$1 coin chances now

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:48?pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com
wrote:
Michael G. Koerner wrote:
Any thoughts on the chances of the USA dropping the $1
banknote within the next few years now that one of their
biggest champions (Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA) is no longer in
the USSenate?

P = .000001

James the Improbable

One K gone, one K still breathing. Remember, "good for the
country" means nothing when "what does it do for me?"
overrides. It seems nowadays, minority rules.

Jerry
Taking a deep breath to avoid political rant.

Minority does not rule, and never has. However, a quick read of
the Preamble to the Constitution reveals the intention of the
Founders that the rights of a minority will not be trampled and
snuffed by a majority. James the Ranter

Minorities may not "rule" per se, but they do seem to wield a lot
of clout. Like the one airline passenger caught with explosives
in his shoe forcing millions of passengers to have their shoes
inspected at airport security. The hundreds of millions of
dollars in public and private infrastructure modifications to
accommodate the occasional wheelchair bound. No peanut products
available on a commercial flight when an allergic passenger is
aboard. While these examples meet general public approval or
acceptance, they do illustrate how a minority often can influence
the "rights and freedoms" of the majority.

Rightfully so, say I.

Like the guy who carried a hidden firearm onto a plane forced the
airlines to install expensive metal detectors and the passengers to
open their luggage, empty their pockets, and fill them up again.

Like the young women who perished in the Triangle Shirtwaist
Company fire forced millions of businesses to adopt enlightened
safety measures. Like the laws against hate crimes protect
minority persons against
the depredations of the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

I have no reason to believe that you are handicapped, but if you
were, I have a hunch that you'd be a champion of all those handicap
access policies.

Probably so, except in those cases when the reactionary policies go
ridiculously overboard.

Dare I ask for an example of this?

I recall one example of a small town post office that was mandated to
install a long, two-stage ramp to the entrance in order to serve
people in wheel chairs. No one in town was in a wheel chair. Had
they been, unless that person was muscular or had a motorized chair,
he or she could not have navigated the ramps at all, or at least
without the danger of losing control on the way.

Didja happen to actually see the ramp? Did you verify the claim that the
user had to be muscular or motorized in order to negotiate it? Did you
verify that there were no wheelchair users in town? Does the post office,
a Federal institution, serve only locals? Are you going by hearsay and
guesswork?

I sure did. It ran across the entire front of the building and then halfway
back to the entrance door, satisfying the required wheelchair option instead
of navigating five or six steps. The additional comments I mentioned were
those described by the TV reporter who broadcast the piece. This post
office did indeed serve only locals (before the news broadcast anyway). It
was a small town/village and a ramp was a required response to a
no-exceptions, federal government-mandated handicap access edict. I do
forget if is said whether government funds were provided to build the ramp,
but I can only presume they were. Guesswork on my part. Why the cross
examination just because I provided the example you asked for? Will you
accept it now?


I was on a flight last year from DC to Vegas. As the flight was
readying for departure, it was announced that a person with a peanut
allergy was aboard so there would be no snack service aboard during
the five hour flight. Not life or death for the rest of the
passengers, but an inconvenience anyway. Made me wonder how they
would have handled the passengers if a person with an allergy to
cologne, perfume, deodorant spray, etc. was aboard.

There is evidence that the presence of peanuts can be fatal to one with
that allergy. I have not seen evidence that aerosols are fatal.

And if you were to see such evidence, how would you propose an airline
handle the situation, other than to suggest the unfortunate allergic
passenger find an alternate method of personal travel?


Along these same lines, I see where SW Airlines is proposing to let
people bring their pet aboard in the cabin for a small fee. You can
imagine the outrage from an apparent majority who either have
allergies or worry about bacteria, fleas, ticks, etc. from dogs and
cats. A stupid move to appease a minority who simply MUST travel
with Muffy or Fluffy and be damned about how their fellow passengers
might have to deal with it.

Have you, uh, er, ever broken wind aboard an airplane? If so, your
argument loses its primary source of strength.

Probably. But I haven't gotten sick and crapped aboard an airplane, nor
left my dander in the recirculating air. Although my hair may have joined
the aerial mixture, I have yet to hear of anyone allergic to human hair.


Count your blessings, already.


These still support my simple point that the interests of minorities
often DO rule. In contrast, for example, the interests of
majorities have forced smokers out of the workplace and into the
streets.

Our system is one in which the interests of minorities are protected
from those of the majority, and conversely, the interest of the
majority is protected from those of minorities. A most ingenious
invention, what say?

If this were true, there should be few disagreemants. However.........

And that is why we have courts, another ingenious invention.

James the Plaintiff

Bruce Remick wrote
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:48?pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com
wrote:
Michael G. Koerner wrote:
Any thoughts on the chances of the USA dropping the $1
banknote within the next few years now that one of their
biggest champions (Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA) is no longer in
the USSenate?

P = .000001

James the Improbable

One K gone, one K still breathing. Remember, "good for the
country" means nothing when "what does it do for me?"
overrides. It seems nowadays, minority rules.

Jerry
Taking a deep breath to avoid political rant.

Minority does not rule, and never has. However, a quick read of
the Preamble to the Constitution reveals the intention of the
Founders that the rights of a minority will not be trampled and
snuffed by a majority. James the Ranter

Minorities may not "rule" per se, but they do seem to wield a lot
of clout. Like the one airline passenger caught with explosives
in his shoe forcing millions of passengers to have their shoes
inspected at airport security. The hundreds of millions of
dollars in public and private infrastructure modifications to
accommodate the occasional wheelchair bound. No peanut products
available on a commercial flight when an allergic passenger is
aboard. While these examples meet general public approval or
acceptance, they do illustrate how a minority often can influence
the "rights and freedoms" of the majority.

Rightfully so, say I.

Like the guy who carried a hidden firearm onto a plane forced the
airlines to install expensive metal detectors and the passengers to
open their luggage, empty their pockets, and fill them up again.

Like the young women who perished in the Triangle Shirtwaist
Company fire forced millions of businesses to adopt enlightened
safety measures. Like the laws against hate crimes protect
minority persons against
the depredations of the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

I have no reason to believe that you are handicapped, but if you
were, I have a hunch that you'd be a champion of all those handicap
access policies.

Probably so, except in those cases when the reactionary policies go
ridiculously overboard.

Dare I ask for an example of this?

I recall one example of a small town post office that was mandated to
install a long, two-stage ramp to the entrance in order to serve
people in wheel chairs. No one in town was in a wheel chair. Had
they been, unless that person was muscular or had a motorized chair,
he or she could not have navigated the ramps at all, or at least
without the danger of losing control on the way.

Didja happen to actually see the ramp? Did you verify the claim that the
user had to be muscular or motorized in order to negotiate it? Did you
verify that there were no wheelchair users in town? Does the post office,
a Federal institution, serve only locals? Are you going by hearsay and
guesswork?

I sure did. It ran across the entire front of the building and then halfway
back to the entrance door, satisfying the required wheelchair option instead
of navigating five or six steps. The additional comments I mentioned were
those described by the TV reporter who broadcast the piece. This post
office did indeed serve only locals (before the news broadcast anyway). It
was a small town/village and a ramp was a required response to a
no-exceptions, federal government-mandated handicap access edict. I do
forget if is said whether government funds were provided to build the ramp,
but I can only presume they were. Guesswork on my part. Why the cross
examination just because I provided the example you asked for? Will you
accept it now?

I was on a flight last year from DC to Vegas. As the flight was
readying for departure, it was announced that a person with a peanut
allergy was aboard so there would be no snack service aboard during
the five hour flight. Not life or death for the rest of the
passengers, but an inconvenience anyway. Made me wonder how they
would have handled the passengers if a person with an allergy to
cologne, perfume, deodorant spray, etc. was aboard.

There is evidence that the presence of peanuts can be fatal to one with
that allergy. I have not seen evidence that aerosols are fatal.

And if you were to see such evidence, how would you propose an airline
handle the situation, other than to suggest the unfortunate allergic
passenger find an alternate method of personal travel?

Along these same lines, I see where SW Airlines is proposing to let
people bring their pet aboard in the cabin for a small fee. You can
imagine the outrage from an apparent majority who either have
allergies or worry about bacteria, fleas, ticks, etc. from dogs and
cats. A stupid move to appease a minority who simply MUST travel
with Muffy or Fluffy and be damned about how their fellow passengers
might have to deal with it.

Please don't be so dismissive of selfish lazy-minded and demanding
minority weirdos -
I'm occasionally mildly scared of heights, so when I travelled to
America by plane they were obliged to fly across the Atlantic Ocean
at an altitude of 75ft.
Dam' right! Who cares that we ran out of fuel half-way across? It's the
principle that matters, and I demand unconditional respect.
--
Roger Hunt

Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:48?pm, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
Michael G. Koerner wrote:
Any thoughts on the chances of the USA dropping the $1
banknote within the next few years now that one of their
biggest champions (Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA) is no longer in
the USSenate?

P = .000001

James the Improbable

One K gone, one K still breathing. Remember, "good for the
country" means nothing when "what does it do for me?"
overrides. It seems nowadays, minority rules.

Jerry
Taking a deep breath to avoid political rant.

Minority does not rule, and never has. However, a quick read
of the Preamble to the Constitution reveals the intention of
the Founders that the rights of a minority will not be
trampled and snuffed by a majority. James the Ranter

Minorities may not "rule" per se, but they do seem to wield a
lot of clout. Like the one airline passenger caught with
explosives in his shoe forcing millions of passengers to have
their shoes inspected at airport security. The hundreds of
millions of dollars in public and private infrastructure
modifications to accommodate the occasional wheelchair bound. No
peanut products available on a commercial flight when an
allergic passenger is aboard. While these examples meet
general public approval or acceptance, they do illustrate how a
minority often can influence the "rights and freedoms" of the
majority.

Rightfully so, say I.

Like the guy who carried a hidden firearm onto a plane forced the
airlines to install expensive metal detectors and the passengers
to open their luggage, empty their pockets, and fill them up
again. Like the young women who perished in the Triangle Shirtwaist
Company fire forced millions of businesses to adopt enlightened
safety measures. Like the laws against hate crimes protect
minority persons against
the depredations of the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

I have no reason to believe that you are handicapped, but if you
were, I have a hunch that you'd be a champion of all those
handicap access policies.

Probably so, except in those cases when the reactionary policies
go ridiculously overboard.

Dare I ask for an example of this?

I recall one example of a small town post office that was mandated
to install a long, two-stage ramp to the entrance in order to serve
people in wheel chairs. No one in town was in a wheel chair. Had
they been, unless that person was muscular or had a motorized chair,
he or she could not have navigated the ramps at all, or at least
without the danger of losing control on the way.

Didja happen to actually see the ramp? Did you verify the claim
that the user had to be muscular or motorized in order to negotiate
it? Did you verify that there were no wheelchair users in town? Does the
post office, a Federal institution, serve only locals? Are
you going by hearsay and guesswork?

I sure did. It ran across the entire front of the building and then
halfway back to the entrance door, satisfying the required wheelchair
option instead of navigating five or six steps. The additional
comments I mentioned were those described by the TV reporter who
broadcast the piece. This post office did indeed serve only locals
(before the news broadcast anyway). It was a small town/village and
a ramp was a required response to a no-exceptions, federal
government-mandated handicap access edict. I do forget if is said
whether government funds were provided to build the ramp, but I can
only presume they were. Guesswork on my part. Why the cross
examination just because I provided the example you asked for? Will
you accept it now?

You betcha!

I was on a flight last year from DC to Vegas. As the flight was
readying for departure, it was announced that a person with a peanut
allergy was aboard so there would be no snack service aboard during
the five hour flight. Not life or death for the rest of the
passengers, but an inconvenience anyway. Made me wonder how they
would have handled the passengers if a person with an allergy to
cologne, perfume, deodorant spray, etc. was aboard.

There is evidence that the presence of peanuts can be fatal to one
with that allergy. I have not seen evidence that aerosols are fatal.

And if you were to see such evidence, how would you propose an airline
handle the situation, other than to suggest the unfortunate allergic
passenger find an alternate method of personal travel?

It matters not if I see the evidence. I'm not in the airline business, nor
am I in a position to advise those who are. The airlines make their rules,
I hope, based on reliable evidence.

Along these same lines, I see where SW Airlines is proposing to let
people bring their pet aboard in the cabin for a small fee. You can
imagine the outrage from an apparent majority who either have
allergies or worry about bacteria, fleas, ticks, etc. from dogs and
cats. A stupid move to appease a minority who simply MUST travel
with Muffy or Fluffy and be damned about how their fellow passengers
might have to deal with it.

Have you, uh, er, ever broken wind aboard an airplane? If so, your
argument loses its primary source of strength.

Probably. But I haven't gotten sick and crapped aboard an airplane,
nor left my dander in the recirculating air. Although my hair may
have joined the aerial mixture, I have yet to hear of anyone allergic
to human hair.

The last time I was on an airplane, the recirculating air was fetid for the
entire trip. I won't speculate as to what its qualitative analysis might
have revealed.

James the Fumigated

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:48?pm, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
Michael G. Koerner wrote:
Any thoughts on the chances of the USA dropping the $1
banknote within the next few years now that one of their
biggest champions (Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA) is no longer in
the USSenate?

P = .000001

James the Improbable

One K gone, one K still breathing. Remember, "good for the
country" means nothing when "what does it do for me?"
overrides. It seems nowadays, minority rules.

Jerry
Taking a deep breath to avoid political rant.

Minority does not rule, and never has. However, a quick read
of the Preamble to the Constitution reveals the intention of
the Founders that the rights of a minority will not be
trampled and snuffed by a majority. James the Ranter

Minorities may not "rule" per se, but they do seem to wield a
lot of clout. Like the one airline passenger caught with
explosives in his shoe forcing millions of passengers to have
their shoes inspected at airport security. The hundreds of
millions of dollars in public and private infrastructure
modifications to accommodate the occasional wheelchair bound. No
peanut products available on a commercial flight when an
allergic passenger is aboard. While these examples meet
general public approval or acceptance, they do illustrate how a
minority often can influence the "rights and freedoms" of the
majority.

Rightfully so, say I.

Like the guy who carried a hidden firearm onto a plane forced the
airlines to install expensive metal detectors and the passengers
to open their luggage, empty their pockets, and fill them up
again. Like the young women who perished in the Triangle Shirtwaist
Company fire forced millions of businesses to adopt enlightened
safety measures. Like the laws against hate crimes protect
minority persons against
the depredations of the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

I have no reason to believe that you are handicapped, but if you
were, I have a hunch that you'd be a champion of all those
handicap access policies.

Probably so, except in those cases when the reactionary policies
go ridiculously overboard.

Dare I ask for an example of this?

I recall one example of a small town post office that was mandated
to install a long, two-stage ramp to the entrance in order to serve
people in wheel chairs. No one in town was in a wheel chair. Had
they been, unless that person was muscular or had a motorized chair,
he or she could not have navigated the ramps at all, or at least
without the danger of losing control on the way.

Didja happen to actually see the ramp? Did you verify the claim
that the user had to be muscular or motorized in order to negotiate
it? Did you verify that there were no wheelchair users in town? Does
the post office, a Federal institution, serve only locals? Are
you going by hearsay and guesswork?

I sure did. It ran across the entire front of the building and then
halfway back to the entrance door, satisfying the required wheelchair
option instead of navigating five or six steps. The additional
comments I mentioned were those described by the TV reporter who
broadcast the piece. This post office did indeed serve only locals
(before the news broadcast anyway). It was a small town/village and
a ramp was a required response to a no-exceptions, federal
government-mandated handicap access edict. I do forget if is said
whether government funds were provided to build the ramp, but I can
only presume they were. Guesswork on my part. Why the cross
examination just because I provided the example you asked for? Will
you accept it now?

You betcha!

I was on a flight last year from DC to Vegas. As the flight was
readying for departure, it was announced that a person with a peanut
allergy was aboard so there would be no snack service aboard during
the five hour flight. Not life or death for the rest of the
passengers, but an inconvenience anyway. Made me wonder how they
would have handled the passengers if a person with an allergy to
cologne, perfume, deodorant spray, etc. was aboard.

There is evidence that the presence of peanuts can be fatal to one
with that allergy. I have not seen evidence that aerosols are fatal.

And if you were to see such evidence, how would you propose an airline
handle the situation, other than to suggest the unfortunate allergic
passenger find an alternate method of personal travel?

It matters not if I see the evidence. I'm not in the airline business,
nor am I in a position to advise those who are. The airlines make their
rules, I hope, based on reliable evidence.

I got the impression that you felt that the special needs of one airline
passenger--the peanut allergic individual in the case I cited-- should
always trump the considerations of all other passengers on that flight. So
I just was curious as to how you might expect an airline should treat a
passenger with some other kind of serious allergy. One that would be much
more difficult to avoid but which still could require medical attention.
IMO, a practical line has to be drawn somewhere, and it may just have to
inconvenience the minority in some cases. If my view is a minority one,
maybe it's a shoe-in to be implemented.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:17:02 -0400, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:


"The Giant Brain" wrote in message
...

"coinsusa" wrote in message
...
Government should be very limited in what it does.

We need a single payer national health system.
Case closed!


I agree. One person should pay all our premiums!

I think it should be the giant brain.

take care,
Scott

Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:48?pm, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
Michael G. Koerner wrote:
Any thoughts on the chances of the USA dropping the $1
banknote within the next few years now that one of their
biggest champions (Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA) is no longer
in the USSenate?

P = .000001

James the Improbable

One K gone, one K still breathing. Remember, "good for the
country" means nothing when "what does it do for me?"
overrides. It seems nowadays, minority rules.

Jerry
Taking a deep breath to avoid political rant.

Minority does not rule, and never has. However, a quick read
of the Preamble to the Constitution reveals the intention of
the Founders that the rights of a minority will not be
trampled and snuffed by a majority. James the Ranter

Minorities may not "rule" per se, but they do seem to wield a
lot of clout. Like the one airline passenger caught with
explosives in his shoe forcing millions of passengers to have
their shoes inspected at airport security. The hundreds of
millions of dollars in public and private infrastructure
modifications to accommodate the occasional wheelchair bound.
No peanut products available on a commercial flight when an
allergic passenger is aboard. While these examples meet
general public approval or acceptance, they do illustrate how
a minority often can influence the "rights and freedoms" of
the majority.

Rightfully so, say I.

Like the guy who carried a hidden firearm onto a plane forced
the airlines to install expensive metal detectors and the
passengers to open their luggage, empty their pockets, and
fill them up again. Like the young women who perished in the
Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire forced millions of businesses
to adopt enlightened safety measures. Like the laws against
hate crimes protect minority persons against
the depredations of the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

I have no reason to believe that you are handicapped, but if
you were, I have a hunch that you'd be a champion of all those
handicap access policies.

Probably so, except in those cases when the reactionary policies
go ridiculously overboard.

Dare I ask for an example of this?

I recall one example of a small town post office that was mandated
to install a long, two-stage ramp to the entrance in order to
serve people in wheel chairs. No one in town was in a wheel
chair. Had they been, unless that person was muscular or had a
motorized chair, he or she could not have navigated the ramps at
all, or at least without the danger of losing control on the way.

Didja happen to actually see the ramp? Did you verify the claim
that the user had to be muscular or motorized in order to negotiate
it? Did you verify that there were no wheelchair users in town?
Does the post office, a Federal institution, serve only locals? Are you
going by hearsay and guesswork?

I sure did. It ran across the entire front of the building and then
halfway back to the entrance door, satisfying the required
wheelchair option instead of navigating five or six steps. The
additional comments I mentioned were those described by the TV
reporter who broadcast the piece. This post office did indeed
serve only locals (before the news broadcast anyway). It was a
small town/village and a ramp was a required response to a
no-exceptions, federal government-mandated handicap access edict. I do
forget if is said whether government funds were provided to
build the ramp, but I can only presume they were. Guesswork on my
part. Why the cross examination just because I provided the
example you asked for? Will you accept it now?

You betcha!

I was on a flight last year from DC to Vegas. As the flight was
readying for departure, it was announced that a person with a
peanut allergy was aboard so there would be no snack service
aboard during the five hour flight. Not life or death for the
rest of the passengers, but an inconvenience anyway. Made me
wonder how they would have handled the passengers if a person
with an allergy to cologne, perfume, deodorant spray, etc. was
aboard.

There is evidence that the presence of peanuts can be fatal to one
with that allergy. I have not seen evidence that aerosols are
fatal.

And if you were to see such evidence, how would you propose an
airline handle the situation, other than to suggest the unfortunate
allergic passenger find an alternate method of personal travel?

It matters not if I see the evidence. I'm not in the airline
business, nor am I in a position to advise those who are. The
airlines make their rules, I hope, based on reliable evidence.

I got the impression that you felt that the special needs of one
airline passenger--the peanut allergic individual in the case I
cited-- should always trump the considerations of all other
passengers on that flight. So I just was curious as to how you might
expect an airline should treat a passenger with some other kind of
serious allergy. One that would be much more difficult to avoid but
which still could require medical attention. IMO, a practical line
has to be drawn somewhere, and it may just have to inconvenience the
minority in some cases. If my view is a minority one, maybe it's a
shoe-in to be implemented.

I have no idea where you got that impression. At no point did I evaluate
airline policy regarding peanut-allergic passengers. I merely cited a fact
about a pathology that is well-known and understood in medical circles.
What the airlines do with that fact is entirely beyond my purview.

James the Landlubber

On Aug 28, 12:10*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com
wrote:
coinsusa wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:37 am, "The Giant Brain" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

....

One K gone, one K still breathing. Remember, "good for the country"
means nothing when "what does it do for me?" overrides. It seems
nowadays, minority rules.

Governments should exist to serve the will of the people.
I never agreed with JFK's "Ask not..."
If the government isn't helping me, who needs it?
Anyway, don't look for the dollar bill to disappear anytime soon.

Keep in mind that the government can't give you anything that it
hasn't taken from someone else without threat of force.
No gevernment can provide you with everything you want without first
taking everything you have.
When the government attempts to provide everything, then the society
becomes nothing more than a group of freeloading parasites with no
incentive to do anything. Such a scheme will always ultimately
collapse.

Government should be very limited in what it does.

How does this strike you in terms of limits:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, *promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

James the Citizen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sounds good to me. The biggest problem is with the people that think
"promote the general welfare" actually means to provide for the
general welfare... and all that without cost to the individual.

On Aug 28, 1:08*pm, "The Giant Brain" wrote:
"coinsusa" wrote in message

...

Government should be very limited in what it does.

We need a single payer national health system.
Case closed!

what you are actually saying is that you want someone else to pay for
all the health care services you want. Sounds kind of greedy to me.

In fact the whole idea of letting the government get involved with
what is basically a private business transaction between me, MY
insuance carrier, and MY doctor stinks. the government and more
especially YOU need to keep your nose out of my private business.

coinsusa wrote
On Aug 28, 1:08*pm, "The Giant Brain" wrote:
"coinsusa" wrote in message
...

Government should be very limited in what it does.

We need a single payer national health system.
Case closed!

what you are actually saying is that you want someone else to pay for
all the health care services you want. Sounds kind of greedy to me.

In fact the whole idea of letting the government get involved with
what is basically a private business transaction between me, MY
insuance carrier, and MY doctor stinks. the government and more
especially YOU need to keep your nose out of my private business.

It's a Government-run system for devices and organisations that kill and
maim, so how about the same for facilities that make people better?
--
Roger Hunt

coinsusa wrote:
On Aug 28, 12:10 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com
wrote:
coinsusa wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:37 am, "The Giant Brain" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...

One K gone, one K still breathing. Remember, "good for the
country" means nothing when "what does it do for me?" overrides.
It seems nowadays, minority rules.

Governments should exist to serve the will of the people.
I never agreed with JFK's "Ask not..."
If the government isn't helping me, who needs it?
Anyway, don't look for the dollar bill to disappear anytime soon.

Keep in mind that the government can't give you anything that it
hasn't taken from someone else without threat of force.
No gevernment can provide you with everything you want without first
taking everything you have.
When the government attempts to provide everything, then the society
becomes nothing more than a group of freeloading parasites with no
incentive to do anything. Such a scheme will always ultimately
collapse.

Government should be very limited in what it does.

How does this strike you in terms of limits:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

James the Citizen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sounds good to me. The biggest problem is with the people that think
"promote the general welfare" actually means to provide for the
general welfare... and all that without cost to the individual.

The Preamble to the Constitution is one of the most beautiful assemblages of
words in the English language, a product of enlightened genius.

The Constitution that it introduces, along with the first ten Amendments,
provides the basis and framework for the greatest political, social, and
economic experiment in all of human history, and that experiment is far from
having completed its course.

The greatest strength of that Constitution lies in its provision for its own
interpretation, centuries after its creation, not by you, nor by me, nor by
a President, nor by a Congress, but by a cadre of Justices who, once
appointed, become politically independent of their appointers.

The greatest weakness of that Constitution is that the nation it created
depends upon an enlightened electorate for its very survival. Today we are
witness to exponential growth in the amount of information that we have to
evaluate and process. As has been the case throughout all of history, much
more of that information is false than true, making the responsibility of
that electorate to sort wheat from chaff a most demanding task in our age.

The greatest danger to our Republic occurs when we and our fellows give up
our individual, personal searches for truth and instead, adopt as
conclusions the opinions-ready-to-wear of others who aggrandize themselves
and enrich their personal treasuries by peddling falsehood and ignorant
prejudice in the name of freedom of speech.

James