deadsox

I agree. I'll take a beer and a summat (that's an English sausage, right?)

Happy Birthday BS and LFN.

What it comes down to for me is what is the proper function of each institution, government and private industry as well as what is most efficient. Private industry has proven (to me at least) that it is far more efficient than government, precisely because it functions on a profit margin. The inherent problem with private industry is that by its very nature it is rapacious and would extract unfair profits from consumers. Here is where government should come in. It is completely within the proper purview of government to regulate private industry and prevent monopolization and collusion to cheat and defraud consumers. I suggest that if each does its proper function, we would be better off. Of course, government has failed to protect consumers in the US throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations by allowing too many mergers of big companies and it is well documented that many big corporations buy influence from politicians of all stripes to turn a blind eye to their excesses. I believe that much of the economic catastrophe of 2009 was because corporations (especially banks) were allowed to get too big (hence the bailout phrase "they're too big to let fail"). I still believe that private industry with proper government regulation is the right course.

I stand enlightened. Since I never liked him I never paid much attention to him. Thanks, Tomb Raider.

You are correct, Tomb Raider. When Americans point to the Constitution in an argument, it is (or should be) with each other because when someone wants to make a law that we disagree with, we can say that it transgresses the ultimate premise of our government. If we want to defend the inherent efficacy of a principle (like the right to keep and bear arms, e.g.) we must and should argue it on its own merits, that is to say, why it is an overall beneficial concept.

If anything of interest becomes of this .. a thread must be created. He looked like a heart attack waiting to happen. It must have been all that red meat. Unfortunately, this looks like another f%$king death tease by the media... Goddamnit, Why is that racist fat lard still alive? Why is Rush Limbaugh still breathing? Yet why did Michael Jackson have to die? Couldn't Rush die instead of MJ? This fat racist pig can survive yet MJ had to die... As you can all tell, I really hate this racist sonofabitch and I was hoping he would croak. It would've been an awesome New Years gift for us deathlisters. I'm interested in your choice of epithets, BC. You use the word "racist" three times. I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh, as I find him to be an egotistical knee jerk conservative who wouldn't praise a Democrat if he rescued a baby from drowning, but I have never seen any evidence that he's a racist. Could you enlighten me?

We do agree on that Tomb Raider and it's a good place to start a discussion. I don't think that I'm paranoid of big government, just "critical and watchful". You are right that in order for government to perform certain functions, we have to hand over a bit of our freedom. Just how much and for what purpose are debatable points. No, I don't want or expect you to shut up, I enjoy the discussions. I would appreciate it if you and others didn't ascribe opinions to me that I don't endorse. Fair enough?

Well, nap we can agree on one thing, CarolAnn's post was articulate and insightful. As long as you're confessing, why don't you also confess to not knowing me at all. I know all this cyber-babble is fun and it's great to exchange opinions with people all over the world, but I'm old fashioned enough to believe that one shouldn't presume to know a man until you've had a chance to look into his eyes. or at least carefully read what he's written. I certainly am concerned with my fellow man. Like many liberals (am I assuming too much here?) you equate opposition to a brainless system to indifference for the poor. I'm convinced, like CarolAnn, that we can do it better. In spite of what you may think, I'm not some Dickensian mill owner who's kicking widows and orphans to the curb. Not likable in your eyes? I'll take that as a compliment. The last time I heard that kind of an argument, it came from none lesser than Banshees Scream: "Pay no attention to the impression you have gained of me, get to know me properly and you'll see what a lovely guy I am" Perhaps if, like CarolAnn, you came up with a constructive idea for helping people with no health insurance instead of whinging about how your taxes are getting wasted on the undeserving (that is in any case the message which comes over, and I do take the trouble to read your posts carefully) you might come over in a more sympathetic light. If you are at all interested in doing so. OK, nap, please quote from the post where I say that my "taxes are getting wasted on on the undeserving". I'd really like to see it. Your reference to BS is illustrative of my point. You hear someone who appears to have a conservative opinion and you immediately ascribe to him every small minded or selfish thing you've ever heard from a conservative. As a matter of fact, I hold a lot of opinions that would have me drummed out of any conservative organization. I don't select my opinions on dogma, but on what works well and what doesn't. I support a system that takes care of everyone but it's a complicated issue and I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Actually, 93, most Americans (in my experience at least) believe that it is a moral imperative to disobey the government if that government is immoral. The tricky part is judging people and institutions in terms of morality. It's pretty complicated (at least for me). Itching to get out of America? You'll soon have that right. One caution: There's an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it".

Well, nap we can agree on one thing, CarolAnn's post was articulate and insightful. As long as you're confessing, why don't you also confess to not knowing me at all. I know all this cyber-babble is fun and it's great to exchange opinions with people all over the world, but I'm old fashioned enough to believe that one shouldn't presume to know a man until you've had a chance to look into his eyes. or at least carefully read what he's written. I certainly am concerned with my fellow man. Like many liberals (am I assuming too much here?) you equate opposition to a brainless system to indifference for the poor. I'm convinced, like CarolAnn, that we can do it better. In spite of what you may think, I'm not some Dickensian mill owner who's kicking widows and orphans to the curb. Not likable in your eyes? I'll take that as a compliment.

I went with Abdelbaset again. It would be great to get a DDP and a Death League hit with one stiff.

No, I didn't miss your point, I got it completely. I just wholeheartedly disagree. First of all: no-one but some obscure North Korean or Birmese apparatsjiks would want government to do 'everything' for its citizens. You make a debate on the limits of state power in health care into some polarized ideological clash of principles. I know that this is one of the main discussions in American political debate, but in Europe it is not. Regulating better access to health care is not a state 'taking over', it is a way of protecting millions of citizens who - for whatever reason - are unable to do so by themselves on this particular issue. We're talking about making health care insurance compulsary, that's not about taking over anything, come on! One of the arguments in my previous posts was, that you're being paranoid about 'the state'. I quote: No nation has gone so far in assuring a system of checks and balances as yours. If that system doesn't work, change it. If you fear government, move. If you refuse to help out others, go live as an hermit in the wilderness of Alaska all by yourself. And please, please, please, don't ever boast about your manifest destiny, or about the blessings of parliamentary democracy ever again. If you don't believe in them, what are you doing in Iraq or in Afghanistan? Ah Tomb Raider, where do I begin? How about manifest destiny. Manifest destiny??? Please show me the post in which I profess or endorse manifest destiny, because I'd like to have the moderators check into who's been using my account. How about trusting government? Have you lost your mind? I trust people and things that have given me good reason to trust them. I do not trust government and no one should. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It seems as if Germans in the 1930's trusted their government. How did that work out? I think that was your "cold abstract monster" and then some. In a democratic republic, the opposition has a right and a duty to oppose measures that the government takes which we disagree with. I believe that even you refer to this when you say "if that system doesn't work, change it". Yes, we shall do just that. How about "If you fear your government, move"? This sounds a lot like the "America-Love it or Leave it" nonsense that was bandied about in the 60's and 70's. No, I don't fear the government, I merely oppose it (on some issues). I won't move, I'll just use my constitutional rights to have my say. You say I refuse to help others? How did you get to know me? Are you aware that people who are incapable of providing for themselves are already covered by health insurance in the US? It's called Medicaid (as opposed to Medicare). The people who are getting shut out in the current system are working people who are either not covered by their employers, denied by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, unable to afford the premiums or laid off and can't afford that coverage. But of course, all you Europeans know a lot more about the US than we do, because you've read a few articles on the internet. If you (and the rest of my detractors) really read my posts, you'll see that I agree with a reform of the system that would address these problems. I merely am against a wholesale government take over because I know first hand how wasteful and inefficient they are. The end is really funny. In the same post that you say I should trust the government, you mention Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you want to rethink that? The strange thing is that I have come to respect the thoughtful and intelligent posts that you normally submit (even the ones I disagree with). I will have to chalk this one up to you dashing something off without thinking.

Here's mine: Deceased Hose Abdelbaset al Megrahi (Joker) Jose Alencar Seve Ballesteros Irwin Barker Ronnie Biggs Jane Campbell, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton Laurent Fignon Annette Funicello Kristin Hallenga John Hartson Ernie Harwell Stephen Hawking Raymond Hewlett Dennis Hopper Kim Jong Il Kathryn Joosten Eydie Gorme Penny Marshall Edwin Morgan Barry Reckford Good Luck everyone!

This is my team: Deceased Hose 1) Abdelbaset Al Megrahi (JOKER) 2) Jose Alencar 3) Seve Ballesteros 4) Irwin Barker 5) Ronnie Biggs 6) Jane Campbell 7) Laurent Fignon 8) Annette Funicello 9) Eydie Gormé 10) Kristin Hallenga 11) John Hartson 12) Ernie Harwell 13) Stephen Hawking 14) Raymond Hewlett 15) Dennis Hopper 16) Kim Jong-Il 17) Kathryn Joosten 18) Penny Marshall 19) Edwin Morgan 20) Barry Reckford

It seems like a lot of people commenting are missing my point. The point is that if government does everything for you, you will be completely dependent on it and you will gradually lose your freedom. Maybe Europeans are already getting used to that. If I sound eccentric, so be it. I am not rich. I do work for a living. I have also seen at close hand how inefficient and wasteful government is. For government to intervene to make health care more affordable and accessible is a legitimate role for government. To take it over will be a catastrophe.

What did the email say? Since you ask: She's right. I can't name anyone else who played for England Ladies. I can understand why lots of people find this pursuit "tasteless". Taste is, after all different for different people. I for one don't "mock" celebrities or wish for their deaths. We play the game for fun, knowing that we don't do anything to actually harm anyone. After all, celebrities understand that this sort of attention comes as part of fame. This seems to be an exception. I'm sorry that Linda's friend was hurt by this. She just came into the public eye. Nap, I wouldn't answer. This, like all things will pass.

I don't think even the worst possible government would actually force you to enjoy the benefits of free universal healthcare if you were to insist on paying your way. Assuming you could. As stated in my previous post, nap, we won't have a choice once government run healthcare is established. Free you say? What in life is free? Won't we be paying for this through our taxes? I'd rather continue to pay as I have been than put something as important as our health in the government's control and pay fro that. Assuming I could pay? I have been paying for my healthcare since becoming an adult. It may sound like a strange concept but people can and do pay for things like healthcare, food and housing.

Just because a government choses to provide a free healthcare system does not make it a nanny state. People are free to choose whether to "take care of themselves" by having check-ups or following up any health worries (viz. Jade Goody). Is giving the responsibility of our health to a big corporate firm any better in this day and age? Should fat cat executives profit from cancer? Should a couple pay just to give birth, part of the natural cycle of life? (In fact do you have to pay for this or indeed for any emergency treatment that saves your life as a result of an accident/attack that was not your fault?) Once a government run health care system is in place, we will not really have any option. The system that I and many other working Americans have been using and paying for will cease to exist. Should "fat cat" executives profit from cancer? If you believe as I do that private enterprise does a better job of providing goods and services than the government, then why shouldn't they make a profit? To be sure, a legitimate role of government is to regulate such industries and make sure that profits are reasonable. I love your point about couples not paying for childbirth because it's a "natural cycle of life". What about eating? Isn't that a natural cycle of life? So I guess no one should have to pay for food either? The bottom line is that we will be paying for the system. But will we have freedom of choice or have to take what the government hands us? Will we take a pretty good system (with some defects to be sure) and trash it for a complete unknown run by bureaucrats? Probably so unless Americans wake up in time.

Is she sick or just old? This, AC is what's known as looking a gift cadaver in the mouth.

Who else have you seen recently, VT? Can you post a list in the next few days or so?

Perhaps he'll be a chestnut roasting on an open fire by boxing day?? That should be, Chestnutt's roasting on an open pyre worms are nipping at his toes.....

The Pope was tackled today by a woman in red. After a challenge flag was thrown by the Protestants, the replay was examined and it was determined that he did not get enough for a first down.

The Times has assured me that Linda will get an obit, but when?, when?, when?

Happy birthday grobler and twelvetrees (I'm not sure of a nickname for you, would forest or grove work?)

Certainly not! The rules state that dutch deaths earn extra points, and I very much doubt that your knowledge of Dutch celebs is extensive enough to beat me... (Though I'd have to enroll a team first, you're absolutely right about that. I'll give it some attention somewhere in the upcoming days, thanks for the tip!) So you have thrown down the gauntlet? Send in your team and we shall see! What about the rest of you? Nap? Rotten Ali? Dutch-o-philes everywhere? I challenge you to a race for the stroopenwaffles or stormtroopers or whatever they are!