On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:00:13 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 1:42 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.
> >
> Nice conservative straw man you got there.
> Beat him up again please.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Well Andrew, it is fun to play with Tom. And he helps out a lot by giving such fun statements to play with. Its his fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 4/7/21 4:05 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Incidentally, I closed my LinkedIn.com account, where Tom and I both
> posted our resumes. The problem was a 2nd massive security breach,
> both times by exploiting holes in the LinkedIn API. Fortunately, no
> passwords were leaked. Apparently, LinkedIn doesn't care much about
> securing user information:
> <https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/29/linkedin-breach/>
>
>

Interesting. I closed mine some time ago too. I got sick of the
pestering emails.

--
JS

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 15:34:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

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

It is rare that a slave is particularly safe.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:53:18 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi

Like Medicare.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/an-overview-of-medicare/?gclid=CjwKCAjwuIWHBhBDEiwACXQYsa5SP_b7Tp6mY0nCZ4ir2eFxI4jQC942rdhbFoAAkfPDI4Vxe1QwvxoC7KAQAvD_BwE

An intriguing line from that webpage.
"Medicare is financed by general revenues (41% in 2017), payroll tax contributions (37%), beneficiary premiums (14%), and other sources."
So the public, federal taxes, pays for 41% of Medicare. Old people health insurance. Not my own health insurance. So its a charity paid by me for old people who are not me. Charity against my will. The payroll tax deductions I assume are the 3.65% paid by employees and employers directly. So the workers and companies pay for 37% of the old people's health insurance. They are not paying for their own health insurance if they are working age under 65. So its charity by them paying for the old people's health insurance. They might drop dead at 64 and never use the Medicare health insurance that they are paying forward.

On 7/4/2021 7:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> 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.

Wow. That was a bit harsh. I'd have merely sent Tom to Purgatory.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 8:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> 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.

It sounds like we agree that our present system is terrible.

But all the data I can find indicates other countries' systems tend to
be better. I don't understand the resistance to imitating success.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> 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.

There's (almost) always a Normal Curve. Some are at the "good" tail of
the curve. The typical ones are not.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:38:57 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com 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.
>
> 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.

Tom. No one on this forum is arguing history. History is facts. Something you, Trump, Republicans love to ignore. The SE of the USA, the confederate states, were Democratic in prior centuries. Yes Lincoln was the first Republican elected President and fought the Civil War to free the slaves. Despite propagandists later claiming it was state rights. I am guessing some, many of the 660k and 440k numbers you list were from any and all political parties. Kind of like in Germany and WW2 where not all the German soldiers were members of the Nazi party and supported it. They were drafted, fought, and died. But today the SE USA is Republican. And they are working hard to reinstate the Jim Crow laws the Democrats instituted back in the late 1800s and throughout the first 60 years of the 1900s. And the Democrats are against this. Each political party has flipped to opposite sides in the past centuries, decades. Republicans are working feverishly to reinstate Democrat slavery and Jim Crow laws. And Democrats are working hard to reinstate Republican Lincoln's goal, dream, of freeing the slaves. Ironic.

History is a recording of the past. Many correct and incorrect events occur in history. We should continue and improve the right things. And not repeat the wrong things. Learn from prior mistakes. Democrats did bad things in the past. They learned over time and now do good things. Republicans did one or two maybe good things in the past. And now they only do bad things. Change. Now I am not giving up hope. Maybe, maybe, maybe in the next century or two, the Republicans will come up with one good thing and do it. Its a very slim possibility, but maybe it will happen. Someone with 100 million to 1 odds of winning a lottery does win.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:50:05 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

Moderna is a USA conglomerate. Pfizer was founded in the USA by Germans. Germans!!!!!!!!!! Astrazeneca was founded in Sweden. All have Covid-19 vaccines. But in a prior post in another thread you stated with authority that Covid was fake and made up. So why are you now touting having a vaccine for a fictitious disease? Odd. You really need to keep track of your different lies. Its very detrimental to lie on one side of an issue here and then lie on the other side of the same issue in the next post. Be a little more consistent. Being wild and crazy is not helpful. Insulin was developed by Banting, a Canadian. Jonas Salk an American developed the polio vaccine. Many vaccines and medicines are invented everywhere in the world. No one country has a monopoly on research or inventions.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:03:45 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> 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.

But Tom, your Republicans were screaming and yelling about Sharia law somewhat recently. Back when that was a talking point given out by the Republican committee. Its kind of lost its affect on the masses so its not talked about anymore. Or revoking Obamacare when it was a popular whipping point. But now people like having medical care so the Republicans are not talking about it anymore. They are still trying to prevent Medicaid from getting to their state citizens even when their state citizens amend the state constitution to require it. They are persistent in denying help to people. That is one of their bedmarks. Anyway, back to Jesus and religion. Why were your Republicans screaming about Islamic laws when they are not Islam? I think you need to have a meeting with your Republican rabble and inform them of your requirements.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:52:07 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 04:02:58 -0700 (PDT), William Crowell
> <retrog...@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.

Sorry John. You beat me to it. In a reply by me on this same post I also stated health care was a right. Not a privilege. I posted before I got down to your reply.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 20:56:20 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:52:07 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 04:02:58 -0700 (PDT), William Crowell
>> <retrog...@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.
>
>Sorry John. You beat me to it. In a reply by me on this same post I also stated health care was a right. Not a privilege. I posted before I got down to your reply.

But a "right" only in the context of the country in which one is a
citizen. My wife, a Thai citizen residing in Thailand gets totally
free medical care (over 60 or under 5 years - free) Other citizens
must pay 30 baht - roughly 1/10th of minimum daily salary. I am not a
citizen so I can go to the state hospitals but I have to pay for it
but a very nominal figure.

Singapore did, or does, have a novel system. There you must pay if you
have the money but if you don't you get free medical care.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/4/2021 9:18 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.
>

WTF?

State run contract may be _priced_ lower but that';s
artificial- the cost is much higher due to myriad structural
inefficiencies. It's the nature of state systems.

Health care is a right? In which Constitution? The Soviet
1936 version but not ours. To proclaim it as a right is to
force providers to provide it - you want doctors
enslaved/coerced? Doesn't make any sense.

Health, health care services and health insurance are all
very radically different one from another. To say one
'deserves' any is ridiculous. Do I also 'deserve' a Pagani?
An i-telephone? A custom Calfee? (do I 'deserve' it with
Super Record EPS too?) Who pays and what is the limit?

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

On 7/4/2021 9:22 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:00:13 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 1:42 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.
>>>
>> Nice conservative straw man you got there.
>> Beat him up again please.
>>

> Well Andrew, it is fun to play with Tom. And he helps out a lot by giving such fun statements to play with. Its his fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

I'll bet cash money you can't name one person in your circle
of acquaintances who hols those positions. You made it up.

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

On 7/4/2021 9:41 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:53:18 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>
> Like Medicare.
> https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/an-overview-of-medicare/?gclid=CjwKCAjwuIWHBhBDEiwACXQYsa5SP_b7Tp6mY0nCZ4ir2eFxI4jQC942rdhbFoAAkfPDI4Vxe1QwvxoC7KAQAvD_BwE
>
> An intriguing line from that webpage.
> "Medicare is financed by general revenues (41% in 2017), payroll tax contributions (37%), beneficiary premiums (14%), and other sources."
> So the public, federal taxes, pays for 41% of Medicare. Old people health insurance. Not my own health insurance. So its a charity paid by me for old people who are not me. Charity against my will. The payroll tax deductions I assume are the 3.65% paid by employees and employers directly. So the workers and companies pay for 37% of the old people's health insurance. They are not paying for their own health insurance if they are working age under 65. So its charity by them paying for the old people's health insurance. They might drop dead at 64 and never use the Medicare health insurance that they are paying forward.
>

Wait a minute. You're pointing out the flaws in a system you
just advocated.

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

On 7/4/2021 10:09 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:38:57 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Tom. No one on this forum is arguing history. History is facts. Something you, Trump, Republicans love to ignore. The SE of the USA, the confederate states, were Democratic in prior centuries. Yes Lincoln was the first Republican elected President and fought the Civil War to free the slaves. Despite propagandists later claiming it was state rights. I am guessing some, many of the 660k and 440k numbers you list were from any and all political parties. Kind of like in Germany and WW2 where not all the German soldiers were members of the Nazi party and supported it. They were drafted, fought, and died. But today the SE USA is Republican. And they are working hard to reinstate the Jim Crow laws the Democrats instituted back in the late 1800s and throughout the first 60 years of the 1900s. And the Democrats are against this. Each political party has flipped to opposite sides in the past centuries, decades. Republicans are working feverishly to reinstate Democrat slavery a
nd Jim Crow laws. And Democrats are working hard to reinstate Republican Lincoln's goal, dream, of freeing the slaves. Ironic.
>
> History is a recording of the past. Many correct and incorrect events occur in history. We should continue and improve the right things. And not repeat the wrong things. Learn from prior mistakes. Democrats did bad things in the past. They learned over time and now do good things. Republicans did one or two maybe good things in the past. And now they only do bad things. Change. Now I am not giving up hope. Maybe, maybe, maybe in the next century or two, the Republicans will come up with one good thing and do it. Its a very slim possibility, but maybe it will happen. Someone with 100 million to 1 odds of winning a lottery does win.

>"Democrats are working hard to reinstate Republican
Lincoln's goal, dream, of freeing the slaves."

With welfare, unemployment, County rent, food stamps and
free health insurance? How's that working out? You might
want to ruminate on the meaning of 'freedom'.

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

On 7/4/2021 10:41 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Attack all the good things that Trump was doing
>
>
> I have to admit it Tom. You have stumped me and everyone else with that statement.
>

Virtually closed the border and enforced prior disregarded
statutes, blocked Putin's pipeline and removed obstacles to
ours, widespread effective deregulation and a reformation of
tax policy benefiting mostly the lowest two quintiles of
income which resulted in record low unemployment. MOved our
embassy to the Israeli Capitol as voted by a dozen
Congresses. Just a few easy ones I can go on.

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

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:23:56 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> 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, posting after posting, day after day, you have shown above all else that YOU have no religion. Even Jesus was a fisherman. Rather than that you live off of the aggrievement of others. If you believe that singing in the choir will gain you forgiveness of your sins you're going to find a very large surprise awaiting you.

But those who truly ask for forgiveness may obtain it but is won't be by saying words but by living them. And I doubt that you are ready for that. As I say, the problem with lawyers is that they have lost themselves so deeply into legal excuses that they cannot usually even recognize the truth.

You are presenting to us that somehow charity is giving and not giving a chance.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:27:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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.

You are aware of nothing and are peddling the same lie that the Lyndon B. Johnson hoped for cross eyed fools like you to believe. "I'll have them niggers voting Democrat for 200 years" When he couldn't stop Kennedy's and King's drive for racial equality he simply took credit for it.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:35:54 PM UTC-7, 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:
>
> >
> > 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.

Inform all of us Frank, WHEN did you ever live in other countries to test out this "socialized medicine" to actually discover its strengths and weaknesses? Why has virtually every advance in medicine come from the USA and its privately funded medicine? I spent my entire life expanding medicine. Saving the weak and powerless regardless of their ability to pay. From a position of absolute ignorance you tell us you cannot understand that. From your postings it is perfectly clear why - you don't even have a passing grasp on reality.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 3:38:03 PM UTC-7, 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.

You may believe what you like and you will regardless of any actual evidence. Trump did not cite an insurrection since you don't even know what the definition of that word is. It was FBI agent provocateurs'. Obama achieved more than he every hoped for by injecting politics into every single department of the government. That is something someone as ignorant as you cannot even detect because you are so insipidly biased you can't even tell.

Why don't you tell us more about Rush Limbaugh you moron. You aren't even aware that he died of cancer last year.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:42:05 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@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.

As a matter of fact I don't like to insult people. But you started it since your memory in these matters runs to the loss of memory when it suits you. In person you would shake and act the stinking coward you are. With just one grasp of my right hand that would be the end of you. But why should I when I could just look you in the face and laugh at you. I have been successful. My work has saved millions of lives worldwide. You have played with little more than ham radios.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:08:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> 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.

This is why I have been pointing out that the medical establishment has made $30 billion off of covid-19 deaths that never occurred. That the CDC paid them off to make those false claims. I finally found the fine print that proved what the CDC did under Fauci, It DID NOT report actual deaths. Instead they wrote a program that assumed that ALL of the normal deaths occurred and that any reported covid-19 deaths were excess deaths. Well as I just pointed out, medical facilities reported EVERYTHING up to and including car accident deaths as covid-19 deaths. When the money if for the taking, why not?

https://dryburgh.com/kary-mullis-pcr-anthony-fauci/

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 7:39:50 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 15:34:28 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> > We might live either safe or free. One is lost when the
> > other is enhanced.
> It is rare that a slave is particularly safe.

Pardon me Joy, but I don't know where you get that idea. A slave is a protected class because the masters need someone to keep them in power. To perform their chores and supply them the goods and services that they deserve.

It is the free man who faces fear and danger every day of his life and that those who are truly free glory in it.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 7:41:14 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:53:18 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> > Publicly funded health care? pfffft.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
>
> Like Medicare.
> https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/an-overview-of-medicare/?gclid=CjwKCAjwuIWHBhBDEiwACXQYsa5SP_b7Tp6mY0nCZ4ir2eFxI4jQC942rdhbFoAAkfPDI4Vxe1QwvxoC7KAQAvD_BwE
>
> An intriguing line from that webpage.
> "Medicare is financed by general revenues (41% in 2017), payroll tax contributions (37%), beneficiary premiums (14%), and other sources."
> So the public, federal taxes, pays for 41% of Medicare. Old people health insurance. Not my own health insurance. So its a charity paid by me for old people who are not me. Charity against my will. The payroll tax deductions I assume are the 3.65% paid by employees and employers directly. So the workers and companies pay for 37% of the old people's health insurance. They are not paying for their own health insurance if they are working age under 65. So its charity by them paying for the old people's health insurance. They might drop dead at 64 and never use the Medicare health insurance that they are paying forward.

Why must you have your head up your ass all the time? How often do you use medicare? How many years did you work and live paying into medicare without ever once using it? Charity. You are as usual so completely ignorant of the world around you you don't even know that Obama purposely spend the Medicare and Social Security trust funds so that total morons like you could tout socialism as if those programs were ever meant to be so.