Re: Medicare Means Test

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:25:38 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:15:36 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 02:26:54 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Bettina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >
>> >> >> And while you're at it, please explain why spending $200 billion on
>> >> >> Iraq makes a robber, murderer, rapist, sniper or terrorist less
>likely
>> >> >> in our communities.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bettina
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, it doesn't do anything about the robber, murderer, rapist or
>sniper
>> >> >(unless he's also a terrorist) and it never claimed to.  But it will
>do
>> >> >something about the terrorist in our communities since there is clear
>> >> >evidence that, although Saddam may not have known about 9/11 ahead of
>> >time,
>> >> >he did have contact with al Qaida, training some of Osama's key
>> >lieutenants,
>> >> >and he did fund all sorts of terrorist groups (for example, giving
>> >$20,000
>> >> >to the families of terrorists who blew themselves up in Israel) and
>> >training
>> >> >them at special training camps like Salman Pak.  Saddam even had Abu
>> >Nidal,
>> >> >the notorious Palestinian terrorist, killed because he refused to
>train
>> >al
>> >> >Qaida terrorists.
>> >>
>> >> So did the Saudi's.. who also provided financial assistance.. So why
>> >> doesn't little Bushie destroy that nation?  And of course we have
>> >> enemies throughout the world.. Look at some of the various despots
>> >> we've supported for various reasons during the past century
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >We tried Clinton's appeasement approach and all it got us was 9/11 and
>a
>> >> >nuclear N. Korea.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Not a fan of Clinton at all but he caused 9/11?  please explain your
>> >> reasoning on this claim.
>> >>
>> >> pixie
>> >
>> >I didn't say "Clinton caused 9/11."  Please don't put words in my mouth.
>> >I'm perfectly capable of creating enough problems with the words  _I_
>put
>> >in my mouth :-).
>> >
>> >But, Clinton was offered Osama on a silver platter and he refused to take
>> >him.  He also had a Special Forces unit that had Osama literally in their
>> >sights, and he was too much of a coward to permit them to pull the
>trigger.
>> >And there were several other chances that he missed.  There are a number
>of
>> >well researched books (and a lot more books of questionable repute) that
>> >document Clinton's failures.  Richard Miniter's book, "Losing bin Laden:
>How
>> >Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" is based on extensive
>> >interviews with Clinton administration officials as well as other
>sources.
>> >You can read an interview with him here:
>> >
>> >http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp
>> >
>>
>> Anecdotes really don't do much for me.. Perhaps for you.  We have
>> absolutely NO reason to murder anyone simply because that individual
>> has the potential for harm.
>
>It's not murder.  And dead Americans are not "anecdotes."  Bin Laden was
>already responsible for the first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers barracks, the
>bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  (The bombing of the USS
>Cole.didn't happen until 2000.)  That's actual harm, not potential harm.

Not murder, hmmm.  Websters defines murder as "to kill a human being
unlawfully and with premeditated malice" No trial was held, no proof
provided as to responsibility and no sentence imposed.  Apparently you
believe in simply tossing the Constitution when it fits your
particular need.  Quite typical of the 'compassionate conservaties'...
Ashcroft would be pleased

>
>But it's clear you prefer the Clinton do-nothing approach.  After the first
>WTC bombing, Clinton urged Americans not to "overreact."  Would that we had.
>
Did I say that?  But given a choice of 'do nothing' and totally
destroying our nations status among other divilized nations I'd prefer
the former. 

>> >If you are naturally suspicious of anything published by Regnery or
>> >appearing in National Review  (now why would I think that? :-), you can
>try
>> >"Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11" by Gerald L. Posner, an
>> >unabashed liberal and undersecretary of the Navy in the Carter
>> >administration.  Two quotes from that book:
>> >
>> >"Although Clinton would likely have had little problem in winning public
>
>> >support for strong military action, he opted for doing nothing"
>> >
>> >"The failure to respond publicly again emboldened bin Laden and his top
>> >aids."
>> >
>>
>> Again, not a Cliniton fan at all... But so what.. Do you wupport
>> murder of people simply because they MAY pose a threat in the future?
>
>Answer this: after how many killings would you have supporting "murdering"
>Hitler?  10?  100?  1000?  10,000?  100,000?  1,000,000?
>
What does that have to do with the issue at hand.  Answer this:  How
many stars are visable in the skys?  Equally asinine
>
>But it's good for people to see the left's approach to national security.
>No action until we are attacked.  And no retaliation without proof beyond a
>reasonable doubt.  That's not even appeasement.  That's virtual surrender.
>
>And that policy is guaranteed to get hundreds of thousands of Americans
>killed or injured, maybe millions.  And that's what Americans can never let
>Democrats be in charge of national security again.  (It's worse than putting
>Christian Scientists in charge of our entire health care system.)
>

Such typical rhetoric from the ironheads. In your eyes there's never a
middle ground at all.  Just jump in and start a war that we,
historically, are not prepared to fight and actually cannot 'win'.
Decimate the National Guard; kill off large numbers of our servicemen
and women; totally destroy a few nations and create an overwhelming
national debt.  Wonderful thinking.  Sure fire recipe for gaining
support of others. 

>> Obviously a rhetorical question since you so strongly support Bushie
>> and his merry band of poor liars.
>>
>> pixie
>
>Liars?  I love it when liberals try calling Bush a liar.  That's like the
>KKK mounting a political strategy of calling others racists.
>
You honestly believe that Bushie has told the truth?  Try removing
your head from the sand.. or that oriface where it seems to be hiding.

>And actually I think Bush is not being nearly tough enough, especially on
>supporters of terrorism like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, and illegal
>aliens and radical Muslims in this country.  Hell, several prominent
>American Muslim leaders caught funneling funds to terrorist groups have even
>had their pictures taken with GW.
>
Guess your ideal solution would be to impose military law on everyone
and turn the country into a police state. 

Typical thinking

pixie