NCclimber

Looks like someone is a little jealous of the kudos DDG is receiving.

As far as life in 2007 is concerned, this story is a tempest in a teacup. It seems some people want to make it something more. I didn't listen to the BBC story - computer at home is on it's last leg and I can't listen to audio at work. Perhaps you can tell me what specific acts Prescott Bush carried out, with respect to the alledged 1933 coup attempt. Is there any documentation?

Wow. You make it sound like an either/or situation. Was that the case? Or was this just a bit of dishonest trollery? What does the stadiums proximity to the collasped bridge have to do this? More trollery?

Oh, common, tell us how you really feel about US.. He was not talking about the US, but the US media. And most people outside the US that I've talked to about this agree, me included. Even what is considered Left Wing Media inside the US would be considered right of center everywhere else. Everywhere else? I love these kinds of all or nothing statements. They say so much about the speaker. Perhaps that has to to with the fact that the US, as an economy, is much more autonomous than most of the industrialized nations,... and we're are the largest economy in thw world. It's pretty easy to be blissfully ignorant of what happens on other continents. The relative impact of what happens in Germany is pretty irrelevant to the average American. Europeans keep up with what happens in their part of the world because it matters. Do the typical Europeans really know that much more about what is happening in China or southern Africa or Peru than the typical American? Is the average Dane really that much more informed about what is going on in Australia? Oh yeah, foreigners keep up with developments in the US because we are the top dog and because our recent endeavors (like Iraq) do have a global impact.

So you're upset because you haven't gotten terribly sick or injured? Rubbish. You need to read more carefully before jumping to absurd conclusions. Said the pot to the kettle. Colin Powell attempted to cover up the My Lai massacre... The New York Times was blocked by the NSC from publishing a story they wished to print.

So true. Of course when a person is implying that someone else is a clueless fucking moron, who's posts make about as much sense as a lead balloon, the intent isn't really about open honest dialogue. Clearly, I'm not talking about you.

It seemed pretty open and honest to me. The jist of it was - You may just reap what you sew. When it happens it's also known as 'poetic justice'. The key word, which you seemed to have missed, is PROMOTING. Painting the other guy's position in extremist, negative terms really opens things up. Oh So, that's how it all played out?

He initiated a boycott. With his following, he doesn't need to go to the lengths of moveon.org. He can take full advantage of his prime time air slot. Look - I can't stand moveon.org... and I think O'Reilly brings some good issues to the forefront, but he is frequently an intolerant bully, who exploits his position. Yeah - his actions were low brow and no better than moveon.org.'s.

You really do have a knack for promoting open honest dialogue.

I'd say O'Reilly was pretty skeezy on this one.

Let's hope it actually has some teeth. I tend to be pretty cynical when those guys announce they're going to police themselves.

If you have to ask, peon of darkness, any answer would be meaningless to you. In other words - you got nothing! That is indeed what I said. I got nothing for you. That's not happiness to see me, is it?

Right. Like why does he consistently respond to posts that may be relevant in the grand scheme of things, but are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand? Paying for private health insurance is a voluntary arrangement that individuals have a say in. There's a difference in voluntarily participating in a program versus being told "this is it. My way or the highway".

If it's only 3% then the cost of doing something for them will be negligible. What would you suggest?

Did you say the same for Jefferson? true to form, the "but they did it first" response... both (assuming conviction) are a pair of turds in office, why do you make a deal about party affiliation, sounds like you are unable to speak harshly of crooks that represents the GOP Not at all. The point I am trying to make is it not just R's. It is all of them but the Dems and the media report it as if it is different. It is not Crooks should go to jail! Is there any room for real crooks, when the jails are full of petty drug offenders? How long til John makes this about Iraq, too?

If you have to ask, peon of darkness, any answer would be meaningless to you. In other words - you got nothing!

Hey, John, we're over here.

Here's an interesting read on the number of uninsured Americans: http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx Is this issue really about 15% of the population? Or is it about 3% of the population?

Again, there are exceptions, but the bulk of the horror storiues are either gross exxagerations, yellow journalism, or the occasional rare exception of a company run amok. My experience with Celtic Life must have been one of those exceptions. Pre-approved surgery, then it's being reviewed. That issue gets settle. Then it's being reviewed for something else. Six months later (after contacting them EVERY WEEK) my claims were processed... only after I asked if I needed to contact an attorney. Had surgery last year. No problem. Blue Cross Blue Shield did me right.

Uh oh! She pulled the children card Lawrocket. Your now a heartless bastard who wants the poor to die! He is what he is and you are what you are ...neither of you seem to care much beyond what's in it for you. Tell me something, sunshine. Why should anyone be forced to pay for the healthcare of strangers? How we (as a country) get to the point where people feel entitled to force others to foot the bill?

44 million American men, women and children do not have access to regular health care is a humerous, minor point to you?!?!?!?! WOW, that says a lot! That you completely missed the point. DURRR It's about reading comprehension. Oh yeah, I'm not laughing about the uninsured Americans. Can you guess what (or who) I'm laughing at, now?

I'm not sure what all these things have to do with my point - that research dollars will drop dramatically if we go to a universal healthcare system. If you want to introduce a given topic, then go right ahead. The issues you've brought up are relevant to the big picture. It's the quoting my post, then going off about some completely unrelated matters to refute my point that I call bullshit on. Sorry you seem to have trouble grasping something so basic.

I see. It's OK for NCclimber to go off on a tangent, but not for anyone else to follow up. It's about context, perfesser. Sorry you can't seem to track. Why don't you tell us more about the New York times being blocked by the NSC. Again. Context. The discussion was about medical advances... not how much drug companies spend on advertising or about the uninsured.

Yes, it's just GREAT that the 44 million Americans with no health coverage are willing to go along so the drug company profits are maintained. All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs. This whole business of sidestepping the obvious, main point... and going off on a tangent about an inferred minor point... and then going off on a tangent of that... Is it intentional? Or is a matter of just not being able to help yourself? I really like - "All the major drug companies spend much less on R&D than they do on marketing and administration, and much less than they do on dividends to stockholders and compensation to execs" WAAAAY off topic. So who brought up the topic of drug company profits and R&D expenditures? OH, IT WAS YOU. Classic Kallend. I make a point about medical breakthroughs and how they're funded. You, in turn, try to make it about the uninsured, as well as non-research expenses... and then profits. WOW Since you seemed to have missed my point, I'll spell it out. Currently, over 100 billion dollars is spent on MEDICAL RESEARCH in the US. These research dollars contribute dramatically to healthcare advancements. If we go to a universal healthcare system, the level of research dollars will drop dramatically, which will have an obvious impact on advancements. I'm not making a point about the uninsured or the non-medical expenses of the drug companies. I may. But there's nothing in the above posts indicating I was talking about either of those topics. DURRR

http://fletchforfreedom.townhall.com/g/eaaafa73-ec1b-4f80-8222-ff2cf7cbbecc What's that about sunlight being a good disinfectant?