Could 80 dem. congressman secretly belong to the communist party ?

[Bobcat]

Fine by me. Does that mean you won't be calling me ignorant anymore?

I have never called you ignorant. I don't call names. I generally just read and follow what people are saying in political threads. That being said, I don't find you have much to add to discussions. Hence you are informal ignore in my book. Please post away. I am not interested in silencing anyone. But just because you post, it doesn't mean that I have to consider what you say.

[wardd]

What's generally called the right in America includes a fairly wide spectrum. I, and most tea partiers and libertarians are not for industrialists/big business. For instance I think many consider neocons and wallstreeters to be in the right, but I am not in general agreement with them.

but my premise still stands the right uses words to sell unpopular ideas much more effectively than the left

show me the frank luntz of the left

an example, the clinton admin used polling to find out what the people wanted done, bush used polling to find out how to sell unpopular ideas

[Flying Orca]

Does it in anyway penetrate your head that I am sick and tired of being called ignorant?

At some point, you might think about taking responsibility for that. You're the one who convinced people that that is what you are.

[TomF]

Thanks.

What happens if a US citizen without health insurance applicable in Canada is travelling in Canada, or who comes there purposefully to try to take advantage of your healthcare system?

What - you're making the distinction between someone who's vacationing here and unexpectely needs emergency care, and someone who comes to Canada to try and get care they're ineligible for?

Emergency care, they'd get. As a non-citizen, they'd be assigned a bill for the cost of their services - assigned to their insurance company (if any), or to themselves I guess, if they haven't got insurance. Some portion of such bills will be unrecoverable, and footed by the Canadian taxpayer.

Non-emergency care, they wouldn't get, period. Oh, they'd be able to find some kind of single-episode primary care (e.g. at a walk-in clinic etc.) if they've had a prescription run out - and pay a fee for it. But you can't get other kinds of care - e.g. ongoing diabetes care, chemotherapy or radiation therapy for cancer, elective surgery etc. - unless you are a Canadian or a Landed Immigrant (or a refugee - though the lines are sticky if the claim's in process).

I expect that it would be very similar to what would happen if a Canadian went to the US and tried to get care with the VA (and wasn't a veteran in the US forces), or if a Canadian senior citizen tried to apply for your Medicare. Screened out by eligibility requirements.

In Canada, our publicly funded health system(s) are really group health insurance policies. As in any insurance program, services are available under the terms of the policy only for policy-holders.

[John of Phoenix]

Obama does not believe in capitalism.

More "shock value"? Now that's not ignorant, it's stupid.

I don't "believe in" the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy but I can't deny fascism or socialism or democracy or capitalism are actual political and economic systems simply because I take exception with some of their tenents.

The definition of "Liberal" has noting to do with the existence of an economic system. The system exists whether one wishes it so or not. "Creating your own reality" only works for YOU, not the rest of reality. Of course Obama believes in capitalism. He just doesn't practice it to your "standard" so you come up with nonsense like, "Obama does not believe in capitalism."

Also, the opposite of "ignorant" is not "stupid", it's "knowledgable". You've proven you're not stupid in that you can string together a subject, noun and predicate. Getting that to any level of veracity is another matter.

[TomF]

...But the elite, arrogant, bullying liberuls here are not going to bully me into submission no matter how many times they or you call me ignorant.

Speaking as a Liberal - who you might think elite, arrogant and/or bullying, I'm not interested in your submission. I'm interested in discussion - and get irate if/when it feels like the discussion's not in good faith.

We're having an OK chat about Canadian/US health insurance ... because so far, we're each managing to keep to a civil discussion of facts, and we use a common terminology to describe them. Food for thought.

t

[Canoeyawl]

I'm not gonna spend any time looking up stuff.

...

[Osborne Russell]

What's generally called the right in America includes a fairly wide spectrum.

Probably. Probably Mitt doesn't speak in tongues or handle snakes. But "a wide spectrum" only marks the extremes. Where's the center? Which views are most widely held?

I, and most tea partiers and libertarians are not for industrialists/big business. For instance I think many consider neocons and wallstreeters to be in the right, but I am not in general agreement with them.

That seems contradictory. Did you mean on the right?

[PhaseLockedLoop]

Interesting how the regressives like to pick fights and then take umbrage when someone tries to point out to them that that's what they've just done.

They gotta stand their ground.

[Durnik]

Ok. Upon further reflection it is true the elite liberuls (not a mis-spelling, a different term to avoid confusion as we have not agreed on a definition of "liberals") are so arrogant and ignorant themselves that they truly do believe that anyone who does not believe as they do, is ignorant. Also, they truly believe they they know better what's good for others then they know themselves.

meanwhile, it is the 'right' (see? no need to mis-spell or 'make up' words.. there are already existing words with applicable meanings) which most feels _it_ knows best what is 'good' for the left. See religious based 'prior restraints' on women as well as social restraints on the poor & dis-advantaged by circumstances.

I'll accept that what you wrote is true and that why I used "national socialist" is really not clear to you. First, I did not know that universally accepted definition of "national socialist" (as opposed to "Nazi") was restricted only to the German Nazis and specifically had to include their racial superiority views. My admittedly ignorant view was that it referred to just their economic policy, specifically nationalizing private industry.

You do realize that this admission applies to most all of what you post, eh?

Obama has said he is out to fundamentally transform America. My belief is that he wants to CHANGE us into a European socialist style economy. Many may think that's not so bad because when they visit Europe, everything seems more or less the same as here. But they are just visiting, not living there, and therefore not understanding how truly different it is. Despite my incorrect understanding of the full required meaning of the term "national socialist" I knew it had Nazi connotations and used it for the shock value as I hope most people would not like to live in Nazi Germany and this would get them thinking about the CHANGE Obama is seeking to impose and why it might not be right for them. I understand many others think we should fundamentally transform ourselves into an European socialist economy and want the CHANGE Obama is pushing for. And bottom line, I was just trying to pull the liberuls' chains as they constantly try to pull mine. They don't like it when someone does that, but it's OK for them to do it.

Ok, follow closely. (keeping in mind that your twist & pull mixing of 'National Socialist', "European socialist style" & "CHANGE Obama is seeking to impose" is nearly completely unintelligible - essentially, N.S. is at odds with the other two - which themselves, are different) National Socialist is/was extreme _right_ wing.. _Not_, left. Period. While you are correct in that most Americans would/do not want to live in a National Socialist governed country, it is the right which is currently pushing that, most emphatically _not_ the left - right wing pundits hourly cries of 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling', not withstanding.


from another post (of tanstaf1's)

I think one other reason why the bill is so high is that the hospital has included a factor in their bill to pay for the costs of those others who they treat for "free" because they do not buy or have health insurance.

So.. you agree with Barack & most of the 'left' on the cost of american health care & what needs to be done to 'fix' it. Yet, still you argue.

From Ian McColgin

...TANSTAF1's propensity to separate words from their meanings simply to make an argument that's at variance with reality appears deliberate and practiced. Obdurate, not ignorant.

from tanstaf1..

Thanks.

I agree with that.

..unnecessary justification removed..

Intentionally obdurate == intentionally refusing to participate intelligently.

Originally Posted by TANSTAF1

I'm not gonna spend any time looking up stuff.

So you admit to only passing on what is fed to you by your sources, one could say 'masters'?

tanstaf1 - from a similar thread..

Just as I said, you can't support your assertions. Stop the cop out. Just admit, man.

Stop the obfuscation. Man up that you are wrong and can't do it.

Others, in this case, Flying Orca, have _repeatedly_ posted _accepted_scientific_data_ supporting their assertions. You have only posted links to right wing troll sites stating intentional lies. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, yet still, you persist.

YOU need to "Stop the obfuscation." YOU need to "Man up that you are wrong.."

To paraphrase Flying Orca, research.. understand, _then_ comment.

To paraphrase TomF, it is understanding & awareness which is desired.. _not_ submission - submission being more what the 'right' seeks.

enjoy
bobby

[TomF]

Sounds very logical and reasonable to me.

What should about the illegal aliens that come here to have their babies or whatever?

What about them? The mothers would be charged a fee, like any other non-citizen or non-landed-immigrant, but the children would be Canadian citizens ... and eligible for what any other Canadian is. It's a matter of citizenship law, not of health policy. If our Federal government amends the law to deny citizenship to people who are born in Canada to non-citizen parents, we'd deal with it then. Some places have such laws - but not us, not yet.

One current issue is with Canadians who go elsewhere in the world for fertility treatments (which aren't covered by our system) and come back pregnant with multiple embryos. Both the mother and (once born) the children are citizens ... but statistically use far more and more expensive services both during the pregnancy and in early childhood. Currently, Provinces simply say that these people are citizens ... and provide the services. Even if there are some rumbles about whether some of the mother's late pregnancy care ought to be on her own hook as a result of her choice (and there's no current movement in that direction!), the kids are all citizens, regardless. And eligible for care, like any other citizen.

[TomF]

Obama wanted, but couldn't get a single payer system. How is that capitalistic?

"Single payer" is really about the "payer" part, not about the "who gets paid" part.

The majority of Canadian physicians consider themselves self-employed professionals - business people, even - who provide contracted services to a government payer. Like private IT companies providing services to Government, or private contractors building bridges or Government buildings firmly consider themselves to be private entrepreneurs, rather than civil servants.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Do they set their own fees? That is can they bargain for what they think their services are worth? Can they refuse patients if they think the reimbursement is not adequate? Do they control what tests are run and what treatment is to be prescribed and what treatment regime is to be be followed ) in conjunction with their patient)? Can they be sued for malpractice?

How did you get here ,dude? This thread is about Congressman Allen West, (R-FL) calling a bunch of his opposites "Communists" with a big "C".
I'll bet Cong. West will be out of office and you will still be chasing your tail on this thread.
Well, whatever makes you happy, I guess.

[TomF]

Do they set their own fees? That is can they bargain for what they think their services are worth? Can they refuse patients if they think the reimbursement is not adequate? Do they control what tests are run and what treatment is to be prescribed and what treatment regime is to be be followed ) in conjunction with their patient)? Can they be sued for malpractice?

They negotiate their fees through the various professional associations they've set up - it's pretty analogous to collective bargaining. They can and do refuse patients on a variety of grounds - you can argue that a family practitioner who structures a practice to specialize in, say, gerontology, or obstetrics, has chosen to do some procedures and not others. A specialist - even more.

Absolutely, physicians are the gatekeepers for tests run, treatment prescribed and regime to be followed ... within the clinical practice guidelines etc. as established by their professional peer community. And yes, physicians can be sued for malpractice - and periodically are.

There's this presumption that physicians in publicly funded systems are told how to practice, told what they can and can't do with their patients, and are generally beaten down by the bureaucracy. I submit that there are very much two sides to every story - not least that one. The reality is that physicians are quite autonomous, and defend that autonomy both individually and through their professional associations. And even in Canada, you'll get little sympathy from me respecting their fee schedules ... as every physician I know who works full time is paid more annually than the absolute top civil servant in the Health Department, the Minister of Health, or the Premier. ... who are ultimately accountable for the entire health system's functioning and funding.

[Flying Orca]

They negotiate their fees through the various professional associations they've set up - it's pretty analogous to collective bargaining. They can and do refuse patients on a variety of grounds - you can argue that a family practitioner who structures a practice to specialize in, say, gerontology, or obstetrics, has chosen to do some procedures and not others. A specialist - even more.

Absolutely, physicians are the gatekeepers for tests run, treatment prescribed and regime to be followed ... within the clinical practice guidelines etc. as established by their professional peer community. And yes, physicians can be sued for malpractice - and periodically are.

There's this presumption that physicians in publicly funded systems are told how to practice, told what they can and can't do with their patients, and are generally beaten down by the bureaucracy. I submit that there are very much two sides to every story - not least that one. The reality is that physicians are quite autonomous, and defend that autonomy both individually and through their professional associations. And even in Canada, you'll get little sympathy from me respecting their fee schedules ... as every physician I know who works full time is paid more annually than the absolute top civil servant in the Health Department, the Minister of Health, or the Premier. ... who are ultimately accountable for the entire health system's functioning and funding.

The only thing I would presume to add to Tom's well-informed opinion is that from all I have heard and read, doctors in the USA face more restrictions from insurance companies than their counterparts in other countries do from single-payer systems.

[John of Phoenix]

It's difficult to understand what is truly meant be repeated statements of "you're ignorant."

Priceless!

[stevebaby]

That's from stevebaby's signature and I found it funny.

I thought it was funny too. That's why I copied it from one of your buddies.

[John of Phoenix]

The only thing I would presume to add to Tom's well-informed opinion is that from all I have heard and read, doctors in the USA face more restrictions from insurance companies than their counterparts in other countries do from single-payer systems.

I have a cardiologist client who has been on the "Phoenix Top Doc" list for several years. He had a position in GM several years ago that I suggested be sold and he asked why. "GM is an HMO that just happens to manufacture automobiles." was my reply. "The cost of healthcare built into those cars is pricing them out of the market. Foreign manufactures don't have that cost because they all have national healthcare."

He launched into a diatribe about how insurance companies were ruining healthcare in this country. "If we had single payer, I could provide cheaper, faster, BETTER care to my patients and take on even more. As it is, I spend a full third of my time fighting with insurance companies about what tests to run and what care to provide. A third of my staff does nothing but insurance related paperwork and a third of my direct expenses are insurance related, either rerunning documents or paying malpractice premiums. Single payer would be the salvation of the healthcare industry but the insurance lobby has total control of Washington."

[John of Phoenix]

It's difficult to understand what is truly meant be repeated statements of "you're ignorant."

Yes, I understand it as meaning I really don't have any arguments with which to rebut so I am conceding defeat, but I admit it could just be a politer way of saying f off.

It means EXACTLY what it says.

[TomF]

Technically, "communist" and "socialist" describes a particular way of structuring the economy - just as "capitalist" does. None of the terms refer to the particular values and moral positions taken to advocate in favour of or against any of them ... which is typically where discussions fall apart.

Communism places both ownership and control of essentially all production directly with government. Socialism typically describes a mixed economy, seeing a legitimate role for Government ownership and regulation of a number of major elements of the economy - but not all. Private enterprise has a significant role, but is typically more tightly regulated respecting their obligations to the citizenry. And utterly pure capitalism, of course, would leave pretty much everything to the market - except defence.

Quite obviously, socialism and capitalism bump into each other - even the most "capitalistic" states these days have significant government sectors - e.g. military, education, public infrastructure, etc. Modern capitalism has long accepted such public spending and regulation as necessary to providing the cleared ground for effective markets, and to offset some of the historical downsides of pure(r) capitalism. But rhetorically, primacy is still with the private sector ...

To bring the thread full circle, West is obscuring any distinction between the mixed economy of Socialism, and the mixed economy of modern Capitalism. I think such obscuring is intentional and rhetorical, and that as our little chat about health care shows, a wee bit of fact-based discussion shines the light on the rationality of some government interventions - a rationality which all sides actually find somewhat compelling. When they're not trying to score points, at least.

Let it be said though, that I'm truly well aware of the kind of failure that inappropriate government activity can also bring. I'm very much in favour of mixed economies, not "pure" ones in either direction.

[wardd]

Obama wanted, but couldn't get a single payer system. How is that capitalistic?

the providers would be private

[wardd]

In name only and not for long. What about the insurers?

other countries have single payer, private providers

why are you concerned about the insurance companies?

[TomF]

In name only and not for long. What about the insurers?

To be sure, our physicians would overwhelmingly disagree with you about their autonomy - which they've retained for 40 years and more.

As for insurers, I've always maintained that Obama should have extended access to the VA or Medicare system, as an option at a specific price point paid on your tax return. You'd be exempted if you included a receipt from a private insurer which covered at least that same "basket" of services.

Private insurers could compete on price (if they could provide the same services more efficiently), or on "service" (e.g. Room and food quality), or on services not offered in the public model.

Lots of room for competition, but also a baseline beneath which no service standard could fall.

[wardd]

Ummm. Maybe because they are capitalist enterprises? Which was my point. Obama is for nationalizing a huge percent of our economy.

so were buggy and buggy whip manufacturers

so were steam locomotive makers

so was the pony express

at one time toll roads were private

oh and postage was free

[TomF]

I've never been clear why the Right has so opposed a single payer option, with whom they could compete.

Are they afraid that they can't compete with a bureaucracy? If they can't, is that the kind of firm you want providing services? Are they afraid that perhaps Americans will actuaLly compete on price, as they do with WalMart and Sam's Club - and put little guys out of business?

Where's the harm in that, if they really can't command a market share?

[johnw]

Personally I have been waiting for Johnw or someone else to come up with a definition of socialist and communist upon which we can all agree so we can answer the (revised) question. I don't think anyone, other than Congressman West thinks they are a member of the communist party. If they do, they have remained silent.

My opinion is that few if any societies or nations have achieved a true communistic system although we refer to some as being communist.

The revised question is whether the congressmen are socialists, or what.

In the meantime while waiting on a definitions the thread has gone off on several tangents.

I'm not sure whether my last post was unclear to you, or if you simply didn't bother to read it. I said:

If you say things you know to be untrue, I guess there's not much point in discussing matters with you. The whole point of language is that words have meaning. They are the categories with which we think. You may regard them as weapons to throw at your enemies or playthings with which to play practical jokes, but those of us who care about the truth care about how we use language.

You've withdrawn the use of the term "national socialist" because you got caught, but you continue to say things that you know to be untrue or should know to be untrue, such as the claim that Obama's goal was single payer when he passed the sort of reform he ran on. Between your resistance to learning and your casual untruths, I'm afraid you've undermined any basis for discourse between us.

If that's too polite to register, let me say more clearly that you've shown contempt for the people you are talking to by telling deliberate falsehoods. Lies may be shocking, but they have no value. You have convinced me that the game's not worth the candle, so I unsubscribed to the thread. I just dropped in to see if it had improved any, but it hasn't.

[TomF]

One problem with that approach is that private enterprise cannot compete with what's supported by the taxpayer and so there's agood chance they will eventually fail.

I disagree. There are robust private streams in France and Switzerland, and more niche-like private streams in Aus and the UK. There's exactly no reason why American entrepreneurs have to be any less competitive or client-oriented.

If a private provider cannot compete because their cost structure or profit margin is too high, why should they be protected? Competition with something more than a paper tiger might be exactly what the American health care system needs to be as financially lean as that of any of your industrialized allies. I think you're selling American enterprise short.

Besides, some of your existing providers - both Kaiser and the VA come to mind - actually are leaders in efficiency. Why should your other providers be any less capable?

[wardd]

One problem with that approach is that private enterprise cannot compete with what's supported by the taxpayer and so there's agood chance they will eventually fail.

if this is the case then it's better for the end user and how is that bad?

[wardd]

I do not follow how these relate to Obama wanting to take over a large percent of our economy.

when it's time for things to end, let them end

i never could see the private economic model that covered everybody cradle to grave

[Dan McCosh]

One problem with that approach is that private enterprise cannot compete with what's supported by the taxpayer and so there's agood chance they will eventually fail.

Ever heard of the U.S. Post Office?

[Vince Brennan]

[RonW]

Welcome aboard comrade Vince glad to hear from you....this might be your best effort in the last 5 years..

[David G]

+42

[TomF]

I obviously do not know what West was thinking. He may be focusing on the amendment that the CPC introduced to redistribute wealth. Spreading the wealth around as in 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" seems to me to be a key point of what I think of as communism versus what I think of as socialism.

Perhaps. But it has a much longer pre-history than simply with Marx. Last Sunday morning, the Common Lectionary (which many Christian churches around the world use) prescribed a reading describing how immediately after the resurrection, early Christians sold their homes and property, and pooled those resources under the control of the (then 11) Apostles. And the resources were re-distributed by them "to each, according to his needs".

Sure sounds like early communism, eh? It's even where the famous phrase originated.

I think we do better focusing on the distinctions in how a communist vs a socialist economy is theoretically structured.

[Keith Wilson]

Wealth is certainly being redistributed in the US, but not from the rich to the poor.

[RonW]

Keith Wilson -

Wealth is certainly being redistributed in the US, but not from the rich to the poor.

I agree, wealth is being taken from the middle class to be given to the select few at the top..
So why is congress not only allowing it, but participating in the raping of america?

[Flying Orca]

Keith Wilson -

I agree, wealth is being taken from the middle class to be given to the select few at the top..
So why is congress not only allowing it, but participating in the raping of america?

Because people keep voting for Republicans.

[RonW]

Flying ORK -

Because people keep voting for Republicans.

Well that shows what you know, which is very little..........

Besides why would a canadian really give a damm about american politics....what is it to you........

[Flying Orca]

Flying ORK -

Well that shows what you know, which is very little..........

Hurrrrrr... guess you really put me in my place there...

Besides why would a canadian really give a damm about american politics....what is it to you........

I'm an American citizen born and bred, even if I don't live there anymore. I have an interest in the politics of the land of my birth and my other citizenship, I have an interest in the politics of my adopted home's most important neighbour and trading partner, and I have an interest in the politics of one of the most influential countries in the world.

Is that all right with you, sweetie?

[RonW]

Flying Orca -

I'm an American citizen born and bred, even if I don't live there anymore. I have an interest in the politics of the land of my birth and my other citizenship, I have an interest in the politics of my adopted home's most important neighbour and trading partner, and I have an interest in the politics of one of the most influential countries in the world.

So you say........And if you really want to engage in political conversation, then can the immature emotional liberal attack
on anyone you think might be showing signs of conservative view points.
Act like a adult and you might be surprised as to what you will learn. Or do you already know everything.?

[Arizona Bay]

Flying Orca -

So you say........And if you really want to engage in political conversation, then can the immature emotional liberal attack
on anyone you think might be showing signs of conservative view points.
Act like a adult and you might be surprised as to what you will learn. Or do you already know everything.?

ROTFLMAO

Doubt if anyone would mistake you or tanstafd for conservatives...

Having a rough day Hun? Chemtrail symptoms messing with you again?

[RonW]

Arizona Boy -

ROTFLMAO

Doubt if anyone would mistake you or tanstafd for conservatives...

Having a rough day Hun? Chemtrail symptoms messing with you again?
Last edited by Arizona Bay; 04-17-2012 at 11:04 PM.

And here we have another example of a liberal/progressive.
What are you guys going to do when Barry is kicked to the curb, where he belongs.?

Oh and by the way, sending money to al gore will have no effect on global warming, and do remember the word chemtrails, someday you will actually know what damage the program is doing to the earth and those living on it.

[leikec]

Arizona Boy -

And here we have another example of a liberal/progressive.
What are you guys going to do when Barry is kicked to the curb, where he belongs.?

Oh and by the way, sending money to al gore will have no effect on global warming, and do remember the word chemtrails, someday you will actually know what damage the program is doing to the earth and those living on it.

It will be interesting to see where the republican party is on the ideological scale on January 20, 2017, when President Obama leaves office...

Jeff C

[Durnik]

...

Originally Posted by RonW

Besides why would a canadian really give a damm about american politics....what is it to you........

I'm an American citizen born and bred, even if I don't live there anymore. I have an interest in the politics of the land of my birth and my other citizenship, I have an interest in the politics of my adopted home's most important neighbour and trading partner, and I have an interest in the politics of one of the most influential countries in the world.

Is that all right with you, sweetie?

Wondering.. do you have a count on how many times RWT's have brought up this silly question?

It must be the ultimate 9 year olds taunt.. "Yah?, Well What do _you_ care"..

Ah, well..

BTW, RWT,

Because people keep voting for Republicans.

has both preciseness & conciseness to its credit..

Just sayin'..

enjoy
bobby

[Arizona Bay]

Arizona Boy -

And here we have another example of a liberal/progressive.
What are you guys going to do when Barry is kicked to the curb, where he belongs.?

Oh and by the way, sending money to al gore will have no effect on global warming, and do remember the word chemtrails, someday you will actually know what damage the program is doing to the earth and those living on it.

Someday, if you're lucky, you will realize what damage you have done, and are doing to yourself, the people around you, and the other living beings that share this planet. Should you, by grace, find yourself there, the "progressives" will be waiting to give you a hand.

[RonW]

Arizona -

Someday, if you're lucky, you will realize what damage you have done, and are doing to yourself, the people around you, and the other living beings that share this planet. Should you, by grace, find yourself there, the "progressives" will be waiting to give you a hand.

Now that is funny....I enjoyed it, thanks for the laugh........

[Arizona Bay]

Laughing is good, laugh more...

We'll still be here - Shikata ga nai

[Flying Orca]

Act like a adult and you might be surprised as to what you will learn. Or do you already know everything.?

Ron, you believe in chemtrails. That's all the evidence I need that your critical thinking skills are rather lax by my standards, and therefore you probably have little to teach me. Like astrology and homeopathy, chemtrails are a reliable marker of certain traits.

[Flying Orca]

Wondering.. do you have a count on how many times RWT's have brought up this silly question?

It must be the ultimate 9 year olds taunt.. "Yah?, Well What do _you_ care"..

Ah, well..

BTW, RWT,



has both preciseness & conciseness to its credit..

Just sayin'..

enjoy
bobby

Hmmm... "JAFRWT..." yeah, it kinda rolls right off the tongue, don't it?

To answer your question, it's probably been half a dozen times or so. I don't mind explaining.

[RonW]

Flying Ork -

Ron, you believe in chemtrails. That's all the evidence I need that your critical thinking skills are rather lax by my standards, and therefore you probably have little to teach me. Like astrology and homeopathy, chemtrails are a reliable marker of certain traits.

Ork , you believe in GLOBAL WARMING. That's all the evidence I need that your critical thinking skills are rather lax by my standards, and therefore you probably have little to teach me. Like astrology and homeopathy, GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS are a reliable marker of certain traits.