Sometimes stupid loses

How many? None.
Cuz Republicanism is a religion, and
challenging a religion, even honestly considering
counter-arguments is blasphemy.

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

And so it es labeled. If you have a better idea state it or STFU

 

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Re: Sometimes stupid loses;

Do remember how many Repubs thought Iraq
had WMD? In part, thank Fox for those 4000 troop deaths.
Do remember how many Repubs thought Bush actually
had found WMD in Iraq? About 100%, thank Fox.

Example: remember that underground complex
of WMD they discovered? Headline:
Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at
Iraqi Nuke Complex
Friday, April 11, 2003


BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. Marines may have found weapons-grade
plutonium in a massive underground facility discovered beneath
Iraq's Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex, Fox News confirmed Friday.
The Fox News story goes on

The discovery of the underground labyrinth of labs and
warehouses was unexpected, Fox News has confirmed...

Is this credible? Did American ground troops find something new
and threatening that the weapons inspectors were unaware of? Fox
News quotes a Capt. John Seegar:

"I've never seen anything like it, ever," he told the
Tribune-Review. "How did the world miss all of this? Why
couldn't they see what was happening here?"

Then they quote "Former Iraqui Scientist" Gazi George:

"The high levels of radiation suggest it's a high-level
nuclear waste that was stored underground, trying to hide it
for the process of repurposing it for the future... or
just to make dirty bombs out of the material that's down
there," George said.

"If the material has not been disclosed by Iraqis to
the United Nations... [then] definitely this material
was hidden there to use it as a source for extracting
plutonium chemically and using it in dirty bombs."

"Saddam always tried to hide... uranium or other nuclear
fuels so we could use them in the future for weapons of
mass destruction."
....snip

In part, thank Fox for our 4000 troop losses.
But no biggy, right? Party before America!
Right?


The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

Six days and no reply? Wonder why.

Cuz getting some would be blasphemy.
Religion is like that.


The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

 

Prove that a battleship is not harder to sink than a cruiser or STFU.

 

Now you've taken to weasel-words. No doctor has been accused of
refusing treatment. Not the pediatrician in the gun issue or the
urologist in the "if you voted for Obama I don't want you as a
patient" issue. Declining to accept or continue to keep a person as
your patient is not refusing treatment. What they are declining are
future visits, not treatment of a patient.

And, yes, I absolutely believe that any doctor should be able to
decline to accept anyone on his patient rolls. He/she has the same
right as I do to decline to become one of his patients.

Yes, I feel Cassell was well within his rights. What I also said is
that no Florida legislator is preparing a bill that will restrict
Cassell's ability deal with the non-medical aspects of his patients as
they did with the doctors who were concerned about gun safety.

Who refused treatment over the gun issue? No patient was refused
treatment by any doctor over either issue. Don't make things up to
embellish your position.

The poll was taken in the area where Cassell's practice is. It
includes the city of Mt Dora and The Villages. "The Villages" ring a
bell? That's where every Right Wing, Religious Conservative, and Tea
Party candidate makes his first campaign stop and fund raiser.

So far this year, the Barnes and Noble bookstore has been the site of
book signings by Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Karl
Rove. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani spoke there. Sarah Palin drew a
crowd of 60,000.

A Democrat in The Villages would be as popular as Mel Gibson in
Williamsburg (Brooklyn).

I've been to The Villages once. I went up there to take photos of a
polo match. The Duchess of York was the guest of honor. A US team
played a Mexican team in the Camacho Cup. It is not true that the
Mexican team was required to use the back door of the club house and
to do some yardwork during the break.

 

I won't argue this, but I have to admit that I find this difficult to
comprehend. Even assuming two completely different and separated
unions, it's hard to imagine a state union that is affiliated with a
local union not being involved in the negotiation process that results
in wages and benefits. That implies that the state union has no
designated function whatsoever. (It may be that the local members
feel the state organization doesn't contribute, but that kind of thing
is more opinion than fact.)

Isn't the function of a political arm of an organization to lobby or
otherwise grease the skids for the local mob? If the state
organization is advancing the cause of the local organization in any
way, they are indirectly contributing to the local member's situation.

Just thoughts...no argument.

 

How did he get the job? Elected? By whom?

If he made a deal - a good deal or a bad deal - then he is involved
with negotiations. Nu?

 

Yes, I made that point earlier. It's an anti-union bill. I agree
with Neil's point in another post that the GOP is just getting back at
the unions who opposed them now that the GOP has almost unlimited
power to do so.

I can see that, buy the idea of a Republican saying "It's a
bill that empowers membership of labor unions" is an insult to the
intelligence.

 

In New York it depends upon the reason for refusal of treatment. I know
two orthopedic surgeons who retired early, rather than be forced to
place their lives in jeopardy by operating on patients with aids. They
had then justifiable concern about flying bone chips during an
operation. Some doctors control their practices by going into boutique
practices. Others simply stopped accepting insurance assignments for new
patients. The jury is still out on the medical ethics of that last tactic.

 

I've marked this post as a "keeper". Thank you.

 

I would hope that Neil is the only one that doesn't understand that
refusing to keep a patient on as a patient is not the same as refusing
to treat a patient.

Treatment is a now thing. Doctors are ethically bound to treat any
patient presenting themselves with a medical condition that requires
immediate treatment. They are not bound to make future appointments
with patients. The urologist who says "Don't make an appointment with
me if you voted for Obama" is not refusing treatment. The
pediatrician who says "Find another doctor for your next appointment."
is not refusing treatment. The doctor's office that declines to make
an appointment with someone because that person's insurance is not
accepted by the practice, or because the person can't pay the bill,
is not declining treatment.

The orthopod who declines to schedule surgery on a patient with AIDS
is not declining treatment. He would be declining treatment if the
patient presented himself in the ER with a broken bone and the doctor
was the orthopod on call.

I know Neil will not argue this because Neil is a great defender of
the meaning of words and terms, and "declining treatment" has a very
definite meaning in this context.

The above is US-centric. In countries where patients are assigned to
certain doctors (if I have that right), the rules may be different.

 

In New York, each local school district is it's own entity. I believe in
Florida there are county school districts, is that correct? Here we have
multiple school districts with in each of the two counties. The individual
school district negotiates with each union (teachers, administrator's, etc.).
Those unions are as individual as the districts, i.e., the teachers in each
district are represented by a union that is for that district only. My wife
works in the Brentwood School district, the largest on Long Island. Their
union, the Brentwood Teachers Association, is only for their district only. The
state union, NYSUT, has no involvement whatsoever in the negotiations with the
school district.

As a political arm, this is where the problem is for NYSUT, or rather the
teachers who are members. NYSUT supports abortion rights. Why an "educational"
entity is even involved in this is for another thread I guess. However, my wife
is oppossed to abortion on religious grounds and on those grounds she withdrew
from the union. This is totally within her right but NYSUT fought it, or rather
dragged it out for two years, even though they knew she was legally entitled to
withdraw. Also, the money she is forced to give them is used to support
political candidates she does not support. The members are never asked who they
want the union to support, the union leaders make those decisions. It's not
hard to guess that their support is always for any liberal or Democratic
candidate. They tried to put a gag on her when they "agreed" to let her
withdraw, stating that she wasn't permitted to discuss this with anyone. That
didn't fly and her attorney immediately rejected that. It's obvious that NYSUT
are solely concerned that their source of money from teachers can wither if more
and more teachers withdraw and preventing my wife from telling her story to
other teachers would help them.

 

He's elected to a multiple-year term by the union members, most of whom have no
idea what he's trying, or rather did, get away with. His term still had two
years left when he retired. So he managed to get the bylaws changed so he can
finish his term. When the meeting was announced for Executive Council to vote
on the change, the announcements were not made in accordance with the bylaws.
The meeting was suppossed to be posted "X" number of days (14, I believe) before
the meeting. This did not happen, the announcement was never posted in most
schools. This was challenged at the vote but the head of the Executive Council
rejected the challenge. Who is the "head"? The union president. He knew the
vote was illegal because the membership had no opportunity to meet with their
delegates who would then express their wished to the Council. Those teachers
who were aware of what was going on attended the Council meeting but they are
not permitted to speak at those meetings. It was also discovered that the
former union secretary was not a member of the union, i.e a teacher, for the
last eight years of her term which was a violation of the bylaws. This was
never disclosed to the members.

In the end, the union members get what they deserve because they've elected this
con artist for over 20 years. Those that are actually involved and aware of the
union dealings are in the vast minority so this guy is assured of getting
elected again. Some members have requested a financial accounting of the union
expenses. They see Jaguars parked outside in the union offfice parking lot and
they want to know if they're paying for them or not. The union won't release
the information. Imagine, a union not allowing the members to know how the
money is being spent.

He is the only person who negotiates with the school board on behalf of the
teachers.

 

"tony cooper" wrote in message

Yes, I made that point earlier. It's an anti-union bill. I
agree
with Neil's point in another post that the GOP is just getting
back at
the unions who opposed them now that the GOP has almost unlimited
power to do so.

I can see that, buy the idea of a Republican saying "It's a
bill that empowers membership of labor unions" is an insult to
the
intelligence.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

If the government allows the unions to withhold dues, why not
also allow payments for the mortgage, rent, utility bills, etc.?
The IRS is part of the government and I suppose that is their
right, but I would put union dues in the same category as any
other payment obligation the employee may have. Why do only the
unions have the ability to effectively garnishee wages?

David

 

In NY and I think most, if not all States, the doc may not refuse to see
a patient on because that patient has <fill in the blank> skin or aids.

He may stop accepting new patients, for any period of time.

 

This has got to be one of the longest threads I have ever seen in
USENET... 2,518 replies so far, and still counting. Unfortunately, I
find that after the first 50 replies or so, the subject has drifted so
far from the original posting that it becomes pointless.

Gary

 

....but strangely enough the entire thread remains OT with reference to
the subject line: "Sometimes stupid loses."

So having said that, what do you think of the NFL draft?

 

Actually there were two "Battles of Gravelines", one terrestrial, and
one naval.
1558 where a combined Anglo-Spanish force made up of the English navy
providing offshore bombardment support, and the Spanish army, defeated
the French.

Then in 1588 we had the Spanish Armada engagement.

History makes strange bed-fellows.

However, for modern naval engagements there are four battles which
would give a better forum for the comparison of modern ship classes in
combat; Jutland 1916, Savo Island 1942(cruiser-cruiser engagement),
Guadalcanal (naval battle Nov. 1942), and Leyte Gulf 1944.

 

The consent of maneuverability defeating slower, but more heavily
armored sailed right over his head. There are some who just cannot apply
principles to another set of facts.