Pity for the Impotent Dick

[ArlJim78]

Was up in Canada last week on business, and at dinner the topic of health care came up. I innocently asked if the US should copy their system because as everyone knows our system doesn't work and theirs is free.

You should have heard the laughter! the stories they told about the long waits, the poor pay for those in the industry, etc. "looks like you have a blocked artery sir, we'll have you back for an MRI in four months".

i think to some extent it's a case of the neighbors grass always looking greener. No system is real good and could be improved, that goes for us as well as France and Canada.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

"Sweetcheeks," when the opposition will oppose anyone purely because he or she isn't a member of their team, one is kind of stuck. Did you even read the link? The Republicans aren't interested in getting anything done- they want to get back in power. So they're going to obstruct every piece of legislation the Dems propose and then they're going to shriek in '08 that the Dems didn't do anything. And then they'll get back in power and REALLY go back to not doing anything (2.5 day workweek, remember?).

Where did I say the obstructionist Republicans in Congress is the end of the world? I think I was just refuting your insistence that it's all the Democrats' fault. You're making up things I didn't say. Have you been taking debating lessons from Ann Coulter again?

Partisan politics is "politics"! The current legislation is very important..so I wouldn't be ina hurry to rush it through! I said the Dems couldn't get out of their own way....because they haven't completed one thing on their 1st 100 hours agenda! Their "infighting" amongst themselves is what I was referring to, and if you want to talk about the workweek...how about Pelosi and the gang keeping their butts in the US to take care of business,instead of parading around the Middle East and such, acting like the the next big thing?
Of course I read the link...how else could I comment on your friends responses over there? On the Coulter thing...is there a sign-up sheet?

[Downthestretch55]

Hey Timm,
This is a bit off the topic that this thread has morphed into, but I'm curious on your view. Do you think the vice presidency is part of the Executive branch or the Legislative branch (tie breaker vote as president of the Senate)?
Or, should there be unequal roles, where does the "vice president" gain legitmacy, as part of the executive or part of the legislative?

[Downthestretch55]

Timm,
I guess I found the answer to my question in Sidney Blumenthal's opinion piece.
I was kind of amazed at Ashcroft's role in that he was the only one that stood up and pushed back.
Anyway, Cheney looks like he's getting gelded ( not literally, though some dicks need that too).
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument.../index_np.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

B, here is where I think you misunderstand liberals- most liberals aren't advocating more government- they're advocating BETTER government. I see no reason why subsidies to the oil and coal industries should continue, for example. End 'em. And gas will cost close to $13 a gallon, but that's true free market- if the gas companies really had to pay what it cost to produce their product (including cleaning up the environmental damage from creating it, which your and my tax dollars pay for), I'd be cool with it. Think that's likely to happen? People will scream bloody murder if they had to pay the actual cost of things like gas and oil. Though honestly, I'd be willing to do so if it meant an end to the energy subsidies.

This may be the most illogical, illinformed post I have ever seen.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This may be the most illogical, illinformed post I have ever seen.

AWWWWW comeon Chuck!
Cut her a break.
We all get a bit carried away at times (myself included).
LOL.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

AWWWWW comeon Chuck!
Cut her a break.
We all get a bit carried away at times (myself included).
LOL.

I should have prefaced with "Non-PG1985" illogical, ill informed posts

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I should have prefaced with "Non-PG1985" illogical, ill informed posts

There ya go! Thanks for the qualifier. You too, huh?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

There ya go! Thanks for the qualifier. You too, huh?

I kinda liked him but he would say the dumbest things...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I kinda liked him but he would say the dumbest things...

Hey, so do I at times. LOL.
Oh well, back to racing.
Just curious cause I read a thread you had something to say in a different forum about 90% of good horses going to a limited few trainers in NY.
Interesting.
Just curious, what do you think the reason behind that is?
Good trainers? Trusting owners? Or some that aren't improving what they've got? Really interesting.
I'd like to learn more.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Hey, so do I at times. LOL.
Oh well, back to racing.
Just curious cause I read a thread you had something to say in a different forum about 90% of good horses going to a limited few trainers in NY.
Interesting.
Just curious, what do you think the reason behind that is?
Good trainers? Trusting owners? Or some that aren't improving what they've got? Really interesting.
I'd like to learn more.

because it's easier? go with a name you've heard of, rather than do some research?

or much like in school, i once heard the term 'better dead than different',because most feel safer to follow the crowd?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Hey, so do I at times. LOL.
Oh well, back to racing.
Just curious cause I read a thread you had something to say in a different forum about 90% of good horses going to a limited few trainers in NY.
Interesting.
Just curious, what do you think the reason behind that is?
Good trainers? Trusting owners? Or some that aren't improving what they've got? Really interesting.
I'd like to learn more.

Because when any new money comes into the game, they are all pretty much advised to go to a supertrainer. There are a number of reasons, name recognition being one of them but many times the advisors are people who breed or sell horses who love to curry favor with the guys who can affect who buys their horses. Short term businesswise maybe a good move for the advisors but since they are slowly squeezing the life out of the upper level of the racing business, longterm it will probably lead to a decreased market value for horses. With a few notable exceptions, it rarely works out for the new money.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Because when any new money comes into the game, they are all pretty much advised to go to a supertrainer. There are a number of reasons, name recognition being one of them but many times the advisors are people who breed or sell horses who love to curry favor with the guys who can affect who buys their horses. Short term businesswise maybe a good move for the advisors but since they are slowly squeezing the life out of the upper level of the racing business, longterm it will probably lead to a decreased market value for horses. With a few notable exceptions, it rarely works out for the new money.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Much appreciated.

[Downthestretch55]

This thread has gone through many divergent places.
I'll bring it back to Mr. Cheney as I think he has done some serious damage to our country. Here is John Dean's view:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070629.html

For those that might not know who John Dean is, he was the White house counsel under Nixon.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This may be the most illogical, illinformed post I have ever seen.

So why don't you do more besides throw insults, Cannon? Back up your insults with a counterargument. I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

This thread has gone through many divergent places.
I'll bring it back to Mr. Cheney as I think he has done some serious damage to our country. Here is John Dean's view:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070629.html

For those that might not know who John Dean is, he was the White house counsel under Nixon.

I got attacked some threads' back for taking time to point out who John Dean was, DTS. Just to give you a heads' up you may be in for some bashing.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So why don't you do more besides throw insults, Cannon? Back up your insults with a counterargument. I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

In fact, Cannon, here's my first backup, from Rolling Stone. I await your well-informed, logical response.

<<According to Terry Tamminen, former director of the California EPA, the true costs of our oil dependence run as high as $807 billion a year ? or $2,700 for every U.S. citizen. If all the hidden costs that Americans currently pay for oil were reflected in the price at the pump, gasoline would cost more than $13 a gallon. In short, taxpayers and consumers are essentially giving the oil industry a subsidy of $10 for every gallon of gas sold in America. If we simply eliminated those subsidies and created a truly free market, renewable sources of energy would beat oil ? as well as nuclear power and coal, which receive equally grotesque subsidies. It is only through these giant subsidies that gasoline has a prayer of competing with alternative sources such as biofuels and wind, which produce energy far more cleanly and efficiently, at far less cost.>>

B, you might find the article interesting; it's by Robert Kennedy, Jr., arguing that the private market offers our best chance at developing alternative energy sources, not go'vt.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...eal_solution/1

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So why don't you do more besides throw insults, Cannon? Back up your insults with a counterargument. I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

First of all there were no insults thrown. I simply stated that your post was illinformed and illogical.
Where do I start? You are suggesting that we drive the price of gas to $13 a gallon and somehow it would be a good thing? In your lust to lower oil company profits you would decimate the American economy and pretty much insure that 1/3 of Americans would starve to death. Sounds like a good idea.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

In fact, Cannon, here's my first backup, from Rolling Stone. I await your well-informed, logical response.

<<According to Terry Tamminen, former director of the California EPA, the true costs of our oil dependence run as high as $807 billion a year ? or $2,700 for every U.S. citizen. If all the hidden costs that Americans currently pay for oil were reflected in the price at the pump, gasoline would cost more than $13 a gallon. In short, taxpayers and consumers are essentially giving the oil industry a subsidy of $10 for every gallon of gas sold in America. If we simply eliminated those subsidies and created a truly free market, renewable sources of energy would beat oil ? as well as nuclear power and coal, which receive equally grotesque subsidies. It is only through these giant subsidies that gasoline has a prayer of competing with alternative sources such as biofuels and wind, which produce energy far more cleanly and efficiently, at far less cost.>>



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...eal_solution/1

This is fiction.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is fiction.

Again, I look forward to you actually posting any material to backup your opinion.