O grupo no qual você está postando é um grupo da Usenet. As mensagens postadas neste grupo farão com que o seu e-mail fique visível para qualquer pessoa na internet.
In article <MamdncBXIJfr1mvXnZ2dnUVZ8j1i4...@bt.com>, am.swal...@btopenworld.com says...
> Jack Linthicum wrote: > {snip}
> > I read an account of those who were killed. Five were in the medical > > or psychiatric fields. Physicians assistant, Pschiatric nurse, Nurse > > practicioner, Physician's assistant, one of the wounded was a Mental > > Health spec.
> They sound like people in and near his hospital.
I had the same thought. Could he have just been after co-workers ? Will have to wait and see.
tankfixer wrote: > In article <b_rJm.51039$Db2.26114@edtnps83>, > nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com says...
>> tankfixer wrote: >>> In article <e%nJm.50996$Db2.28124@edtnps83>, >>> nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> tankfixer wrote: >>>>> In article <3NiJm.50953$Db2.43507@edtnps83>, >>>>> nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 11:35 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LaN: You really opened yourself for an easy shot with that >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Obama having the toughest job" bit but I'll resist except >>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out that it was an irrellevant thing to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ? WTF?
>>>>>>>>>>> TRANSLATION: [Froggie] "I hate Obama with all my heart and >>>>>>>>>>> soul!"
>>>>>>>>>> What horse manure! Perhaps you'd care to explain to us just >>>>>>>>>> why "Obama has a hard job" is relevant to a nutball losing >>>>>>>>>> it at Fort Hood?
>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size >>>>>>>>>> of your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll >>>>>>>>>> disappear." -- Mark Twain
>>>>>>>>> Well, he has a job that would be impossible for you to do: he >>>>>>>>> has to act like he cares.
>>>>>>>> Indeed. But, beyond that, he has to address the burning issue >>>>>>>> of troop burnout at a time when more is being asked of the >>>>>>>> Armed Forces. *They* are the ones fighting the wars, not us >>>>>>>> who sit comfortably in front of our computer screens >>>>>>>> discussing what "should" and "should not" be done while we get >>>>>>>> our war experience from newspapers and TV.
>>>>>>>> - nilita
>>>>>>> I think the past experience of other countries that have tried >>>>>>> to make Afghanistan over tells us one thing: get out. Maybe >>>>>>> play a game of just having troops in the cities where they can >>>>>>> bolster the economy, but clear out of the hinterland. This >>>>>>> isn't 19th Century America where you put all the bad guys on >>>>>>> reservations.
>>>>>> Ya think????
>>>>>> Like I said, I feel sorry for Obama who has inherited this mess >>>>>> and has to make some decisions which, of course, will not be >>>>>> popular with many, no matter what he decides.
>>>>> I never feel sorry for someone who volunteers for the job. >>>>> Crying that it's "too hard" after the fact is just silly.
>>>> He doesn't feel sorry for himself. That I do not envy him for his >>>> tough job should be of zilch consequence. It *is* a tough job. >>>> Kudos to him for "volunteering". Not many would.
>>> Could you send him a note and mention that please ? >>> Since he likes to try and whine about how hard the job is..
>> Why don't *you* send a note to your C-in-C complaining about his >> "whining"?
> Because in his arrogance he has decided that anyone who didn't vote > for him has no say in the runing of the country. > Or hadn't you noticed ?
>> There are many of us who would be pleased to send Obama our best >> wishes and hopes for strength and courage to tackle the many tasks >> ahead of him.
> Do you happen to know when he intends to start with any of those > tasks ?
If I were you, I'd support the candidate running against him in the next election. As for completing tasks, I just got this breaking news sent to my email:
CNN Breaking News wrote: > -- The U.S. House has passed its health-care reform bill by a 220-215 > vote.
La N wrote: > tankfixer wrote: >> In article <b_rJm.51039$Db2.26114@edtnps83>, >> nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com says...
>>> tankfixer wrote: >>>> In article <e%nJm.50996$Db2.28124@edtnps83>, >>>> nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>> tankfixer wrote: >>>>>> In article <3NiJm.50953$Db2.43507@edtnps83>, >>>>>> nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 11:35 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LaN: You really opened yourself for an easy shot with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that "Obama having the toughest job" bit but I'll resist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> except to point out that it was an irrellevant thing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? WTF?
>>>>>>>>>>>> TRANSLATION: [Froggie] "I hate Obama with all my heart and >>>>>>>>>>>> soul!"
>>>>>>>>>>> What horse manure! Perhaps you'd care to explain to us just >>>>>>>>>>> why "Obama has a hard job" is relevant to a nutball losing >>>>>>>>>>> it at Fort Hood?
>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size >>>>>>>>>>> of your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll >>>>>>>>>>> disappear." -- Mark Twain
>>>>>>>>>> Well, he has a job that would be impossible for you to do: he >>>>>>>>>> has to act like he cares.
>>>>>>>>> Indeed. But, beyond that, he has to address the burning issue >>>>>>>>> of troop burnout at a time when more is being asked of the >>>>>>>>> Armed Forces. *They* are the ones fighting the wars, not us >>>>>>>>> who sit comfortably in front of our computer screens >>>>>>>>> discussing what "should" and "should not" be done while we get >>>>>>>>> our war experience from newspapers and TV.
>>>>>>>>> - nilita
>>>>>>>> I think the past experience of other countries that have tried >>>>>>>> to make Afghanistan over tells us one thing: get out. Maybe >>>>>>>> play a game of just having troops in the cities where they can >>>>>>>> bolster the economy, but clear out of the hinterland. This >>>>>>>> isn't 19th Century America where you put all the bad guys on >>>>>>>> reservations.
>>>>>>> Ya think????
>>>>>>> Like I said, I feel sorry for Obama who has inherited this mess >>>>>>> and has to make some decisions which, of course, will not be >>>>>>> popular with many, no matter what he decides.
>>>>>> I never feel sorry for someone who volunteers for the job. >>>>>> Crying that it's "too hard" after the fact is just silly.
>>>>> He doesn't feel sorry for himself. That I do not envy him for his >>>>> tough job should be of zilch consequence. It *is* a tough job. >>>>> Kudos to him for "volunteering". Not many would.
>>>> Could you send him a note and mention that please ? >>>> Since he likes to try and whine about how hard the job is..
>>> Why don't *you* send a note to your C-in-C complaining about his >>> "whining"?
>> Because in his arrogance he has decided that anyone who didn't vote >> for him has no say in the runing of the country. >> Or hadn't you noticed ?
>>> There are many of us who would be pleased to send Obama our best >>> wishes and hopes for strength and courage to tackle the many tasks >>> ahead of him.
>> Do you happen to know when he intends to start with any of those >> tasks ?
> If I were you, I'd support the candidate running against him in the > next election. As for completing tasks, I just got this breaking > news sent to my email:
> CNN Breaking News wrote:
>> -- The U.S. House has passed its health-care reform bill by a 220-215 >> vote.
Unless they're convinced things are horribly wrong...
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
<dces...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Fred J. McCall wrote: >[ SNIP ]
>> Were folks during WWII really THAT much tougher than we are today?
>We already know that they were not. Soldiers in WW2 (and WW1 and the >Civil War and the War of Independence etc etc) had all the same problems >as soldiers in Korea and Vietnam and GW1 and Iraq/Afghanistan now. >Pretty much the same proportion under equivalent conditions got messed >up in the head and manifested it in the same ways when they got home - >drinking, drug abuse, suicide, sleep disorders, domestic violence and so >forth.
>What we didn't do back then was acknowledge so many problems. And quite >frankly, for _American_ troops, the wars are getting longer and less >clear-cut.
We have better medicine, both for diagnosis and treatment (not that there isn't a long way to go). Also we have a lot smaller portion of the population afffected than in the major wars of the past. Our economy generates a greater surplus. PTSD and its relatives are moving from the province of problems everybody knows about but can't be addressed, through ones people deny because, if they don't, they have a responsibility to deal with them to ones that we have institutionalized means of coping with.
Fred J. McCall wrote: > Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :Fred J. McCall wrote: > :[ SNIP ] > : > :> Were folks during WWII really THAT much tougher than we are today? > :> > :We already know that they were not. Soldiers in WW2 (and WW1 and the > :Civil War and the War of Independence etc etc) had all the same problems > :as soldiers in Korea and Vietnam and GW1 and Iraq/Afghanistan now. > :Pretty much the same proportion under equivalent conditions got messed > :up in the head and manifested it in the same ways when they got home - > :drinking, drug abuse, suicide, sleep disorders, domestic violence and so > :forth.
> And yet they all survived without all this lamentation and tearing of > hair that we do now.
"Survive" being the operative word here - they remained alive. You're right, though - back then it wasn't on to talk about one's problems.
Still, the problems were there. At Iwo Jima the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine divisions evacuated about two thousand men due to "fatigue."
> And they didn't have 'the same conditions'. WWII was *MUCH* worse > than anything we tend to expose troops to today.
Here's where you have to get very detailed as to who you're talking about. What nationality? What fighting units? What theatres? I don't think Marine grunts that were involved in the second battle of Fallujah (95 US KIA, 560 US WIA), for example, have to take any BS from WW2 frontline vets that they (the oldsters) had a tougher war of it.
WW2 simply exposed more Americans to more combat in a shorter period of time than modern wars have done. But in terms of what's been "tougher", how do you define "tough"? Constant fear of being shot or blown up works as a definition for me.
There's also a question of how long was any one rifleman in a USA ETO or Mediterranean TO unit (taking those theatres as examples) in combat? You had divisions with many days in combat ops (e.g. 29th Infantry 337 days, and 34th division 500 days), but frontline units (the spearpoint infantry and armoured troops) usually had casualty rates of 100 percent and up. Your typical rifleman or tanker didn't spend anywhere close to hundreds of days in combat - they were dead or wounded or captured or sick well before that.
> :What we didn't do back then was acknowledge so many problems. And quite > :frankly, for _American_ troops, the wars are getting longer and less > :clear-cut.
> But the exposure of the troops to them is shorter and less intense.
As it was for US Marines in the Pacific in WW2. We consider that as being really tough fighting. *I* consider that to be really tough fighting. All six Marine divisions together put in about 600 days of combat, broken down as:
1st: 286 days 2nd: 68 days 3rd: 50 days 4th: 66 days 5th: 40 days 6th: 82 days
These divisions (also the case for the airborne divisions) had casualty rates so high that most riflemen didn't make it all the way. If you calculated the average number of days for individual Marines to have been in combat, in WW2, it would not be very high - the Marines at the second battle of Fallujah certainly exceeded that figure.
Fred J. McCall wrote: > And yet they all survived without all this lamentation and tearing of > hair that we do now.
> And they didn't have 'the same conditions'. WWII was *MUCH* worse > than anything we tend to expose troops to today.
I agree that 'survived' is the important term. A lot of soldiers today survive, are rehabbed, and return to duty in a few months. Those same soldiers would have been dead or permanently invalided in WWII. The fact remains that they have the psychological trauma, even if the physical trauma is dealt with.
You can't have a limb blown off, receive a titanium replacement, without all that affecting your mind.
>> And yet they all survived without all this lamentation and tearing of >> hair that we do now.
>> And they didn't have 'the same conditions'. WWII was *MUCH* worse >> than anything we tend to expose troops to today.
> I agree that 'survived' is the important term. A lot of soldiers > today survive, are rehabbed, and return to duty in a few months. > Those same soldiers would have been dead or permanently invalided in > WWII. The fact remains that they have the psychological trauma, even > if the physical trauma is dealt with.
> You can't have a limb blown off, receive a titanium replacement, > without all that affecting your mind.
Soldiers in WWII were discharged with suggestions that they "put it all behind them" and forget about the war. This resulted in a lot of dysfunctional behaviours such as alcoholism, spousal abuse, severe clinical depression, chronic physical ailments, and much much more. Very very VERY few people have the capability to compartmentalize their experience of such violence as if it were something that happened to someone else and not them.
> > Were folks during WWII really THAT much tougher than we are today?
> We already know that they were not. Soldiers in WW2 (and WW1 and the > Civil War and the War of Independence etc etc) had all the same problems > as soldiers in Korea and Vietnam and GW1 and Iraq/Afghanistan now. > Pretty much the same proportion under equivalent conditions got messed > up in the head and manifested it in the same ways when they got home - > drinking, drug abuse, suicide, sleep disorders, domestic violence and so > forth.
> What we didn't do back then was acknowledge so many problems. And quite > frankly, for _American_ troops, the wars are getting longer and less > clear-cut.
> AHS
Anyone remember the movie The Men? First one for Marlon Brando, dealt with loss of limbs.
La N wrote: > Soldiers in WWII were discharged with suggestions that they "put it > all behind them" and forget about the war. This resulted in a lot of > dysfunctional behaviours such as alcoholism, spousal abuse, severe > clinical depression, chronic physical ailments, and much much more. > Very very VERY few people have the capability to compartmentalize > their experience of such violence as if it were something that > happened to someone else and not them.
A therapist told me how he treats PTSD. The flashbacks are the mind's attempt to deny that the traumatic event happened. (I've had things that are similar, so I understand this.) What he does is to get the client to remember part of the traumatic incident clearly, in a calm and trusted setting, repeatedly until that part doesn't seem so traumatic. Then you repeat the process with other parts of the incident. Finally, he has the client remember the whole incident again and again, until they can accept it, though the memory will never be pleasant.
I read a similar account in a book, and a similar description in Jerome Frank's *Persuasion and Healing*, a standard text on psychotherapy, so I think this is a standard method.
>> Soldiers in WWII were discharged with suggestions that they "put it >> all behind them" and forget about the war. This resulted in a lot of >> dysfunctional behaviours such as alcoholism, spousal abuse, severe >> clinical depression, chronic physical ailments, and much much more. >> Very very VERY few people have the capability to compartmentalize >> their experience of such violence as if it were something that >> happened to someone else and not them.
> A therapist told me how he treats PTSD. The flashbacks are the > mind's attempt to deny that the traumatic event happened. (I've had > things that are similar, so I understand this.) What he does is to > get the client to remember part of the traumatic incident clearly, in > a calm and trusted setting, repeatedly until that part doesn't seem > so traumatic. Then you repeat the process with other parts of the > incident. Finally, he has the client remember the whole incident > again and again, until they can accept it, though the memory will > never be pleasant.
> I read a similar account in a book, and a similar description in > Jerome Frank's *Persuasion and Healing*, a standard text on > psychotherapy, so I think this is a standard method.
The above treatment is a kind of "desensitization". It doesn't work for everybody. There are several methods to treat PTSD. Flashbacks are sequences reprised in the amygdala part of the brain which stores emotional memory and constantly reignites the "fight or flight" reaction to real or perceived emergencies. So, any treatment that can interfere with the hyperarousal effect of the amygdala and its interactions with other parts of the brain and body can be effective. That includes various types of medications.
La N wrote: > The above treatment is a kind of "desensitization". It doesn't work > for everybody. There are several methods to treat PTSD. Flashbacks > are sequences reprised in the amygdala part of the brain which stores > emotional memory and constantly reignites the "fight or flight" > reaction to real or perceived emergencies. So, any treatment that can > interfere with the hyperarousal effect of the amygdala and its > interactions with other parts of the brain and body can be effective. > That includes various types of medications.
OK. Can you cite any reading material, on- or off-line?
It sounds like you know people who've had this. I have but just vaguely.
>> The above treatment is a kind of "desensitization". It doesn't work >> for everybody. There are several methods to treat PTSD. Flashbacks >> are sequences reprised in the amygdala part of the brain which stores >> emotional memory and constantly reignites the "fight or flight" >> reaction to real or perceived emergencies. So, any treatment that >> can interfere with the hyperarousal effect of the amygdala and its >> interactions with other parts of the brain and body can be effective. >> That includes various types of medications.
> OK. Can you cite any reading material, on- or off-line?
> It sounds like you know people who've had this. I have but just > vaguely.
There is tons of really boring academic stuff out there, but you might find the definitive VA website on PTSD interesting:
> >>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 11:35 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> LaN: You really opened yourself for an easy shot with that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Obama having the toughest job" bit but I'll resist except > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out that it was an irrellevant thing to say.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? WTF?
> >>>>>>>>>>> TRANSLATION: [Froggie] "I hate Obama with all my heart and > >>>>>>>>>>> soul!"
> >>>>>>>>>> What horse manure! Perhaps you'd care to explain to us just > >>>>>>>>>> why "Obama has a hard job" is relevant to a nutball losing > >>>>>>>>>> it at Fort Hood?
> >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size > >>>>>>>>>> of your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll > >>>>>>>>>> disappear." -- Mark Twain
> >>>>>>>>> Well, he has a job that would be impossible for you to do: he > >>>>>>>>> has to act like he cares.
> >>>>>>>> Indeed. But, beyond that, he has to address the burning issue > >>>>>>>> of troop burnout at a time when more is being asked of the > >>>>>>>> Armed Forces. *They* are the ones fighting the wars, not us > >>>>>>>> who sit comfortably in front of our computer screens > >>>>>>>> discussing what "should" and "should not" be done while we get > >>>>>>>> our war experience from newspapers and TV.
> >>>>>>>> - nilita
> >>>>>>> I think the past experience of other countries that have tried > >>>>>>> to make Afghanistan over tells us one thing: get out. Maybe > >>>>>>> play a game of just having troops in the cities where they can > >>>>>>> bolster the economy, but clear out of the hinterland. This > >>>>>>> isn't 19th Century America where you put all the bad guys on > >>>>>>> reservations.
> >>>>>> Ya think????
> >>>>>> Like I said, I feel sorry for Obama who has inherited this mess > >>>>>> and has to make some decisions which, of course, will not be > >>>>>> popular with many, no matter what he decides.
> >>>>> I never feel sorry for someone who volunteers for the job. > >>>>> Crying that it's "too hard" after the fact is just silly.
> >>>> He doesn't feel sorry for himself. That I do not envy him for his > >>>> tough job should be of zilch consequence. It *is* a tough job. > >>>> Kudos to him for "volunteering". Not many would.
> >>> Could you send him a note and mention that please ? > >>> Since he likes to try and whine about how hard the job is..
> >> Why don't *you* send a note to your C-in-C complaining about his > >> "whining"?
> > Because in his arrogance he has decided that anyone who didn't vote > > for him has no say in the runing of the country. > > Or hadn't you noticed ?
> >> There are many of us who would be pleased to send Obama our best > >> wishes and hopes for strength and courage to tackle the many tasks > >> ahead of him.
> > Do you happen to know when he intends to start with any of those > > tasks ?
> If I were you, I'd support the candidate running against him in the next > election. As for completing tasks, I just got this breaking news sent to my > email:
One, it's not completed Two, he sat on his hands while Pelosie and her gang jammed that bill through the House
> >>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 11:35 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LaN: You really opened yourself for an easy shot with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that "Obama having the toughest job" bit but I'll resist > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> except to point out that it was an irrellevant thing to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? WTF?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> TRANSLATION: [Froggie] "I hate Obama with all my heart and > >>>>>>>>>>>> soul!"
> >>>>>>>>>>> What horse manure! Perhaps you'd care to explain to us just > >>>>>>>>>>> why "Obama has a hard job" is relevant to a nutball losing > >>>>>>>>>>> it at Fort Hood?
> >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size > >>>>>>>>>>> of your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll > >>>>>>>>>>> disappear." -- Mark Twain
> >>>>>>>>>> Well, he has a job that would be impossible for you to do: he > >>>>>>>>>> has to act like he cares.
> >>>>>>>>> Indeed. But, beyond that, he has to address the burning issue > >>>>>>>>> of troop burnout at a time when more is being asked of the > >>>>>>>>> Armed Forces. *They* are the ones fighting the wars, not us > >>>>>>>>> who sit comfortably in front of our computer screens > >>>>>>>>> discussing what "should" and "should not" be done while we get > >>>>>>>>> our war experience from newspapers and TV.
> >>>>>>>>> - nilita
> >>>>>>>> I think the past experience of other countries that have tried > >>>>>>>> to make Afghanistan over tells us one thing: get out. Maybe > >>>>>>>> play a game of just having troops in the cities where they can > >>>>>>>> bolster the economy, but clear out of the hinterland. This > >>>>>>>> isn't 19th Century America where you put all the bad guys on > >>>>>>>> reservations.
> >>>>>>> Ya think????
> >>>>>>> Like I said, I feel sorry for Obama who has inherited this mess > >>>>>>> and has to make some decisions which, of course, will not be > >>>>>>> popular with many, no matter what he decides.
> >>>>>> I never feel sorry for someone who volunteers for the job. > >>>>>> Crying that it's "too hard" after the fact is just silly.
> >>>>> He doesn't feel sorry for himself. That I do not envy him for his > >>>>> tough job should be of zilch consequence. It *is* a tough job. > >>>>> Kudos to him for "volunteering". Not many would.
> >>>> Could you send him a note and mention that please ? > >>>> Since he likes to try and whine about how hard the job is..
> >>> Why don't *you* send a note to your C-in-C complaining about his > >>> "whining"?
> >> Because in his arrogance he has decided that anyone who didn't vote > >> for him has no say in the runing of the country. > >> Or hadn't you noticed ?
> >>> There are many of us who would be pleased to send Obama our best > >>> wishes and hopes for strength and courage to tackle the many tasks > >>> ahead of him.
> >> Do you happen to know when he intends to start with any of those > >> tasks ?
> > If I were you, I'd support the candidate running against him in the > > next election. As for completing tasks, I just got this breaking > > news sent to my email:
> > CNN Breaking News wrote:
> >> -- The U.S. House has passed its health-care reform bill by a 220-215 > >> vote.
> btw, Tanky, I would think you'd be thrilled that Obama seems to have > continued on with many of GWB's policies.
No, actually I took the man at his word he would make changes. My mistake it seems.. But I am less disapointed than his supporters he continues some of them.
On Nov 8, 4:42 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One, it's not completed > Two, he sat on his hands while Pelosie and her gang jammed that bill > through the House
all those pep talks and booster speeches never happened?
Every time the hand reaches out for bipartisan support or input the Boners of this world say "no". Even promised a clean sweep yesterday. Failed, like they always do.
In article <53aafcce-889f-449b-9686- 38dc46601...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
> On Nov 8, 4:42 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One, it's not completed > > Two, he sat on his hands while Pelosie and her gang jammed that bill > > through the House
> all those pep talks and booster speeches never happened?
How is that "leadership" ? We had to wait until Setember before he told America what he really wanted to see in legislagtion. And even then he really didn't SAY anything.
> Every time the hand reaches out for bipartisan support or input the > Boners of this world say "no". Even promised a clean sweep yesterday. > Failed, like they always do.
If you accept the definition of "bipartisan support" as " accept what we are putting in the bill and shut up, we don't need to hear what you think should be included" you might be right.
Why did the Democrats refuse to include Tort reform ? Why the insane push to write what appears to be the largest piece of legislation ever written ?
> In article <53aafcce-889f-449b-9686- > 38dc46601...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net > says...
> > On Nov 8, 4:42 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One, it's not completed > > > Two, he sat on his hands while Pelosie and her gang jammed that bill > > > through the House
> > all those pep talks and booster speeches never happened?
> How is that "leadership" ? > We had to wait until Setember before he told America what he really > wanted to see in legislagtion. And even then he really didn't SAY > anything.
> > Every time the hand reaches out for bipartisan support or input the > > Boners of this world say "no". Even promised a clean sweep yesterday. > > Failed, like they always do.
> If you accept the definition of "bipartisan support" as > " accept what we are putting in the bill and shut up, we don't need to > hear what you think should be included" > you might be right.
> Why did the Democrats refuse to include Tort reform ? > Why the insane push to write what appears to be the largest piece of > legislation ever written ?
Tort reform is a state application, something like 5% of tort reform cases reach the federal courts.
Fred J. McCall wrote: > Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> :Fred J. McCall wrote: > :{snip} > : > :> Were folks during WWII really THAT much tougher than we are today? > :> > :Probably. > : > :I suspect that we are using the wrong treatments. Modern ones > :include compensation (money for claiming to be ill) and time > :off from work. A more traditional treatment may work, such as > :whipping them every week until they get better. There will > :still be a few (genuine) cases of shell shock left that will > :need other treatments. > :
> You really are a moron, aren't you?
No. People faking shell shock stop when they are about to be whipped.
> In article <53aafcce-889f-449b-9686- > 38dc46601...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net > says...
> > On Nov 8, 4:42 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One, it's not completed > > > Two, he sat on his hands while Pelosie and her gang jammed that bill > > > through the House
> > all those pep talks and booster speeches never happened?
> How is that "leadership" ? > We had to wait until Setember before he told America what he really > wanted to see in legislagtion. And even then he really didn't SAY > anything.
> > Every time the hand reaches out for bipartisan support or input the > > Boners of this world say "no". Even promised a clean sweep yesterday. > > Failed, like they always do.
> If you accept the definition of "bipartisan support" as > " accept what we are putting in the bill and shut up, we don't need to > hear what you think should be included" > you might be right.
> Why did the Democrats refuse to include Tort reform ? > Why the insane push to write what appears to be the largest piece of > legislation ever written ?
You know, of course, that Congress, all Federal employees, and VA patients are recipients of the Federal Public Option? It is nothing more than making use of the government's ability to gather in a group and use that grouping to obtain sensible rates for medical insurance. Boner gets it and so does that nut doctor Senator from Oklahoma. I have it.
> On Nov 8, 6:17 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <53aafcce-889f-449b-9686- > > 38dc46601...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net > > says...
> > > On Nov 8, 4:42 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > One, it's not completed > > > > Two, he sat on his hands while Pelosie and her gang jammed that bill > > > > through the House
> > > all those pep talks and booster speeches never happened?
> > How is that "leadership" ? > > We had to wait until Setember before he told America what he really > > wanted to see in legislagtion. And even then he really didn't SAY > > anything.
> > > Every time the hand reaches out for bipartisan support or input the > > > Boners of this world say "no". Even promised a clean sweep yesterday. > > > Failed, like they always do.
> > If you accept the definition of "bipartisan support" as > > " accept what we are putting in the bill and shut up, we don't need to > > hear what you think should be included" > > you might be right.
> > Why did the Democrats refuse to include Tort reform ? > > Why the insane push to write what appears to be the largest piece of > > legislation ever written ?
> Tort reform is a state application, something like 5% of tort reform > cases reach the federal courts.
> On Nov 8, 6:17 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <53aafcce-889f-449b-9686- > > 38dc46601...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net > > says...
> > > On Nov 8, 4:42 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > One, it's not completed > > > > Two, he sat on his hands while Pelosie and her gang jammed that bill > > > > through the House
> > > all those pep talks and booster speeches never happened?
> > How is that "leadership" ? > > We had to wait until Setember before he told America what he really > > wanted to see in legislagtion. And even then he really didn't SAY > > anything.
> > > Every time the hand reaches out for bipartisan support or input the > > > Boners of this world say "no". Even promised a clean sweep yesterday. > > > Failed, like they always do.
> > If you accept the definition of "bipartisan support" as > > " accept what we are putting in the bill and shut up, we don't need to > > hear what you think should be included" > > you might be right.
> > Why did the Democrats refuse to include Tort reform ? > > Why the insane push to write what appears to be the largest piece of > > legislation ever written ?
> You know, of course, that Congress, all Federal employees, and VA > patients are recipients of the Federal Public Option? It is nothing > more than making use of the government's ability to gather in a group > and use that grouping to obtain sensible rates for medical insurance. > Boner gets it and so does that nut doctor Senator from Oklahoma. I > have it.
The a nice 100 page bill could have set up a non-profit corp to provide health insurance to those whos employers don't preovide it or who can't get it elsewhere.
Fred J. McCall wrote: >:There is tons of really boring academic stuff out there, but you might >:find the definitive VA website on PTSD interesting: >: >:http://www.ptsd.va.gov/ >: >:And, yes, I have known lots and lots of people with PTSD. It's quite >:common.
|
