anon-e-moose wrote:
Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In article ,
says...

I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname
(Dick). I am sure you can handle it.

I've done well enough. There have been times though....

But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name?

I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so
because I suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another
person who used to post here regularly.

And Eisboch suspects correctly that Peter Francis Shortwave Harry Tom
Larry Jim Scott Sportfishing Prick has been very busy spoofing the
screen names of others the past several weeks. Shame on him for
disrupting the harmony of rec.boats
Leave me out of it.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:05:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here
whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result
racked
up
a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.


I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his
arrangement
is
with the hospital.
That's his business and I am not interested in that specific
discussion.

However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you,
as
a
person
of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have
no
insurance
for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it.

I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the
criticism?

Eisboch



My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his
irresponsibility,
his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism
of
attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to
the
uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable
help
that
was offered to him in a time of need.

I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the
cost
of
health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In
fact,
I
would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into
law
last
week goes.



So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary
health
care
is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a
deserving
recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in
this
regard.

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a
national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot
afford
the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to
the
degree necessary.



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8
months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14
kids and on *welfare*.

Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class
working families.


I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working
class
neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your
demise in whatever is your local newspaper.

You are ambulatory, right?




Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck.

I suspect they would. They do at work!!

Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand.
At some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on
liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are
getting ****ed at the tax rape going on.

Freeloaders? Your head is so far up your ass, it's pathetic.

When did the "working taxpayers" pull the chain on Bush?

You live in some weird fantasy world where reality has no place.

Go back to Canada.

Hey...what have you got against us??

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:39:26 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:05:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here
whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result
racked
up
a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.


I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his
arrangement
is
with the hospital.
That's his business and I am not interested in that specific
discussion.

However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you,
as
a
person
of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have
no
insurance
for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it.

I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the
criticism?

Eisboch



My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his
irresponsibility,
his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism
of
attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to
the
uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable
help
that
was offered to him in a time of need.

I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the
cost
of
health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In
fact,
I
would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into
law
last
week goes.



So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary
health
care
is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a
deserving
recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in
this
regard.

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a
national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot
afford
the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to
the
degree necessary.



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8
months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14
kids and on *welfare*.

Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class
working families.


I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working
class
neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your
demise in whatever is your local newspaper.

You are ambulatory, right?




Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck.

I suspect they would. They do at work!!

Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand.
At some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on
liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are
getting ****ed at the tax rape going on.

Freeloaders? Your head is so far up your ass, it's pathetic.

When did the "working taxpayers" pull the chain on Bush?

You live in some weird fantasy world where reality has no place.

Go back to Canada.

Hey...what have you got against us??


Nothing but he's your country's spawn. It's only fair.

In article ,
says...
You are arguing semantecs. If DEMOCRAT congress didn't approve the TARP
it would have DIED. Fact is, democrats like large sums of unaccountable
cash.

William "Refrigerator" Jefferson

On Mar 30, 1:31*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 30/03/2010 12:08 AM, Eisboch wrote:
*wrote in message
...
*wrote in message
news:jrWdnRsLMtUCqizWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@giganews. com...

*wrote in message
m...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch

It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability
to
pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't answer..

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will anyway. *I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms.Plume.

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with
the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that cannot
when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical care.
I
repeat. *Medical care.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free
health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch

Eisboch,

Used to be people were grateful for charity, today they think it is a
right and will spit in your face with envy in their hearts when you help.
Many are not deseriving of the charity. *They want handouts not hand ups,
unwilling to learn what it takes to be productive they just continue their
loser ways.

Oh be quiet. Theadultsarespeaking.

--Nom=de=Plume

Then, shut up and listen!

On Apr 1, 5:57*am, anon-e-moose wrote:
nom=de=plumewrote:
wrote in message
.. .
snipped for brevity

A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his
enemies.

A good man can have a wealth of enemies.

It can be a requirement.

You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that.

And unlike you, D'Plume, he is average +.

On Apr 1, 1:01*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message

...

nom=de=plumewrote:
wrote in message
. ..
snipped for brevity

A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his
enemies.

A good man can have a wealth of enemies.

It can be a requirement.

You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that.

You're just dumb and probably a stalker.

--Nom=de=Plume

No D'Plume. Remember, I'm the stalker and you're just dumb.

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Mar 30, 1:31 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 30/03/2010 12:08 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news:jrWdnRsLMtUCqizWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@giganews. com...

wrote in message
m...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the
folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch

It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the
ability
to
pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms.Plume.

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with
the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that
cannot
when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical care.
I
repeat. Medical care.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free
health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch

Eisboch,

Used to be people were grateful for charity, today they think it is a
right and will spit in your face with envy in their hearts when you
help.
Many are not deseriving of the charity. They want handouts not hand ups,
unwilling to learn what it takes to be productive they just continue
their
loser ways.

Oh be quiet. Theadultsarespeaking.

--Nom=de=Plume

Then, shut up and listen!


Make me penis breath.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 1:33:41 PM UTC-5, nom=de=plume wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Mar 30, 1:31 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 30/03/2010 12:08 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news:jrWdnRsLMtUCqizWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@giganews. com...

wrote in message
m...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the
folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch

It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the
ability
to
pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms.Plume.

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with
the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that
cannot
when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical care.
I
repeat. Medical care.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free
health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch

Eisboch,

Used to be people were grateful for charity, today they think it is a
right and will spit in your face with envy in their hearts when you
help.
Many are not deseriving of the charity. They want handouts not hand ups,
unwilling to learn what it takes to be productive they just continue
their
loser ways.

Oh be quiet. Theadultsarespeaking.

--Nom=de=Plume

Then, shut up and listen!


Make me penis breath.

--
Nom=de=Plume

And make you what, "penis breath"