Republican pig carp and are
stuck with it.

>>>>European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health
>>>>care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for
>>>>it.
>>>
>>> Yep, and they continue to ration it more stringently. That system is
>>> headed for a crash.
>>
>>(snore)
>
> Its a very, very long process.
>
>>> No, the other way is to grow the economy, make the general public more
>>> wealthy, and they will cut the deficit with their spending that the
>>> consumption taxes will send to Washington.
>>
>>YESSSSS!!! Absolutely true. All we have to do is increase ORDINARY
>>income taxes on the rich while offering lower tax rates to capital gains
>>and the economy will boom just as it did in the 1990's.
>
> Yeah. Lower the capital gains tax to zero.

IN the 90's it was 28% and the economy rocked along very well indeed.

> And the rest of the income
> taxes. The boom of the 90's would be dwarfed by what happens next.

What happens after the tax cuts is a magical transformation into a
permanent depression.

>>> Cutting the SS and Medicare
>>> is a goal, but we can make things better MUCH more quickly by bringing
>>> back prosperity, and the way to do that is to zero all the income
>>> taxes.
>>
>>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!! There
>>has never been a poor effect on the economy of this country from taxing
>>the rich. Not ever. As a matter of historical fact, cutting taxes on
>>the rich simply increases debt.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah... real tired of the "I hate the rich", "The rich are
> evil," etc etc. I want the rich to have more money. I want me to have
> more money. I want the poor to have more money. The way to do that is
> to grow the economy, build the factories, etc. The only way to do that
> is to make building stuff cheaper here than elsewhere. THe way to do
> that is to kill the income taxes.

You are a moron. I have talked of the history and your response is to
trot out the "hate the rich" pony. Typical irrational Republican.

>>>>It's not socialism that's the issue.
>>>
>>> Yes it is. It is bankrupting the country.
>>
>>The Republican mantra: "Bankrupting the country". This refrain will be
>>seen in EVERY rightard post. The Bush tax cuts will expire and that
>>will do more to help the economy than any other action that can be
>>taken. The 1990's are a historical record of that absolute fact.
>
> The economy will collapse if the Bush tax cuts are not extended.


BOOGERMAN!! BOOGERMAN!! BOOGERMAN!!!

Historical _FACTS_ never seem to bother the religious nutters. They just
remain in denial forever.

> But
> you're probably thick enough to have to live it in order to believe it.
> Then you'll probably figure out a way to blame it on some rich guy, like
> when the REST of the industries fold, or move overseas, from the
> inability to make a profit due to the taxes.

I blame it on MOST politicians over the last 30 years. Supply side
stupidity is nothing more than a means to destroy the middle class.

>>> The boneheaded efforts to
>>> pay for it by taxing prosperity, which is what the income tax is, has
>>> resulted in less prosperity.

You are a liar. You can't be that stupid so "liar" is all that is left.

>>> Get rid of the income tax. It is this
>>> country's 2nd biggest mistake, right behind slavery.
>>
>>Incomes in excess of $150k are primarily "economic rent".
>
> Dunno what you're talking about - its just mumbo-jumbo for, "I hate the
> rich", although people making 150K are not rich.

Of course you don't know what I'm talking about. You are a religious nut
case that knows only your religious beliefs and nothing else.

>>And taxation
>>of economic rent does not alter the direct economic actions of those who
>>are touched by the tax.
>
> BS. My doctors are going to have a really rough time if they tax them
> any more. Their rates will go up, there'll be less people that can
> afford their services, and the insurance will cover less.

Yup... You are a moron.

1. All persons are profit maximizing and that means that if your doctors
could charge more then they would do so. They would not be waiting for
an excuse to do it. It is a fact that _MOST_ people _WILL_NOT_ curtail
their activities or change professions so long as the income in their
present occupation will pay them more than some other occupation.

2. The number of folks that can afford their services is going to rise
dramatically in 2014 if not before and all of these people will receive
medical care. It has ever been a question of how to pay for the services
and not any question about whether the services will be rendered.

3. All persons should be _ALLOWED_ to BUY INTO Medicare. Problem solved.

> Hell, I have
> $7K in medical bills myself 2 years ago, $6K last year, and $10K this
> year, probably. 1st one was unavoidable, some others were elective (to
> get them done before the Democrats destroy health care and I can't get
> those things fixed at all), and the rest was other stuff that went
> wrong, like bursitis, cataracts, etc. Geeezzz... in a couple years,
> with guys like you raising the tax on it, those figures would probably
> double for me. That's why I got a lotta that stuff done now.

Got to it, moron.

>>There may be some isolated situations in which a contributor to the
>>community might forgo the contribution toward the end of the year, but
>>that is a very rare occurrence.
>
> ?

It is about the MYTH that people will stop performing a very lucrative
service simply because they are taxed at a higher rate. It is nothing
but Republican Pig ****. A lie.

>>>>Both Europe and US have the same
>>>>basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because
>>>>of an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for
>>>>it is not enough.
>>>
>>> Well, it is not enough, and will get even worse in that respect if we
>>> don't get rid of the income taxes.
>>
>>Pig crap.
>>
>>>>It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic
>>>>canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality
>>>
>>> It has everything to do with socialism - that is over 2/3rds of our
>>> big expenses. Get rid of SS and Medicare, and you only have the DoD,
>>> which could be funded easily.
>>
>>The problem is the word "we" which means the high income tax payers.
>>These pigs REFUSE to acknowledge that Social Security is off budget and
>>is currently solvent and will remain so far into the future.
>
> "As the "baby boomers" move out of the work force and into retirement,
> however, it is anticipated that expenses will come to exceed Social
> Security tax revenues in 2010 and 2011, and then briefly regaining some
> solvency in 2012 until plunging into permanent cash-flow negative
> operations from 2016 onward (at current levels of taxation)." -
> Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...(United_States)

You assholes OWE us the money accounted in the trust fund and you will
pay it. You will need to raise income taxes on the wealthy to pay back
what you have stolen, but that is the way of JUSTICE.

>>We need to
>>INCREASE the medicare tax across the board and to allow people under age
>>65 to join the system paying full fare for the Medicare insurance.
>
> Its already going broke, that'll just make it worse.

You prove yourself a MORON once again. By increasing the "consumers
union" known as Medicare, the providers will be persuaded to render
services at a more affordable cost. When 70 or 80 percent of the
patients are Medicare patients, the cost shifting will crease because the
private sector can't afford it any longer. An that is the point where
medical costs WILL BE CONTAINED.

> What are you going to do about manufacturers that avoid this tax by
> shutting their US factories and building new ones in Mexico, Canada, and
> overseas in Asia?

Please go to the above statements concerning rebated import duties.

> I was traveling thru Indianapolis last year, when I
> picked up the local news on WIBC that said that the Whirlpool plant in
> Evansville would close in December 2010, the reason being that the
> operation was moving to Mexico. The more you make it expensive for
> factories here, the more they will leave. If they don't leave, they'll
> just go out of business, 'cuz everybody will be buying the refrigerator
> from Mexico built by Chinese companies. Either way, there will be no
> taxes collected for SS here, there will be 1000's more, per factoriy,
> out of work here.

REBATED IMPORT DUTIES are BETTER than a corporate tax hike.

>>These
>>actions are not related but both may be necessary. The Medicare tax
>>will need to be increased to fund medical care for the elderly
>>(demographics).
>
> Spend, spend, spend...

Or die, die, die. You lying sacks of **** never want the whole truth.
You choose the part you want to abuse and go with it. Spending has
nothing to do with the REALITY of the demographics. Cutting the taxes
will _NOT_ change the demographics unless you are prepared to have
shorter life expectancy from the cuts.

>>But the inclusion of more people in the Medicare groups will provide a
>>monopsony function to control costs.
>
> But it sounds like an asymptotic function OF costs...

I doubt very seriously that you actually know what that is. But it is
irrelevant. Where a monopoly is many buyers facing on producer, a
monopsony is one buyer facing many producers. So yes (as your luck would
have it) "Medicare Buy In" would tend toward a single payer system but
never reach it. Yet the control of costs created by the dramatically
increased UNION of customers in the one HUGE insurance company called
Medicare would put a lid on the current explosion.

>>When 75% of the
>>people are all members of Medicare, then the providers can't shift costs
>>to the private market and more people will leave the private market and
>>join Medicare.
>
> Medicare is the insurance that refuses the most medical coverage, bar
> none, several times what private insurance refuses. You want to sign up
> to that? I don't - I'm spending enough already.

That is what is so nice about "CHOICE". You can spend your money however
you want. Medicare Buy in does not take any money from you. But what it
does do is to offer a cost effective solution for the vast majority of
the people.

>>And _THAT_ is the only way to control the soaring costs of medical
>>insurance and medical care.
>
> Naw, keep the lawyers from sucking medicine dry with frivilous lawsuits.
> That'll work better.

Typical rightarded stupidity.

--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:18:32 -0500, "bugo" > wrote in
misc.transport.road:

>"Beam Me Up Scotty" > wrote in
>message
>> Me too I hate insurance and I hope that they lose all their customers
>> for being a bad service, I hope you and I have to pay cash to get
>> medical service, by the end of my life.
>
>Thanks for that ****-poor medical care "reform" bill that passed, it will be
>illegal to not have health insurance. I'll never forgive them for forcing
>me to deal with those immoral *******s.

Well, the Republicans whined so much that the Democrats compromised, but
the Republicans did a Lucy van Pelt anyway.

The GOP is the Party of No. They need to collapse completely and be
replaced with a rational conservative party.