In article >, graham >
wrote:

> On 2018-05-02 10:27 AM, Gary wrote:
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Adding insult to injury there are many on the public dole who make big
> >> bucks working off the books.
> >
> > The underground economy is (and has always been) huge. If your
> > money has no paper trail, so many just don't report it. Can't
> > blame them since politicians just seem to waste it all anyway and
> > if they need more, simply raise taxes.
> >
> How about the wealthy who hide their money offshore and EVADE taxes?

Aspire to become one. Oh, wait, too late. And that motto was never
really a Canadian thing. It is/was uniquely American. There's nothing
like festering envy to drive a person to join a glob of disgruntlement.
Look inward.

[ObFood] A soupy ham shank 'n beans with buttered white bread

leo

Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

> In article >, graham >
> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-05-02 10:27 AM, Gary wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Adding insult to injury there are many on the public dole who make big
> > >> bucks working off the books.
> > >
> > > The underground economy is (and has always been) huge. If your
> > > money has no paper trail, so many just don't report it. Can't
> > > blame them since politicians just seem to waste it all anyway and
> > > if they need more, simply raise taxes.
> > >
> > How about the wealthy who hide their money offshore and EVADE taxes?
>
> Aspire to become one.


Yup...EXACTLY...graham and some others here simply don't understand a very simple economic concept, that *someone* has to possess wealth to *pay* for the stuff that a society needs. I'm happy as a clam that many are wealthier than I, in the end there is more money about, and a society functions better with more money. Otherwise you end up like the former soviet bloc, or present - day Cuba, the DPRK, or Venezuela...

As for graham's "wealthy who hide...", far more wealthy are kind and generous, too many to name. Just this past week, two major non-profits that I support that serve the at - need received MILLIONS from wealthy individuals, no strings attached. Their generosity will improve many lives - especially since these agencies are private, and don't have any WASTEFUL government tethers to gobble up the money; both run "lean and mean", this donated money means much to them.


Oh, wait, too late. And that motto was never
> really a Canadian thing. It is/was uniquely American. There's nothing
> like festering envy to drive a person to join a glob of disgruntlement.
> Look inward.


Liberals/socialist/communists FEED on envy, they want everyone to be as miserable and unhappy as they. Ever notice how MISERABLE they are, unable to find joy in the simplest of things...I mean, even on here, look at someone like Lucretia, constantly carping about others more successful in life than her. I'd like to introduce her to some people I know, lower income and/or immigrants, they are busy WORKING, their dreams, and especially their kids' dreams will come true...cuz' they WORK instead of complaining.


> [ObFood] A soupy ham shank 'n beans with buttered white bread


Well - deserved, enjoy!

--
Best
Greg

On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:41:04 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Cannabis Oil' Wertz"
> wrote:

>Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>
>> In article >, graham >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > The underground economy is (and has always been) huge. If your
>> > > money has no paper trail, so many just don't report it. Can't
>> > > blame them since politicians just seem to waste it all anyway and
>> > > if they need more, simply raise taxes.
>> > >
>> > How about the wealthy who hide their money offshore and EVADE taxes?
>>
>> Aspire to become one.
>
>
>Yup...EXACTLY...graham and some others here simply don't understand a very simple economic concept, that *someone* has to possess wealth to *pay* for the stuff that a society needs. I'm happy as a clam that many are wealthier than I, in the end there is more money about, and a society functions better with more money. Otherwise you end up like the former soviet bloc, or present - day Cuba, the DPRK, or Venezuela...

This is the American right-wing hangup: that looking after the basic
needs of your population is a communist thing. They'd rather let
people rot and then go to church on Sundays because they're such good
Christians. You guys sure offer international audiences a lot of
entertainment with your Tea Party, your bible thumping, your Sarah
Palin and your Trump!

Bruce wrote:

> On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:41:04 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Cannabis Oil' Wertz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, graham >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > The underground economy is (and has always been) huge. If your
> >> > > money has no paper trail, so many just don't report it. Can't
> >> > > blame them since politicians just seem to waste it all anyway and
> >> > > if they need more, simply raise taxes.
> >> > >
> >> > How about the wealthy who hide their money offshore and EVADE taxes?
> >>
> >> Aspire to become one.
> >
> >
> >Yup...EXACTLY...graham and some others here simply don't understand a very simple economic concept, that *someone* has to possess wealth to *pay* for the stuff that a society needs. I'm happy as a clam that many are wealthier than I, in the end there is more money about, and a society functions better with more money. Otherwise you end up like the former soviet bloc, or present - day Cuba, the DPRK, or Venezuela...
>
> This is the American right-wing hangup: that looking after the basic
> needs of your population is a communist thing.


Nope, peeps are better off looking after their *own* basic needs, natcherly some are unable to do so, and will thus need assistance. The US is more than generous in assisting it's at - need population...

Exam question for you:

On paper, citizens of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have guaranteed "social needs" that pretty much mirror the "social needs" guaranteed to citizens of Cuba, the DPRK, and Venezuela. Where would you rather be educated, take public transport, access social housing, receive health care, get yer OAP, or a range of other societal benefits...and WHY...???

Study DILIGENTLY, young man...!!!


--
Best
Greg


--
Best
Greg

Jill, I was driving in one of our blizzard white-outs, with a -70 F. Degree windchill and if I hadn't
had my son as a passenger in the front seat, I never would have seen the car stopped by a
state trooper in the middle of the two-lane highway, and stopped in time. That was enough
to make me turn around and go home, even though it meant the boys wouldn't be able to see
their dad that weekend.

N.

On Thu, 3 May 2018 17:14:56 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Cannabis Oil' Wertz"
> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:41:04 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Cannabis Oil' Wertz"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article >, graham >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > The underground economy is (and has always been) huge. If your
>> >> > > money has no paper trail, so many just don't report it. Can't
>> >> > > blame them since politicians just seem to waste it all anyway and
>> >> > > if they need more, simply raise taxes.
>> >> > >
>> >> > How about the wealthy who hide their money offshore and EVADE taxes?
>> >>
>> >> Aspire to become one.
>> >
>> >
>> >Yup...EXACTLY...graham and some others here simply don't understand a very simple economic concept, that *someone* has to possess wealth to *pay* for the stuff that a society needs. I'm happy as a clam that many are wealthier than I, in the end there is more money about, and a society functions better with more money. Otherwise you end up like the former soviet bloc, or present - day Cuba, the DPRK, or Venezuela...
>>
>> This is the American right-wing hangup: that looking after the basic
>> needs of your population is a communist thing.
>
>
>Nope, peeps are better off looking after their *own* basic needs, natcherly some are unable to do so, and will thus need assistance. The US is more than generous in assisting it's at - need population...
>
>Exam question for you:
>
>On paper, citizens of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have guaranteed "social needs" that pretty much mirror the "social needs" guaranteed to citizens of Cuba, the DPRK, and Venezuela. Where would you rather be educated, take public transport, access social housing, receive health care, get yer OAP, or a range of other societal benefits...and WHY...???

In Denmark, Sweden or Norway.

On Fri, 04 May 2018 10:18:40 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Thu, 3 May 2018 17:14:56 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Cannabis Oil' Wertz"
> wrote:
>
>>Nope, peeps are better off looking after their *own* basic needs, natcherly some are unable to do so, and will thus need assistance. The US is more than generous in assisting it's at - need population...
>>
>>Exam question for you:
>>
>>On paper, citizens of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have guaranteed "social needs" that pretty much mirror the "social needs" guaranteed to citizens of Cuba, the DPRK, and Venezuela. Where would you rather be educated, take public transport, access social housing, receive health care, get yer OAP, or a range of other societal benefits...and WHY...???
>
>In Denmark, Sweden or Norway.

PS: I especially always enjoy the parade of Republican candidates for
an upcoming presidential election: one can barely read, one forgot to
take off his KKK hat, one has 3 wives, and one thinks he's an
ayatollah. It's always a very entertaining circus!

In article >,
says...
>
> On 5/1/2018 4:13 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 5/1/2018 12:35 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
> >>> On 5/1/2018 11:51 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> >>>> On 5/1/2018 11:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>> Good, not perfect, probably better than what we have for many.* I
> >>>>> know of some Canadians that cross the border for surgery as the waits
> >>>>> for elective can be long.
> >>>>
> >>>> "elective" being the operative word.
> >>>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>> Emergencies are taken immediately, non-emergencies may have to wait.
> >>>
> >> That's my understanding (vague though it may be) of the Canadian health
> >> system. Elective is not an emergency.
> >>
> >> I can't fathom who would want to rush into elective surgery in the first
> >> place. If it's elective it's not life threatening, certainly not urgent
> >> and sometimes not even necessary.
> >
> > Elective surgery *at a time chosen by the patient* can be a factor;
> > for some patients it's really important to fit the timing of their
> > operation to suit other commitments (work, travel, moving house etc).
> >
> > Janet UK
> >
> (snipped annoying advertising)

sorry about that, not my choice. It appeared unasked on new computer and
I've yet to find a way to get rid of it.
>
> Ed wrote "the waits for elective can be long." That certainly seems to
> mean there's time to plan ahead to fit it into a specific work, travel
> or holiday schedule. Elective doesn't mean needs to be done very quickly.

In this country, long waits never mean you've been given the date for
the surgery with long notice. It just means you wait a long time to be
given a date at short notice.

Janet UK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 5/3/2018 9:03 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>>
>> (snipped annoying advertising)
>
> sorry about that, not my choice. It appeared unasked on new computer and
> I've yet to find a way to get rid of it.

Click on the Avast icon. Click on settings (the icon looks like a cog
wheel) and *de-select* Enable Avast email signature. You may need to
close and restart Avast to get the change to take effect.

It's just one of my pet peeves. Why give a company free advertising?
The same sort of message appears on emails sent from an iPad or iPhone.
(From what I understand, those can also be turned off.) I'm not going
to rush out and buy [whatever] based on a product sig line. To me it's
just excess clutter on the screen.

Again, it's just a pet peeve. I'm not singling you out. I complained
about the sig when (I think it was) Dave started using Avast. All's
fair. Heh. When I started using Avast one of the first things I did was
figure out how to turn that darn thing off.

Jill

On 2018-05-05 3:42 PM, jmcquown wrote:

> Again, it's just a pet peeve.Â* I'm not singling you out.Â* I complained
> about the sig when (I think it was) Dave started using Avast.Â* All's
> fair. Heh.Â* When I started using Avast one of the first things I did was
> figure out how to turn that darn thing off.

Actually, I had been using Avast for a long time before it suddenly
started advertising in a sig line on my posts. I got rid of the sig
lines and a month or so later they started appearing. I was not aware of
it because you don't see it in the outgoing mail and I don't usually
bother reading my own posts because I usually know what I have posted.

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-5, Jill McQuown wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 9:03 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >>>
> >> (snipped annoying advertising)
> >
> > sorry about that, not my choice. It appeared unasked on new computer and
> > I've yet to find a way to get rid of it.
>
> Click on the Avast icon. Click on settings (the icon looks like a cog
> wheel) and *de-select* Enable Avast email signature. You may need to
> close and restart Avast to get the change to take effect.
>
> It's just one of my pet peeves. Why give a company free advertising?
> The same sort of message appears on emails sent from an iPad or iPhone.
> (From what I understand, those can also be turned off.) I'm not going
> to rush out and buy [whatever] based on a product sig line. To me it's
> just excess clutter on the screen.
>
> Again, it's just a pet peeve. I'm not singling you out. I complained
> about the sig when (I think it was) Dave started using Avast. All's
> fair. Heh. When I started using Avast one of the first things I did was
> figure out how to turn that darn thing off.
>
> Jill

If you are using FREE software you get everything you PAY FOR! Like Facebook! But I run Adblock Plus and FBPurity so I see NO Facebook ads!

John Kuthe...

On Sat, 5 May 2018 21:26:59 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-5, Jill McQuown wrote:
>> On 5/3/2018 9:03 PM, Janet wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >> (snipped annoying advertising)
>> >
>> > sorry about that, not my choice. It appeared unasked on new computer and
>> > I've yet to find a way to get rid of it.
>>
>> Click on the Avast icon. Click on settings (the icon looks like a cog
>> wheel) and *de-select* Enable Avast email signature. You may need to
>> close and restart Avast to get the change to take effect.
>>
>> It's just one of my pet peeves. Why give a company free advertising?
>> The same sort of message appears on emails sent from an iPad or iPhone.
>> (From what I understand, those can also be turned off.) I'm not going
>> to rush out and buy [whatever] based on a product sig line. To me it's
>> just excess clutter on the screen.
>>
>> Again, it's just a pet peeve. I'm not singling you out. I complained
>> about the sig when (I think it was) Dave started using Avast. All's
>> fair. Heh. When I started using Avast one of the first things I did was
>> figure out how to turn that darn thing off.
>>
>> Jill
>
>If you are using FREE software you get everything you PAY FOR! Like Facebook! But I run Adblock Plus and FBPurity so I see NO Facebook ads!

That's a good thing. You'd have been broke by now.

JBurns wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:53 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 5/1/2018 12:35 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/1/2018 11:51 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/1/2018 11:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> Good, not perfect, probably better than what we have for
> many.* I >>>>>>> know of some Canadians that cross the border for
> surgery as the waits >>>>>>> for elective can be long.
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>> "elective" being the operative word.
> > > > > > >
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>> Emergencies are taken immediately, non-emergencies may have to
> wait. >>>>>
> > > > > That's my understanding (vague though it may be) of the
> > > > > Canadian health system. Elective is not an emergency.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't fathom who would want to rush into elective surgery
> > > > > in the first place. If it's elective it's not life
> > > > > threatening, certainly not urgent and sometimes not even
> > > > > necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called
> > > > elective.
> > >
> > > That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health
> > > elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an
> > > emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be
> > > scheduled in advance rather than performed in an emergency
> > > situation and includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and
> > > hernias.
> > >
> > > It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in
> > > advance, and still not considered an emergency.
> >
> > "Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for
> > non-medical reasons."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery
>
> You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health.
>
> Squirming will not get you of of spouting falsehoods.
>
> I spit on your cite and raise you this
>
> http://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/...ective-surgery
>
> and this
>
>
http://www.bhi.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...iveSurgery.pdf
>
> If you are going to try to prove your point you better make sure you
> are quoting the departments that set the meaning, besides which, The
> first paragraph of sour cite disagrees with you.
>
> JB

JB, get over it. We don't alll live in Australia. Your terms do not
match other countries.

On Wed, 09 May 2018 12:54:28 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>JBurns wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:53 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On 5/1/2018 12:35 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
>> >>>>> On 5/1/2018 11:51 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 5/1/2018 11:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Good, not perfect, probably better than what we have for
>> many.* I >>>>>>> know of some Canadians that cross the border for
>> surgery as the waits >>>>>>> for elective can be long.
>> > > > > > >
>> >>>>>> "elective" being the operative word.
>> > > > > > >
>> >>>>> Yes.
>> >>>>> Emergencies are taken immediately, non-emergencies may have to
>> wait. >>>>>
>> > > > > That's my understanding (vague though it may be) of the
>> > > > > Canadian health system. Elective is not an emergency.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I can't fathom who would want to rush into elective surgery
>> > > > > in the first place. If it's elective it's not life
>> > > > > threatening, certainly not urgent and sometimes not even
>> > > > > necessary.
>> > > >
>> > > > Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called
>> > > > elective.
>> > >
>> > > That is not so. According to the Australian Department of Health
>> > > elective surgery is medically necessary, just not considered an
>> > > emergency. It is called elective surgery because it can be
>> > > scheduled in advance rather than performed in an emergency
>> > > situation and includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis surgery and
>> > > hernias.
>> > >
>> > > It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours in
>> > > advance, and still not considered an emergency.
>> >
>> > "Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for
>> > non-medical reasons."
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery
>>
>> You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health.
>>
>> Squirming will not get you of of spouting falsehoods.
>>
>> I spit on your cite and raise you this
>>
>> http://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/...ective-surgery
>>
>> and this
>>
>>
>http://www.bhi.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...iveSurgery.pdf
>>
>> If you are going to try to prove your point you better make sure you
>> are quoting the departments that set the meaning, besides which, The
>> first paragraph of sour cite disagrees with you.
>>
>> JB
>
>JB, get over it. We don't alll live in Australia. Your terms do not
>match other countries.

I was answering Bruce, who does live in Australia. If he wishes to try
to define terms incorrectly I will answer.

If you don't have a dog in this fight why answer me?

JB

On Thu, 10 May 2018 16:10:10 +0800, JBurns >
wrote:

>On Wed, 09 May 2018 12:54:28 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>>JBurns wrote:
>>
>>> You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health.
>>>
>>> Squirming will not get you of of spouting falsehoods.
>>>
>>> I spit on your cite and raise you this
>>>
>>> http://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/...ective-surgery
>>>
>>> and this
>>>
>>>
>>http://www.bhi.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...iveSurgery.pdf
>>>
>>> If you are going to try to prove your point you better make sure you
>>> are quoting the departments that set the meaning, besides which, The
>>> first paragraph of sour cite disagrees with you.
>>>
>>> JB
>>
>>JB, get over it. We don't alll live in Australia. Your terms do not
>>match other countries.
>
>I was answering Bruce, who does live in Australia. If he wishes to try
>to define terms incorrectly I will answer.
>
>If you don't have a dog in this fight why answer me?

Maybe because you so obviously talk nonsense with your Australian Dept
of Health.

JBurns wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2018 12:54:28 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
> > JBurns wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 02 May 2018 14:59:53 +1000, Bruce >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:28:30 +0800, JBurns
> > >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:38:10 +1000, Bruce
> > >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:33:03 -0400, jmcquown
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On 5/1/2018 12:35 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 5/1/2018 11:51 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On 5/1/2018 11:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> Good, not perfect, probably better than what we have for
> >> many.* I >>>>>>> know of some Canadians that cross the border for
> >> surgery as the waits >>>>>>> for elective can be long.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>>>>> "elective" being the operative word.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>>>> Yes.
> >> >>>>> Emergencies are taken immediately, non-emergencies may have
> to >> wait. >>>>>
> >> > > > > That's my understanding (vague though it may be) of the
> >> > > > > Canadian health system. Elective is not an emergency.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I can't fathom who would want to rush into elective surgery
> >> > > > > in the first place. If it's elective it's not life
> >> > > > > threatening, certainly not urgent and sometimes not even
> >> > > > > necessary.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Never necessary. If it was necessary it wouldn't be called
> >> > > > elective.
> >> > >
> >> > > That is not so. According to the Australian Department of
> Health >> > > elective surgery is medically necessary, just not
> considered an >> > > emergency. It is called elective surgery because
> it can be >> > > scheduled in advance rather than performed in an
> emergency >> > > situation and includes tonsillectomies, scoliosis
> surgery and >> > > hernias.
> >> > >
> >> > > It can sometimes be urgent too, being scheduled only 24 hours
> in >> > > advance, and still not considered an emergency.
> >> >
> >> > "Elective surgeries include all optional surgeries performed for
> >> > non-medical reasons."
> >> >
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_surgery
> >>
> >> You are quoting Wiki, not the relevant Dept of Health.
> >>
> >> Squirming will not get you of of spouting falsehoods.
> >>
> >> I spit on your cite and raise you this
> >>
> >> http://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/...ective-surgery
> >>
> >> and this
> >>
> > >
> >
http://www.bhi.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass...iveSurgery.pdf
> >>
> >> If you are going to try to prove your point you better make sure
> you >> are quoting the departments that set the meaning, besides
> which, The >> first paragraph of sour cite disagrees with you.
> >>
> >> JB
> >
> > JB, get over it. We don't alll live in Australia. Your terms do
> > not match other countries.
>
> I was answering Bruce, who does live in Australia. If he wishes to try
> to define terms incorrectly I will answer.
>
> If you don't have a dog in this fight why answer me?
>
> JB

If you can't change subject line, you are a fail. This was not an OZ
discussion at all in the origional.