On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> >
> > Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
> >
> +1

Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."

Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should we as a society pay? Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify for the earned income tax credit. Loser.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/4/2021 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>>>
>>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
>>>
>> +1
>
> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."
>
> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should we as a society pay? Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify for the earned income tax credit. Loser.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

Charity is not compulsion. Words matter, or ought to anyway.

And nothing is so inefficient corrupt and pernicious as a
project undertaken with someone else's money. Charity is
good, we all practice it to our abilities.

Publicly funded health care? pfffft.

https://nypost.com/2021/06/30/budget-deal-adds-115m-in-spending-by-former-thrivenyc/

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 8:24:35 PM UTC+2, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > > "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> > >
> > > Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
> > >
> > +1
> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."
>
> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should we as a society pay? Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify for the earned income tax credit. Loser.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Watched the movie 'Nomadland' yesterday. Congratulations....

Lou

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 10:37:50 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff, what are you proposing that you have added to the group?
> Pointing out your lies, fabrications and mistakes while offering
> corrections, analysis and explanations. It's a tough job, but someone
> has to do it. No need to thank me.

You like to say things like that don't you? Does it make you feel like you know something?

On 7/4/2021 1:57 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 8:24:35 PM UTC+2, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>>>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>>>>
>>>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
>>>>
>>> +1
>> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."
>>
>> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should we as a society pay? Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify for the earned income tax credit. Loser.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
> Watched the movie 'Nomadland' yesterday. Congratulations....
>
> Lou
>

We might live either safe or free. One is lost when the
other is enhanced.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:42:06 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> >
> > But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
> > to consider the following:
> >
> > “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
> > difference.” ― Author Unknown
> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.
>
> Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts.. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>
> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.

Not to be too accurate but if you had any interest in history you would discover that 660.000 REPUBLCANS died to free the slaves. On the other hand, the Democrats ran out of men and murdered 440,000 propagandized farmers into thinking that they were fighting for states rights when in fact they were fighting to allow rich white Democrat continue to keep slaves and count them as 3/4 of a human being.

People like you seem to always connect lies, distortions and counterfeit elections with the Republicans when they have never been guilty of such things. The Democrats simply blame every single criminal act they are guilty on upon the other party. Go practice your critical race theory - pure unadulterated racism - on the children of this country.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:03:00 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
Crowell believes that those who never work for anything deserve the just rewards - charity from those who do, no matter how much in need they are. Joe Biden has started running the printing presses overtime and what this causes is massive inflation. People who do not have even enough to pay one penny in taxes now have to pay 30% more for everything. This is a massive tax upon the poor and the sort of thing that Crowell and his likes feel is justified since they aren't anything other than stupid workers.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 8:20:08 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 7:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> >
> > Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor...
>
> What an odd claim! Have you not looked at data on costs and outcomes?
>
> > ... because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
>
> The evidence against your argument is the health care system of France.
> Or Britain. Or Canada. Or Switzerland. Or Germany. Or Estonia. Or
> Norway. Or ... well, there are too many to list. Almost all of which, at
> least in "developed" countries, have lower costs and better outcomes
> than the U.S. "system."
>
> The U.S. "system" of health does have its good points. It has many more
> CEOs and upper managers of medical corporations pulling in truly
> astonishing money, more than any person could rationally spend in a
> lifetime. And it employs huge armies of insurance functionaries, with
> many of them professionally trained to find ways to deny medical claims.
>
> In those aspects, it's a charitable endeavor or "make work" project for
> graduates from the bottom half of Business Administration programs.

As usual, when you don't actually know anything you invent something up and lie. The socialized medical systems of ALL of the socialized medicine countries in the world get almost all of their medical advances from who? Oh, that's right - from the few countries that pay people to discover things. Tell us all where those vaccines for covid came from? Were they developed in France or England or China or, your favorite, North Korea? I won't bother in insult you since you do that to yourself so often.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 8:23:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 2:42 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> >>
> >> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
> >> to consider the following:
> >>
> >> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
> >> difference.” ― Author Unknown
> >
> > Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.
> >
> > Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
> >
> > Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.
> Interesting point.
>
> What would happen to a society in which countering outright lies was
> forbidden or harshly discouraged? Nothing good, certainly.
>
> It might even become the sort of hell where a reality show TV grifter
> got elected to high office.

I think what you mean is a demented fool whose first act after being sworn into office was to invade Syria. Why that was front page news wasn't it? Oh, that's right - the Lame Stream Media is your kind of news - Attack all the good things that Trump was doing with white hot fervor while hiding what Biden is actually doing. You can't advance in the military without a war so Biden gave them a war. But the citizens of this country don't want a war so the Lame Stream Media hid it from them.

Biden is nothing more than a sock puppet operated by the Chinese Communist Party and you love everything about that.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:03:26 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 10:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 7/4/2021 2:42 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom,
> >>> they may want
> >>> to consider the following:
> >>>
> >>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to
> >>> tell the
> >>> difference.†― Author Unknown
> >>
> >> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of
> >> John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to
> >> contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the
> >> foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or
> >> blacks and giving them rights? People different than
> >> himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man
> >> as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus
> >> Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food
> >> stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain
> >> political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed
> >> people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to
> >> people? How dare they propose something so unchristian.
> >> Wow.
> >>
> >> Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is
> >> an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I
> >> and many others simply provide facts. Is that an
> >> argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up
> >> different positions and then provide facts or relevant
> >> material to support their side of the argument. He who
> >> has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom
> >> never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up
> >> nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing
> >> with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
> >>
> >> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all
> >> the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply
> >> state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is
> >> that an argument? I say no.
> >
> > Interesting point.
> >
> > What would happen to a society in which countering outright
> > lies was forbidden or harshly discouraged? Nothing good,
> > certainly.
> >
> > It might even become the sort of hell where a reality show
> > TV grifter got elected to high office.
> >
> well, here we are:
>
> https://www.waynedupree.com/2021/06/biden-worsst-blunder-yet/
>
> And he's repeated it with almost no pushback (sigh). The
> crap flows all day every day.

I'm still trying to figure out how Biden could have done one racist thing after another for every second he has been in office and people like Frank look the other way. Biden used to wash the feet of Robert Byrd who was a Green Dragon of the KKK.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:24:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > > "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> > >
> > > Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
> > >
> > +1
> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."
>
> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should we as a society pay? Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify for the earned income tax credit. Loser.

Jay, you don't even have a clue about medical support for the poor do you? I finally got the idea that the reason you're acting so crazed lately is that your entire business has blown up in your face. All of our retirement plans are not out the window and you may never recover from this.

When you have less religion than a turtle, if I were you I wouldn't be talking about Jesus. You being a lawyer rank lower on the religious grade than money lenders.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:24:35 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > > > "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> > > >
> > > > Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
> > > >
> > > +1
> > Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."
> >
> > Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should we as a society pay? Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify for the earned income tax credit. Loser.
> Jay, you don't even have a clue about medical support for the poor do you? I finally got the idea that the reason you're acting so crazed lately is that your entire business has blown up in your face. All of our retirement plans are not out the window and you may never recover from this.

Medical support for the poor? Do you mean public financing for indigent healthcare or physically caring for the poor? I have experience with both -- including six years working ambulance, including Eastside and downtown SJ, where everybody was on Medi-Cal. How about you? Have you ever done CPR and ventilated some homeless druggie -- who then vomits on you? I did pro bono GA, SDI, Medicaid -- QDROs so wife didn't go broke when husband went into long-term care. I just settled up a DHS Medicaid lien in a probate just recently, which was a monumental negotiation. Besides giving $5 to some lady with a shopping cart, what do you know about medical support for the poor?
> When you have less religion than a turtle, if I were you I wouldn't be talking about Jesus. You being a lawyer rank lower on the religious grade than money lenders.

It's true, I'm not a parishioner at the conservative Our Mother of Perpetual Aggrievement. I'm an Episcopalian. What religious test must I meet? I sang in the choir, got confirmed. Interestingly, Bishop Pike -- who confirmed my brother (I was later in time), was a lawyer who drafted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pike My grandmother received her last communion, in her home, from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Beat that.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/4/2021 4:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Not to be too accurate but if you had any interest in history you would discover that 660.000 REPUBLCANS died to free the slaves. On the other hand, the Democrats ran out of men and murdered 440,000 propagandized farmers into thinking that they were fighting for states rights when in fact they were fighting to allow rich white Democrat continue to keep slaves and count them as 3/4 of a human being.

I'm aware that the positions of various political parties have changed
over the years.

History is interesting, but when discussing today's matters, I think
it's more relevant to refer to the parties' current positions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>>>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose
>>>> something so unchristian. Wow."
>>>>
>>>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no
>>>> evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is
>>>> a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to
>>>> be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own
>>>> health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to
>>>> buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving
>>>> than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By
>>>> doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy
>>>> their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't
>>>> say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man
>>>> behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor
>>>> peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at
>>>> others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else
>>>> who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic
>>>> disincentives.
>>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian
>> charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."
>>
>> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the
>> lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of
>> the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including
>> the cost of the antibiotics.  For a leper who couldn't afford the
>> cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay.  Should we as a
>> society pay?   Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat
>> camping across portions of the Middle East.  The guy probably didn't
>> even qualify for the earned income tax credit.  Loser.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>
> Charity is not compulsion. Words matter, or ought to anyway.
>
> And nothing is so inefficient corrupt and pernicious as a project
> undertaken with someone else's money. Charity is good, we all practice
> it to our abilities.
>
> Publicly funded health care? pfffft.

That position puzzles me. I don't see how an unbiased person can
conclude that our health care system is better than that of dozens of
other countries. There seems to be little doubt it's the most expensive,
and its measured outcomes are quite a bit worse than a great many.

Based on my experience, we're paying a LOT to insurance company paper
pushers who are often far less than competent. Plus, the current scheme
actively rewards insurance companies for denial of benefits.

One might say there's always a degree of incompetence in any system, but
if you think ours is best, please show me the overall numbers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 4:44 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:03:00 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
>
> Crowell believes that those who never work for anything deserve the just rewards - charity from those who do, no matter how much in need they are. Joe Biden has started running the printing presses overtime and what this causes is massive inflation. People who do not have even enough to pay one penny in taxes now have to pay 30% more for everything. This is a massive tax upon the poor and the sort of thing that Crowell and his likes feel is justified since they aren't anything other than stupid workers.

I think Tom just displayed the typical reading comprehension of a high
school dropout.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 2:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 10:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 2:42 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom,
>>>> they may want
>>>> to consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to
>>>> tell the
>>>> difference.” ― Author Unknown
>>>
>>> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of
>>> John.� How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to
>>> contradict Republicans.� Imagine Jesus Christ (the
>>> foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or
>>> blacks and giving them rights?� People different than
>>> himself.� Different being non caucasian skinny white man
>>> as he is portrayed in USA christianity.� And imagine Jesus
>>> Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food
>>> stamps?� He would want to eliminate it.� Like a certain
>>> political party.� And giving money, charity, to unemployed
>>> people?� Unimaginable.� And providing health care to
>>> people?� How dare they propose something so unchristian.
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> Now regarding arguing with a fool.� I would disagree it is
>>> an argument.� Tom just states very obvious lies.� And I
>>> and many others simply provide facts.� Is that an
>>> argument?� Arguments usually have sides that take up
>>> different positions and then provide facts or relevant
>>> material to support their side of the argument.� He who
>>> has the best, most persuasive support, wins.� But Tom
>>> never ever supports his lies.� He just lies and makes up
>>> nonsensical words.� So I don't think anyone is arguing
>>> with Tom.� Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>>>
>>> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all
>>> the time.� He says he is skinny and athletic.� You simply
>>> state the obvious and factually contradict his words.� Is
>>> that an argument?� I say no.
>>
>> Interesting point.
>>
>> What would happen to a society in which countering outright
>> lies was forbidden or harshly discouraged? Nothing good,
>> certainly.
>>
>> It might even become the sort of hell where a reality show
>> TV grifter got elected to high office.
>>
>
> well, here we are:
>
> https://www.waynedupree.com/2021/06/biden-worsst-blunder-yet/
>
> And he's repeated it with almost no pushback (sigh). The crap flows all
> day every day.

That is terrible, all right. It reminds me a lot of Obama's brown suit.
What a travesty!

OTOH, as I've posted before:

Trump wasn�t bad except for ...

Now 100 days into the Biden/Harris administration, I owe my
Trump-supporting friends an apology.
Like most informed people I know, I�ve been critical of the Trump
presidency these last four years, and am still exhausted from the
experience.
But to be fair, Trump wasn�t that bad, other than when...
He incited an insurrection against the government, mismanaged a pandemic
that killed nearly half a million Americans, separated children from
their families, lost those children in the bureaucracy, tear-gassed
peaceful protesters on Lafayette Square so he could hold a photo op
holding a Bible in front of a church, tried to block all Muslims from
entering the country, got impeached, got impeached again, had the worst
jobs record of any president in modern history, pressured Ukraine to dig
dirt on Joe Biden, fired the FBI director for investigating his ties to
Russia, bragged about firing the FBI director on TV, took Vladimir
Putin�s word over the US intelligence community, diverted military
funding to build his wall, caused the longest government shutdown in US
history, called Black Lives Matter a �symbol of hate,� lied nearly
30,000 times, banned transgender people from serving in the military,
ejected reporters from the White House briefing room who asked tough
questions, vetoed the defense funding bill because it renamed military
bases named for Confederate soldiers, refused to release his tax
returns, increased the national debt by nearly $8 trillion, had three of
the highest annual trade deficits in U.S. history, called veterans and
soldiers who died in combat losers and suckers, coddled the leader of
Saudi Arabia after he ordered the execution and dismembering of a
US-based journalist, refused to concede the 2020 election, hired his
unqualified daughter and son-in-law to work in the White House, walked
out of an interview with Lesley Stahl, called neo-Nazis �very fine
people,� suggested that people should inject bleach into their bodies to
fight COVID, abandoned our allies the Kurds to Turkey, pushed through
massive tax cuts for the wealthiest but balked at helping working
Americans, incited anti-lockdown protestors in several states at the
height of the pandemic, withdrew the US from the Paris climate accords,
withdrew the US from the Iranian nuclear deal, withdrew the US from the
Trans Pacific Partnership which was designed to block China�s advances,
insulted his own Cabinet members on Twitter, pushed the leader of
Montenegro out of the way during a photo op, failed to reiterate US
commitment to defending NATO allies, called Haiti and African nations
�shithole� countries, called the city of Baltimore the �worst in the
nation,� claimed that he single handedly brought back the phrase �Merry
Christmas� even though it hadn�t gone anywhere, forced his Cabinet
members to praise him publicly like some cult leader, believed he should
be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, berated and belittled his hand-picked
Attorney General when he recused himself from the Russia probe,
suggested the US should buy Greenland, colluded with Mitch McConnell to
push through federal judges and two Supreme Court justices after
supporting efforts to prevent his predecessor from appointing judges,
repeatedly called the media �enemies of the people,� claimed that if we
tested fewer people for COVID we�d have fewer cases, violated the
emoluments clause, thought that Nambia was a country, told Bob Woodward
in private that the coronavirus was a big deal but then downplayed it in
public, called his exceedingly faithful vice president a �p---y� for
following the Constitution, nearly got us into a war with Iran after
threatening them by tweet, nominated a corrupt head of the EPA,
nominated a corrupt head of HHS, nominated a corrupt head of the
Interior Department, nominated a corrupt head of the USDA, praised
dictators and authoritarians around the world while criticizing allies,
refused to allow the presidential transition to begin, insulted war hero
John McCain � even after his death, spent an obscene amount of time
playing golf after criticizing Barack Obama for playing (far less) golf
while president, falsely claimed that he won the 2016 popular vote,
called the Muslim mayor of London a �stone cold loser,� falsely claimed
that he turned down being Time�s Man of the Year, considered firing
special counsel Robert Mueller on several occasions, mocked wearing face
masks to guard against transmitting COVID, locked Congress out of its
constitutional duty to confirm Cabinet officials by hiring acting ones,
used a racist dog whistle by calling COVID the �China virus,� hired and
associated with numerous shady figures that were eventually convicted of
federal offenses including his campaign manager and national security
adviser, pardoned several of his shady associates, gave the Presidential
Medal of Freedom to two congressman who amplified his batshit crazy
conspiracy theories, got into telephone fight with the leader of
Australia(!), had a Secretary of State who called him a moron, forced
his press secretary to claim without merit that his was the largest
inauguration crowd in history, botched the COVID vaccine rollout,
tweeted so much dangerous propaganda that Twitter eventually banned him,
charged the Secret Service jacked-up rates at his properties, constantly
interrupted Joe Biden in their first presidential debate, claimed that
COVID would �magically� disappear, called a U.S. Senator �Pocahontas,�
used his Twitter account to blast Nordstrom when it stopped selling
Ivanka�s merchandise, opened up millions of pristine federal lands to
development and drilling, got into a losing tariff war with China that
forced US taxpayers to bail out farmers, claimed that his losing tariff
war was a win for the US, ignored or didn�t even take part in daily
intelligence briefings, blew off honoring American war dead in France
because it was raining, redesigned Air Force One to look like the Trump
Shuttle, got played by Kim Jung Un and his �love letters,� threatened to
go after social media companies in clear violation of the Constitution,
botched the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, threw paper
towels at Puerto Ricans when he finally visited them, pressured the
governor and secretary of state of Georgia to �find� him votes, thought
that the Virgin islands had a President, drew on a map with a Sharpie to
justify his inaccurate tweet that Alabama was threatened by a hurricane,
allowed White House staff to use personal email accounts for official
businesses after blasting Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing,
rolled back regulations that protected the public from mercury and
asbestos, pushed regulators to waste time studying snake-oil remedies
for COVID, rolled back regulations that stopped coal companies from
dumping waste into rivers, held blatant campaign rallies at the White
House, tried to take away millions of Americans� health insurance
because the law was named for a Black man, refused to attend his
successors� inauguration, nominated the worst Education Secretary in
history, threatened judges who didn�t do what he wanted, attacked Dr.
Anthony Fauci, promised that Mexico would pay for the wall (it didn�t),
allowed political hacks to overrule government scientists on major
reports on climate change and other issues, struggled navigating a ramp
after claiming his opponent was feeble, called an African-American
Congresswoman �low IQ,� threatened to withhold federal aid from states
and cities with Democratic leaders, went ahead with rallies filled with
maskless supporters in the middle of a pandemic, claimed that legitimate
investigations of his wrongdoing were �witch hunts,� seemed to
demonstrate a belief that there were airports during the American
Revolution, demanded �total loyalty� from the FBI director, praised a
conspiracy theory that Democrats are Satanic pedophiles, completely
gutted the Voice of America, placed a political hack in charge of the
Postal Service, claimed without evidence that the Obama administration
bugged Trump Tower, suggested that the US should allow more people from
places like Norway into the country, suggested that COVID wasn�t that
bad because he recovered with the help of top government doctors and
treatments not available to the public, overturned energy conservation
standards that even industry supported, reduced the number of refugees
the US accepts, insulted various members of Congress and the media with
infantile nicknames, gave Rush Limbaugh a Presidential medal of Freedom
at the State of the Union address, named as head of federal personnel a
29-year old who�d previously been fired from the White House for
allegations of financial improprieties, eliminated the White House
office of pandemic response, used soldiers as campaign props, fired any
advisor who made the mistake of disagreeing with him, demanded the
Pentagon throw him a Soviet-style military parade, hired a shit ton of
white nationalists, politicized the civil service, did absolutely
nothing after Russia hacked the U.S. government, falsely said the Boy
Scouts called him to say his bizarre Jamboree speech was the best speech
ever given to the Scouts, claimed that Black people would overrun the
suburbs if Biden won, insulted reporters of color, insulted women
reporters, insulted women reporters of color, suggested he was fine with
China�s oppression of the Uighurs, attacked the Supreme Court when it
ruled against him, summoned Pennsylvania state legislative leaders to
the White House to pressure them to overturn the election, spent
countless hours every day watching Fox News, refused to allow his
administration to comply with Congressional subpoenas, hired Rudy
Giuliani as his lawyer, tried to punish Amazon because the Jeff
Bezos-owned Washington Post wrote negative stories about him, acted as
if the Attorney General of the United States was his personal attorney,
attempted to get the federal government to defend him in a libel lawsuit
from a women who accused him of sexual assault, held private meetings
with Vladimir Putin without staff present, didn�t disclose his private
meetings with Vladimir Putin so that the US had to find out via Russian
media, stopped holding press briefings for months at a time, �ordered�
US companies to leave China even though he has no such power, led a
political party that couldn�t even be bothered to draft a policy
platform, claimed preposterously that Article II of the Constitution
gave him absolute powers, tried to pressure the U.K. to hold the British
Open at his golf course, suggested that the government nuke hurricanes,
suggested that wind turbines cause cancer, said that he had a special
aptitude for science, fired the head of election cyber security after he
said that the 2020 election was secure, blurted out classified
information to Russian officials, tried to force the G7 to hold their
meeting at his failing golf resort in Florida, fired the acting attorney
general when she refused to go along with his unconstitutional Muslim
travel ban, hired Stephen Miller, openly discussed national security
issues in the dining room at Mar-a-Lago where everyone could hear them,
interfered with plans to relocate the FBI because a new development
there might compete with his hotel, abandoned Iraqi refugees who�d
helped the U.S. during the war, tried to get Russia back into the G7,
held a COVID super spreader event in the Rose Garden, seemed to believe
that Frederick Douglass is still alive, lost 60 election fraud cases in
court including before judges he had nominated, falsely claimed that
factories were reopening when they weren�t, shamelessly exploited terror
attacks in Europe to justify his anti-immigrant policies, still hasn�t
come up with a healthcare plan, still hasn�t come up with an
infrastructure plan despite repeated �Infrastructure Weeks,� forced
Secret Service agents to drive him around Walter Reed while contagious
with COVID, told the Proud Boys to �stand back and stand by,� fucked up
the Census, withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization in the
middle of a pandemic, did so few of his duties that his press staff were
forced to state on his daily schedule �President Trump will work from
early in the morning until late in the evening. He will make many calls
and have many meetings,� allowed his staff to repeatedly violate the
Hatch Act, seemed not to know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican,
stood before sacred CIA wall of heroes and bragged about his election
win, constantly claimed he was treated worse than any president which
presumably includes four that were assassinated and his predecessor
whose legitimacy and birthplace were challenged by a racist reality TV
show star named Donald Trump, claimed Andrew Jackson could�ve stopped
the Civil War even though he died 16 years before it happened, said that
any opinion poll showing him behind was fake, claimed that other
countries laughed at us before he became president when several world
leaders were literally laughing at him, claimed that the military was
out of ammunition before he became President, created a commission to
whitewash American history, retweeted anti-Islam videos from one of the
most racist people in Britain, claimed ludicrously that the Pulse
nightclub shooting wouldn�t have happened if someone there had a gun
even though there was an armed security guard there, hired a senior
staffer who cited the non-existent Bowling Green Massacre as a reason to
ban Muslims, had a press secretary who claimed that Nazi Germany never
used chemical weapons even though every sane human being knows they used
gas to kill millions of Jews and others, bilked the Secret Service for
higher than market rates when they had to stay at Trump properties,
apparently sold pardons on his way out of the White House, stripped
protective status from 59,000 Haitians, falsely claimed Biden wanted to
defund the police, said that the head of the CDC didn�t know what he was
talking about, tried to rescind protection from DREAMers, gave himself
an A+ for his handling of the pandemic, tried to start a boycott of
Goodyear tires due to an Internet hoax, said U.S. rates of COVID would
be lower if you didn�t count blue states, deported U.S. veterans who
served their country but were undocumented, claimed he did more for
African Americans than any president since Lincoln, touted a
�super-duper� secret �hydrosonic� missile which may or may not be a new
�hypersonic� missile or may not exist at all, retweeted a gif calling
Biden a pedophile, forced through security clearances for his family,
suggested that police officers should rough up suspects, suggested that
Biden was on performance-enhancing drugs, tried to stop transgender
students from being able to use school bathrooms in line with their
gender, suggested the US not accept COVID patients from a cruise ship
because it would make US numbers look higher, nominated a climate change
sceptic to chair the committee advising the White House on environmental
policy, retweeted a video doctored to look like Biden had played a song
called �Fuck tha Police� at a campaign event, hugged a disturbingly
large number of U.S. flags, accused Democrats of �treason� for not
applauding his State of the Union address, claimed that the FBI failed
to capture the Parkland school shooter because they were �spending too
much time� on Russia, mocked the testimony of Dr Christine Blasey Ford
when she accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, obsessed over
low-flow toilets, ordered the rerelease of more COVID vaccines when
there weren�t any to release, called for the construction of a bizarre
garden of heroes with statutes of famous dead Americans as well as at
least one Canadian (Alex Trebek), hijacked Washington�s July 4th
celebrations to give a partisan speech, took advice from the MyPillow
guy, claimed that migrants seeking a better life in the US were
dangerous caravans of drug dealers and rapists, said nothing when
Vladimir Putin poisoned a leading opposition figure, never seemed to
heed the advice of his wife�s �Be Best� campaign, falsely claimed that
mail-in voting is fraudulent, announced a precipitous withdrawal of
troops from Syria which not only handed Russia and ISIS a win but also
prompted his defense secretary to resign in protest, insulted the leader
of Canada, insulted the leader of France, insulted the leader of
Britain, insulted the leader of Germany, insulted the leader of Sweden
(Sweden!!), falsely claimed credit for getting NATO members to increase
their share of dues, blew off two Asia summits even though they were
held virtually, continued lying about spending lots of time at Ground
Zero with 9/11 responders, said that the Japanese would sit back and
watch their �Sony televisions� if the US were ever attacked, left a NATO
summit early in a huff, stared directly into an eclipse even though
everyone over the age of 5 knows not to do that, called himself a very
stable genius despite significant evidence to the contrary, refused to
commit to a peaceful transfer of power and kept his promise, and a whole
bunch of other things I can�t remember at the moment.
But other than that. . .

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 04:02:58 -0700 (PDT), William Crowell
<retroguybilly@gmail.com> wrote:

>"And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>
>Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.

Having lived in countries that provided essentially free medical care
for their citizens I can assure you that the general public does not
consider it as charity. It is a "right".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:42:06 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>> >
>> > But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>> > to consider the following:
>> >
>> > “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>> > difference.” ? Author Unknown
>> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.
>>
>> Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>>
>> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.
>
>Not to be too accurate but if you had any interest in history you would discover that 660.000 REPUBLCANS died to free the slaves. On the other hand, the Democrats ran out of men and murdered 440,000 propagandized farmers into thinking that they were fighting for states rights when in fact they were fighting to allow rich white Democrat continue to keep slaves and count them as 3/4 of a human being.
>
>People like you seem to always connect lies, distortions and counterfeit elections with the Republicans when they have never been guilty of such things. The Democrats simply blame every single criminal act they are guilty on upon the other party. Go practice your critical race theory - pure unadulterated racism - on the children of this country.

You know Tommy, I get sick of all your bullshit. The U.S. Civil war
was not "fought to free the slaves", although admittedly the slavery
question did enter into it. Nor did Lincoln "free the slaves". If you
want to learn, the Emancipation Proclamation is printed in it's
entirety on the Internet, free to anyone that cares to read it.

As for the Republican party? Well, the 1860 Republican National
Convention in Chicago, which nominated Lincoln, promised not to
interfere with slavery in the South
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 10:37:50 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeff, what are you proposing that you have added to the group?
>> Pointing out your lies, fabrications and mistakes while offering
>> corrections, analysis and explanations. It's a tough job, but someone
>> has to do it. No need to thank me.

>You like to say things like that don't you? Does it make you feel like you know something?

You like to change the subject, insult everyone, ignore contradictory
evidence, conjure fictitious employment, contrive positive impressions
from deceased luminaries, inflate your net worth, ignore good advice,
and expand simple problems into endless debates. Almost all of you
postings declare that you are somehow the victim of some evil plot.
Many of your postings wander around, eventually landing on familiar
ground, which usually degenerates into a political rant. I assume all
this makes you feel good in some manner or you wouldn't find it
necessary to perpetuate the practice. Reading your rubbish actually
does make me feel that you know something. The problem is that
something is usually wrong. I tried to do the necessary research and
offer collections, but you simply respond by increasing the frequency
of your errors and fabrications. So, I gave up due to lack of time.
Consider this a victory of quantity over quality. What you lack in
quality, you have successfully replaced with quantity. Please collect
your winnings from the cashier and burn in the hell of your own
creation.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 8:23:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 2:42 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>> >> to consider the following:
>> >>
>> >> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>> >> difference.” ? Author Unknown
>> >
>> > Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.
>> >
>> > Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>> >
>> > Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.
>> Interesting point.
>>
>> What would happen to a society in which countering outright lies was
>> forbidden or harshly discouraged? Nothing good, certainly.
>>
>> It might even become the sort of hell where a reality show TV grifter
>> got elected to high office.
>
>I think what you mean is a demented fool whose first act after being sworn into office was to invade Syria. Why that was front page news wasn't it? Oh, that's right - the Lame Stream Media is your kind of news - Attack all the good things that Trump was doing with white hot fervor while hiding what Biden is actually doing. You can't advance in the military without a war so Biden gave them a war. But the citizens of this country don't want a war so the Lame Stream Media hid it from them.
>
>Biden is nothing more than a sock puppet operated by the Chinese Communist Party and you love everything about that.

Oh Tommy, we didn't know that. So, the U.S. is now a "colony" of
People's Republic of China? Amazing!

But, then again, the May 2021 unemployment in China was about 5% so
perhaps you will be able to find a job under our new regime.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/4/2021 5:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they
>>>>> propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>>>>>
>>>>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There
>>>>> is no evidence that providing health care to people who
>>>>> can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in
>>>>> order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those
>>>>> who can just barely afford to buy their own health
>>>>> insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford
>>>>> to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person
>>>>> is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is
>>>>> a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any
>>>>> incentive for people to work and buy their own health
>>>>> insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say,
>>>>> "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that
>>>>> man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay
>>>>> for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves"
>>>>> health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely
>>>>> expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it
>>>>> without creating terribly dysfunctional economic
>>>>> disincentives.
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about
>>> Christian charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and
>>> "welfare."
>>>
>>> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for
>>> healing the lepers, although the cost of cure was low
>>> back then -- a laying on of the hands, which today would
>>> run about $1,200 at an ER, not including the cost of the
>>> antibiotics. For a leper who couldn't afford the cure,
>>> it would be charitable to help him or her pay. Should
>>> we as a society pay?  Jesus would do it, but then
>>> again, he was some deadbeat camping across portions of
>>> the Middle East. The guy probably didn't even qualify
>>> for the earned income tax credit. Loser.
>>>
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>
>> Charity is not compulsion. Words matter, or ought to anyway.
>>
>> And nothing is so inefficient corrupt and pernicious as a
>> project undertaken with someone else's money. Charity is
>> good, we all practice it to our abilities.
>>
>> Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
>
> That position puzzles me. I don't see how an unbiased person
> can conclude that our health care system is better than that
> of dozens of other countries. There seems to be little doubt
> it's the most expensive, and its measured outcomes are quite
> a bit worse than a great many.
>
> Based on my experience, we're paying a LOT to insurance
> company paper pushers who are often far less than competent.
> Plus, the current scheme actively rewards insurance
> companies for denial of benefits.
>
> One might say there's always a degree of incompetence in any
> system, but if you think ours is best, please show me the
> overall numbers.
>
>

Defend this dog's breakfast better known as The Medical
Billing Industry? Not me.

Overregulated with perverse incentives. It's not a 'system'
so much as a collection of chiselers exploiting various
loopholes of opportunity. That anything useful (aside from
billing, at which they excel) actually gets done is a
miracle and about as frequent.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:35:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/4/2021 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose
>>>>> something so unchristian. Wow."
>>>>>
>>>>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no
>>>>> evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is
>>>>> a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to
>>>>> be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own
>>>>> health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to
>>>>> buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving
>>>>> than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By
>>>>> doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy
>>>>> their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't
>>>>> say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man
>>>>> behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor
>>>>> peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at
>>>>> others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else
>>>>> who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic
>>>>> disincentives.
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> Except that it misses the point an uses a comment about Christian
>>> charity to launch into a tirade about taxes and "welfare."
>>>
>>> Charity is charity. Jesus didn't claim a deduction for healing the
>>> lepers, although the cost of cure was low back then -- a laying on of
>>> the hands, which today would run about $1,200 at an ER, not including
>>> the cost of the antibiotics.  For a leper who couldn't afford the
>>> cure, it would be charitable to help him or her pay.  Should we as a
>>> society pay?   Jesus would do it, but then again, he was some deadbeat
>>> camping across portions of the Middle East.  The guy probably didn't
>>> even qualify for the earned income tax credit.  Loser.
>>>
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>
>> Charity is not compulsion. Words matter, or ought to anyway.
>>
>> And nothing is so inefficient corrupt and pernicious as a project
>> undertaken with someone else's money. Charity is good, we all practice
>> it to our abilities.
>>
>> Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
>
>That position puzzles me. I don't see how an unbiased person can
>conclude that our health care system is better than that of dozens of
>other countries. There seems to be little doubt it's the most expensive,
>and its measured outcomes are quite a bit worse than a great many.
>
>Based on my experience, we're paying a LOT to insurance company paper
>pushers who are often far less than competent. Plus, the current scheme
>actively rewards insurance companies for denial of benefits.
>
>One might say there's always a degree of incompetence in any system, but
>if you think ours is best, please show me the overall numbers.

And, I believe that the guy that went "pfffft" was one of the first to
highlight, here, the inadequacies of the U.S. system :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/4/2021 5:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 4:44 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:03:00 AM UTC-7, William
>> Crowell wrote:
>>> "And providing health care to people? How dare they
>>> propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>>> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is
>>> no evidence that providing health care to people who
>>> can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in
>>> order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who
>>> can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance,
>>> to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it.
>>> So you're saying that an unemployed person is more
>>> deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical
>>> non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive
>>> for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a
>>> decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the
>>> rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind
>>> the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor
>>> peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health
>>> insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive
>>> and there is nobody else who can pay for it without
>>> creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
> >
>> Crowell believes that those who never work for anything
>> deserve the just rewards - charity from those who do, no
>> matter how much in need they are. Joe Biden has started
>> running the printing presses overtime and what this causes
>> is massive inflation. People who do not have even enough
>> to pay one penny in taxes now have to pay 30% more for
>> everything. This is a massive tax upon the poor and the
>> sort of thing that Crowell and his likes feel is justified
>> since they aren't anything other than stupid workers.
>
> I think Tom just displayed the typical reading comprehension
> of a high school dropout.
>
>

*ahem*
You're painting with a fairly road brush there.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 7/4/2021 6:20 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:42:06 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>>>> to consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>>>> difference.” ? Author Unknown
>>> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.
>>>
>>> Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>>>
>>> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.
>>
>> Not to be too accurate but if you had any interest in history you would discover that 660.000 REPUBLCANS died to free the slaves. On the other hand, the Democrats ran out of men and murdered 440,000 propagandized farmers into thinking that they were fighting for states rights when in fact they were fighting to allow rich white Democrat continue to keep slaves and count them as 3/4 of a human being.
>>
>> People like you seem to always connect lies, distortions and counterfeit elections with the Republicans when they have never been guilty of such things. The Democrats simply blame every single criminal act they are guilty on upon the other party. Go practice your critical race theory - pure unadulterated racism - on the children of this country.
>
> You know Tommy, I get sick of all your bullshit. The U.S. Civil war
> was not "fought to free the slaves", although admittedly the slavery
> question did enter into it. Nor did Lincoln "free the slaves". If you
> want to learn, the Emancipation Proclamation is printed in it's
> entirety on the Internet, free to anyone that cares to read it.
>
> As for the Republican party? Well, the 1860 Republican National
> Convention in Chicago, which nominated Lincoln, promised not to
> interfere with slavery in the South
>

That's roughly correct. Preservation of the Union was felt
important enough to not overly provoke the Democrat Party.

As with all appeasement, the strategy failed, the Democrat
Party seceded and was fervently supported by Copperhead
northern Democrats notably in New York.

la plus ca change, eh?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:03:00 AM UTC-5, William Crowell wrote:
> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.

Who said free? You. Not me. I am well aware there is no free lunch. Health care for citizens is paid for. Higher taxes on individuals and corporations. And the absurd fact that government run controlled health care is amazingly cheaper than individual health insurance. So less money is needed.. Funny how that is. Health care is considered a right. Like in the Constitution. Like free speech and freedom of choosing religion and right to own a gun and kill people. Rights. Health care is considered a right in many other countries. Its just not the rich who have freedom of speech or religion or the right to own a gun. Everyone. Like health care in these other countries. And old people in the USA because of MediCare. Gotta give old people free health care to buy votes.

You mention "deserves" health insurance. At other's expense. Do you deserve free speech? Do you deserve freedom of religion? Do you deserve the right to vote? Or should we have income tests for all these rights? If a right is too expensive for you to buy it, then you don't deserve it. I put health care in the rights category. Not a privilege. Owning a Lexus or Trek Madone or Specialized Tarmac is a privilege. Available if you can pay the money. But driving a car or riding a bicycle is closer to a right. No income tests.