Home ∑ Maps ∑ About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  

(936806)

view threaded

Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 19:49:15 2012



Post a New Response

(936813)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Apr 28 20:05:43 2012, in response to Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 19:49:15 2012.

Ronnie is DEAD as dead can be. Stick with the trains, that's your best posts.

Post a New Response

(936816)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:10:14 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Apr 28 20:05:43 2012.

All people die, Dan. Wisdom lives on. If you don't see the wisdom, perhaps it's because your brain has already passed on.

Post a New Response

(936817)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 28 20:16:27 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:10:14 2012.

Perhaps it's the fact that there's no wisdom imparted there.

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: Social Economics 101


(936819)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 20:18:11 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:10:14 2012.

Wisdom lives on.

Assumes facts not in evidence from the video. As in all things, stick to what you know, and associate with your equals.



Post a New Response

(936827)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:46:20 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 20:18:11 2012.

Sage advice, John. I would hope that you follow your own.


hear-see-speak-no-evil


Post a New Response

(936829)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 20:47:31 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Apr 28 20:05:43 2012.

IAWTP

Post a New Response

(936831)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 20:48:23 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:46:20 2012.

Unfortunately, Ronnie isnít around to listen to them.

Post a New Response

(936833)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:50:06 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 20:47:31 2012.

The opinions of trade school dropout do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the original poster nor the management of this web site.

Post a New Response

(936835)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:50:42 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 20:48:23 2012.

Ah but you are.

Post a New Response

(936848)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 21:48:32 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:50:06 2012.

ok
zzzzz

Post a New Response

(936849)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 21:49:20 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 21:48:32 2012.

Wake up and smell the coffee


Post a New Response

(936850)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 21:50:00 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 21:49:20 2012.

ladies 1st

Post a New Response

(936854)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Easy on Sat Apr 28 21:54:47 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 21:50:00 2012.



Post a New Response

(936858)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Apr 28 21:59:59 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 28 20:16:27 2012.

True dat.

Post a New Response

(936864)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 22:07:15 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 20:50:42 2012.

And, unfortunately, it appears that you have.

Part of the problem here is that you have lived a relatively sheltered, privileged life. Good for you. You have worked in a secure, quasi-government job, with full medical benefits, and a guaranteed pension, supplemented by your own savings and now you are set for your retirement. I wish you well.

But it does mean that you are blinkered. Your appreciation for the rest of the US is less than desirable. And those you support are working hard to make the situation worse.

Steve, you know a lot about trains and how to manage a repair workshop. Please, until you can learn something about basic economics, stick to what you know, and donít parrot what the forces of American destruction would have you believe.

Post a New Response

(936869)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:16:46 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 22:07:15 2012.

John! You know very little about me - a lot less than you think. I've worked in private industry as well as in a family business. The fact that I've made some good choices in life does not preclude me from seeing what my 5 brothers have to endure in the private sector or my own daughter or what my grand children will face. The elitist liberal thinking that you display (and I don't consider every liberal here a thinker) is rooted in socialist ideological beliefs which I do not happen to share. The difference is that I'm willing to attack your beliefs. You begin by attacking me. So is the MO of the liberal and so goes the gulf between us.

Post a New Response

(936873)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 22:36:11 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:16:46 2012.

You know very little about me - a lot less than you think.

Very likely so. But Iím getting closer to understanding your belief and value system, and Iím not liking it. And Iím not at all convinced that not liking it makes me in any way liberal and elite. I would choose a better adjective: caring.

I believe that everyone should have appropriate medical care from cradle to grave. I also recognize that funds for anything are always limited and that they should not be squandered in useless procedures.

I believe that no-one in the United States should starve or freeze to death because they are unable to find employment. Or because they are disabled and unable to work.

I believe everyone has the right to live and love and have those rights recognized officially wherever necessary, regardless of whatever.

From all evidence I also believe youíre the Grinch!

Post a New Response

(936875)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:43:02 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 22:36:11 2012.

On the contrary, John, I believe just about the same as you. We differ only in the notion that we have to turn over 1/6th of the nation's economy to an inefficient government to accomplish the first objective that you mentioned. I don't believe that obamacare was about better medical care for this country. I think it's about further eroding our core values and creating a government that is expanding exponentially. There are your socialist beliefs. I want my family to have health care too. I just don't want them to have to go to a Canadian style clinic where healthcare is rationed like cheese. As I said, you know little about me. But when it comes to growing government beyond reason, I hope I am the grinch.

Post a New Response

(936878)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 22:53:39 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Easy on Sat Apr 28 21:54:47 2012.

yeah : )

Post a New Response

(936879)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:53:59 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 22:36:11 2012.

I glossed over this:

"I also recognize that funds for anything are always limited and that they should not be squandered in useless procedures."

Are we talking about "death Panels", now?

Let me ask you this, If someone was dropping acid or taking other illegal drugs during his or her college years and screws up, lets say. their liver or kidneys, should they then be entitled to the same limited health care resources that law abiding citizens would be competing for? What if you were competing for those same precious resources.

Post a New Response

(936880)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:54:25 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Apr 28 22:53:39 2012.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Post a New Response

(936883)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 28 23:17:26 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:53:59 2012.

Heh. Right there ... YOU just convened a death panel! Right there. What if that person turned their life around and cured Alzheimers? These things should be determined on a basis of need and availability, not trial without jury or based on who profits the most.

Post a New Response

(936884)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 23:33:33 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:53:59 2012.

I donít know what a ďdeath panelĒ is. I support all medical care that is likely to achieve a positive result. But I donít believe in significant resources being expended in a futile attempt to prolong a terminal patientís life, especially when it results in said patient having a painful and miserable death.

Which, unfortunately, given the current state of insurance incentives, and DEA disincentives is the prognosis for many patients.

Post a New Response

(936885)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 23:43:42 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:43:02 2012.

I want my family to have health care too. I just don't want them to have to go to a Canadian style clinic where healthcare is rationed like cheese.

Oh dear. Rationing of health care is way more prevalent in the US. Such as my friend, who doesnít have insurance, who might lose a portion of his leg after a spider bite. In a British/Canadian system he goes before the hip replacements in the queue.

Otherwise he is consigned to the de facto death panels of the US lack-of-insurance system.

Nobody in Britain has died from denial of care because of insurance. There have been mistakes but admission to a hospital is not predicated on insurance. I can speak from personal experience.

Other than prejudice and hearsay, have you any facts to support your allegation?

Post a New Response

(936889)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 29 00:43:02 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 23:43:42 2012.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, My aunt, who was Canadian, came to this country for her health care. Now prove your allegations.

Post a New Response

(936890)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 29 00:47:01 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 23:33:33 2012.

If you don't know what a Death Panel is then I would advise you to speak to that Dumb mother-fucker, selkirk to tell you. He just suggested that I convened one because I asked you a question. I assume that means that the ass hole can explain it to you.

Post a New Response

(936892)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 00:56:23 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 29 00:47:01 2012.

Totally Livid...

Must be the Chicken...

Post a New Response

(936893)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 01:06:42 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 00:56:23 2012.

Must be ... besides the strawberries, even chickens get federal health care though the death panel thing IS for real. :)



Post a New Response

(936895)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 01:11:10 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 01:06:42 2012.

That pic couldnt have been taken in New York...

Post a New Response

(936896)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 01:11:36 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 01:06:42 2012.

BTW you fart you got the same email address?

Post a New Response

(936897)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 01:22:25 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 01:11:10 2012.

Doubtful ... generic FDA photo ... they take care of da chikkens. :)

Post a New Response

(936898)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 01:23:20 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 01:11:36 2012.

You mean dat one up dere? :)

Post a New Response

(936900)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JohnL on Sun Apr 29 01:30:47 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 29 00:43:02 2012.

Care to elaborate? Otherwise Iíll take that as an ďinconclusiveĒ

Post a New Response

(936901)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 01:31:41 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 01:23:20 2012.

well you still got mine right?

Post a New Response

(936902)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 01:35:39 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 29 01:31:41 2012.

Actually, I don't think I do since I moved. Privacy policies on this end require destruction of email to the company once whatever need is settled. I'll go look, but it was in the previous message up top.

Post a New Response

(936904)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Apr 29 03:07:56 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:54:25 2012.

WAKE THE FUCK UP FOOL

Post a New Response

(936905)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Apr 29 03:14:13 2012, in response to Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 19:49:15 2012.

ZZZZZzzzz

Post a New Response

(936913)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by cortelyounext on Sun Apr 29 08:09:35 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Apr 29 03:07:56 2012.

??

Post a New Response

(936916)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 29 08:49:50 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sat Apr 28 23:43:42 2012.

IMO, Train dude is speaking from the comfortable perspective of a man who understands that he, personally, will never have to live the way the poor, the sick, the disabled, or the "socially unacceptable" are forced to. Just sayin'...

Post a New Response

(936917)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Apr 29 09:26:38 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by cortelyounext on Sun Apr 29 08:09:35 2012.

!!

Post a New Response

(936922)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by bingbong on Sun Apr 29 11:38:31 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 29 08:49:50 2012.

..and supports those that wish to eliminate and eviscerate the policies and priorities that would enable others to attain his personal level of comfort.

Post a New Response

(936954)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 29 15:14:16 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 28 22:43:02 2012.

Where do people get that Obamacare=socialism? Medical insurance will remain private, besides Medicare and Medicaid which already exist. The only increase in government regulation is a number of new coverage mandates, but those already exist.

Post a New Response

(936969)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by bingbong on Sun Apr 29 15:50:13 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 29 15:14:16 2012.

Yeah, the same mandates that Rmoney put in place in Massachusetts.

Post a New Response

(936971)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Fred G on Sun Apr 29 16:00:33 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 29 15:14:16 2012.

That's what they tell them to say.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(936972)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Apr 29 16:03:15 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 29 08:49:50 2012.

iawtp

Post a New Response

(936985)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 29 18:13:07 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by JohnL on Sun Apr 29 01:30:47 2012.

I'll make it as plain as I can. Your response is dishonest if you say that no one has died because of the Canadian/British system. The failure of the system is that people have had to wait for weeks or more to get diagnostic tests that are available in this country the next day or same day. By the time they are treated, their condition has deteriorated further. When faced with that choice in Toronto,my aunt came to this country. Just like certain Canadian Gov't. officials do when they can't get certain procedures in Canada. Now, if you think rationing healthcare under government control is a good thing, then you are setting up a system where some bureaucrat will be making value judgements on yours or one of your loved ones lives (assuming that you have any) with no recourse if they get a big "thumbs down". Personally, I like the fact that if the insurance companies do not honor a claim, you have government via courts as a last resort.







Post a New Response

(936986)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 29 18:13:38 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Apr 29 03:07:56 2012.

Drop dead mother fucker

Post a New Response

(936987)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 29 18:15:51 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sun Apr 29 09:26:38 2012.

$$! :)

Post a New Response

(936988)

view threaded

Re: Social Economics 101

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 29 18:17:42 2012, in response to Re: Social Economics 101, posted by bingbong on Sun Apr 29 15:50:13 2012.

You either are so stupid that you can't see the difference or so ignorant that you don't care. What Romney did was legal under Massachusetts law. What obama did, most likely is not constitutional. Get it now?

Post a New Response

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]