General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Beef Recall for E. Coli Is Expanded

Twittering One · 2007-09-30T15:28:07+00:00

September 30, 2007 Beef Recall for E. Coli Is Expanded By ROBERT D. McFADDEN A meat company issued a nationwide recall yesterday for 21.7 million pounds of ground beef products after reports of up to 25 cases of illness caused by suspected E. coli bacteria in eight states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, federal officials reported. The recall, by the Topps Meat Company of Elizabeth, N.J., covers a wide range of frozen hamburger patties and other products manufactured over the last year and bearing a "sell by" date or "best used by" date between last Tuesday and Sept. 25, 2008, along with the United States Department of Agriculture designation EST 9748. The voluntary recall, an expanded version of one issued last Tuesday for nearly 332,000 pounds of Topps beef, was the first in the 67-year history of Topps, one of the nation's largest meat processing concerns. It was also one of the larger meat recalls of recent years, the Agriculture Department's Food Safety Inspection Service said. Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for the service, said the expanded recall was based on an additional sample of meat contaminated with the E. coli O157:H7 strain, as reported by the New York State Health Department; by findings of an inspection service safety assessment; and by new reports of illnesses under inquiry in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In Florida, Scott P. Schlesinger, a lawyer for Samantha Safranek, 15, of Pembroke Pines, said she became ill after eating a Topps hamburger on Aug. 17, was hospitalized on Aug. 23, and underwent dialysis before recovering. He said federal and Florida health officials confirmed the E. coli link to Topps on Sept. 7, and he questioned why it took weeks to recall the products. Claudia S. Hutton, a New York State Health Department spokeswoman, said that suspected cases of E. coli linked to Topps dated to July, but that none were confirmed until an Albany resident became ill this month and a Topps patty in his refrigerator was found by the Health Department to contain the E. coli strain. E. coli O157:H7 is a food-borne bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. It usually clears up within a week in adults, but can be deadly in infants, older people and those with compromised immune systems. Geoffrey Livermore, Topps's vice president of operations, said the recalled products were distributed to retail grocers and food service institutions throughout the United States over the past year. Based on consumption patterns, he said, the company believes most of the products have already been consumed, but he urged people to check their freezers and dispose of any meat covered by the recall. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/nyregion/30meat.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Started by Twittering One · 30 September 2007 · Last activity 7 October 2007 · 46 posts · 613 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postBeef Recall for E. Coli Is ExpandedTwittering One · 30 Sep 2007 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 3 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #46Email address hidden · 7 Oct 2007

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 30 September 2007
Last activity: 7 October 2007
Original author: Twittering One
Posts: 46
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 613
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Twittering One
Archived post

30 September 2007, 15:28 UTC #1

September 30, 2007
Beef Recall for E. Coli Is Expanded
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
A meat company issued a nationwide recall yesterday for 21.7 million
pounds of ground beef products after reports of up to 25 cases of
illness caused by suspected E. coli bacteria in eight states,
including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, federal officials
reported.
The recall, by the Topps Meat Company of Elizabeth, N.J., covers a
wide range of frozen hamburger patties and other products manufactured
over the last year and bearing a "sell by" date or "best used by" date
between last Tuesday and Sept. 25, 2008, along with the United States
Department of Agriculture designation EST 9748.
The voluntary recall, an expanded version of one issued last Tuesday
for nearly 332,000 pounds of Topps beef, was the first in the 67-year
history of Topps, one of the nation's largest meat processing
concerns. It was also one of the larger meat recalls of recent years,
the Agriculture Department's Food Safety Inspection Service said.
Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for the service, said the expanded recall
was based on an additional sample of meat contaminated with the E.
coli O157:H7 strain, as reported by the New York State Health
Department; by findings of an inspection service safety assessment;
and by new reports of illnesses under inquiry in New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In Florida, Scott P. Schlesinger, a lawyer for Samantha Safranek, 15,
of Pembroke Pines, said she became ill after eating a Topps hamburger
on Aug. 17, was hospitalized on Aug. 23, and underwent dialysis before
recovering. He said federal and Florida health officials confirmed the
E. coli link to Topps on Sept. 7, and he questioned why it took weeks
to recall the products.
Claudia S. Hutton, a New York State Health Department spokeswoman,
said that suspected cases of E. coli linked to Topps dated to July,
but that none were confirmed until an Albany resident became ill this
month and a Topps patty in his refrigerator was found by the Health
Department to contain the E. coli strain.
E. coli O157:H7 is a food-borne bacterium that can cause bloody
diarrhea and dehydration. It usually clears up within a week in
adults, but can be deadly in infants, older people and those with
compromised immune systems.
Geoffrey Livermore, Topps's vice president of operations, said the
recalled products were distributed to retail grocers and food service
institutions throughout the United States over the past year. Based on
consumption patterns, he said, the company believes most of the
products have already been consumed, but he urged people to check
their freezers and dispose of any meat covered by the recall.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/nyregion/30meat.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Report
Twittering One
Archived post

30 September 2007, 15:29 UTC #2

Dear Friends & Family ~
Thanks for all your support duing this difficult time.
NOT

Report
Ozzie
Archived post

30 September 2007, 18:22 UTC #3

Twittering One said:
September 30, 2007
Beef Recall for E. Coli Is Expanded
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
A meat company issued a nationwide recall yesterday for 21.7 million
pounds of ground beef products after reports of up to 25 cases of
illness caused by suspected E. coli bacteria in eight states,
including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, federal officials
reported.
The recall, by the Topps Meat Company of Elizabeth, N.J., covers a
wide range of frozen hamburger patties and other products manufactured
over the last year and bearing a "sell by" date or "best used by" date
between last Tuesday and Sept. 25, 2008, along with the United States
Department of Agriculture designation EST 9748.
The voluntary recall, an expanded version of one issued last Tuesday
for nearly 332,000 pounds of Topps beef, was the first in the 67-year
history of Topps, one of the nation's largest meat processing
concerns. It was also one of the larger meat recalls of recent years,
the Agriculture Department's Food Safety Inspection Service said.
Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for the service, said the expanded recall
was based on an additional sample of meat contaminated with the E.
coli O157:H7 strain, as reported by the New York State Health
Department; by findings of an inspection service safety assessment;
and by new reports of illnesses under inquiry in New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In Florida, Scott P. Schlesinger, a lawyer for Samantha Safranek, 15,
of Pembroke Pines, said she became ill after eating a Topps hamburger
on Aug. 17, was hospitalized on Aug. 23, and underwent dialysis before
recovering. He said federal and Florida health officials confirmed the
E. coli link to Topps on Sept. 7, and he questioned why it took weeks
to recall the products.
Claudia S. Hutton, a New York State Health Department spokeswoman,
said that suspected cases of E. coli linked to Topps dated to July,
but that none were confirmed until an Albany resident became ill this
month and a Topps patty in his refrigerator was found by the Health
Department to contain the E. coli strain.
E. coli O157:H7 is a food-borne bacterium that can cause bloody
diarrhea and dehydration. It usually clears up within a week in
adults, but can be deadly in infants, older people and those with
compromised immune systems.
Geoffrey Livermore, Topps's vice president of operations, said the
recalled products were distributed to retail grocers and food service
institutions throughout the United States over the past year. Based on
consumption patterns, he said, the company believes most of the
products have already been consumed, but he urged people to check
their freezers and dispose of any meat covered by the recall.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/nyregion/30meat.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
You are invited over for a burger.Rare, very rare.
Yours on the run,
Oz
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Report
Twittering One
Archived post

4 October 2007, 14:16 UTC #4

I frankly prefer to avoid beef altogether; but under the present
circumstances -- beyond my control -- I have sampled various beef
dishes at a variety of establishments ... gratis.
I must say ...
Yesterday I had an excellent lunch at Holy Apostle Episcopal Church in
Manhattan, gratis:
fresh green salad with black olives and chick peas
brocolli cooked al dente
pasta and chicken parm with red sauce
crisp bartlett pears
lemonade

Report
Michelle Steiner
Archived post

4 October 2007, 14:39 UTC #5

In article <[email hidden]>,
Coleah said:
You are blaming the President and Vice President of the United States
of America personally for E. Coli in hamburger processed by Topps
Meat Company of Elizabeth, N.J ?????
No, he is not; learn to read for comprehension.
--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

Report
Doug Freese
Archived post

4 October 2007, 16:36 UTC #6

"Coleah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
You are blaming the President and Vice President of the United States
of America personally for E. Coli in hamburger processed by Topps Meat
Company of Elizabeth, N.J ?????
They fill the head of the FDA etc with cronies, sets the direction and
should create a safe environment. If the proper rules were in place
the dip [censored] NJ burger house might not have had such [censored]
cleanliness. So yes, I'm blaming the doofus brothers for doing nothing
but playing war while our education sucks, medical is only for the rich,
toys with bad pant, etc. So YES, they ARE directly responsible.

Report
Doug Freese
Archived post

4 October 2007, 16:50 UTC #7

"userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
That veto was a good thing. The kids already have health care.
Congress
just thought it might be nice to cover kids up to age 25 whose parents
make
up to $80,000 per year. In other words, let's take kids away from
private
insurance and put them on the government dole as a way to buy more
votes.
Private insurance is the problem. Care to look at the all the civilized
countries that provide heath care. We are one of biggest and we don't
have [censored]. Private health is a money hole for more of have's to take $$$
from the have nots. Just like oil. The middle class is shrinking, more
poor. Got a love a system takes for the benefit of the few.
Quoted message said:
Democratic Capitalism only works up until the time the people realize
they
have the power to receive largesse from the government. We are now
there
and witnessing the collapse of the system.
This collapse is giving the rich more money. Just think another 190
billion for the war. Interesting sense of priorities. Capitalism at its
ugliest

Report
Coleah
Archived post

4 October 2007, 18:05 UTC #8

Michelle Steiner said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
Coleah said:
You are blaming the President and Vice President of the United States
of America personally for E. Coli in hamburger processed by Topps
Meat Company of Elizabeth, N.J ?????
No, he is not; learn to read for comprehension.
His response.....................
"So yes, I'm blaming the doofus brothers for doing nothing
but playing war while our education sucks, medical is only for the
rich,
toys with bad pant, etc. So YES, they ARE directly responsible. "
Perhaps YOU need to learn to read for comprehension.

Report
userfriendly
Archived post

4 October 2007, 21:27 UTC #9

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: "userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:[email hidden]...
: > "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:
: > That veto was a good thing. The kids already have health care.
: > Congress
: > just thought it might be nice to cover kids up to age 25 whose parents
: > make
: > up to $80,000 per year. In other words, let's take kids away from
: > private
: > insurance and put them on the government dole as a way to buy more
: > votes.
:
: Private insurance is the problem. Care to look at the all the civilized
: countries that provide heath care. We are one of biggest and we don't
: have [censored]. Private health is a money hole for more of have's to take $$$
: from the have nots. Just like oil. The middle class is shrinking, more
: poor. Got a love a system takes for the benefit of the few.
You're making no sense. First you talk about vetoeing health care for kids.
So I call you on it. Then you move on to how private health care is the
problem. You could really use a good Econ 101 class.
The problem with health care (and it DIDN'T exist in the 70's), by the way,
is government involvement. Prices are artificially inflated, paperwork is
through the roof, fraud is rampant (on my dime and yours, I might add) and
the artificially high prices have spawned insurance company controls that
never existed before.
You want government health care and think its free? It's not free- it comes
from you and me and the middle class you claim to care so much about. Nor
is it good. Those countries have waiting lines for major procedures.
Canadians regularly head into the US for surgery. Name ONE thing the
government does well and doesn't totally screw up. And please, for the love
of God, don't name the US post office. Cuz that ain't even close.
Now we're moving on to the subject of the middle class? Great, let's go.
We now have more millionaires than ever before in this country (in real
dollars, adjusted for inflation). So yeah, the middle class is shrinking-
BECAUSE we are creating the conditions for wealth.
Without the rich, there can be no middle class. Who do you think provides
the jobs for the middle class?
Another issue with the shrinking class is the changing of definitions as to
what range is considered middle class.
:
: > Democratic Capitalism only works up until the time the people realize
: > they
: > have the power to receive largesse from the government. We are now
: > there
: > and witnessing the collapse of the system.
:
: This collapse is giving the rich more money. Just think another 190
: billion for the war. Interesting sense of priorities. Capitalism at its
: ugliest
Yes, Doug, you've found out the secret plans of the rich- consume the middle
class till they're gone and the economy and country go into the toilet and
the rich have no truly free place on earth in which to live. God, give me a
fricken' break here.

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

4 October 2007, 23:49 UTC #10

userfriendly said:
"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:: "userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:news:[email hidden]...
: > "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:
: > That veto was a good thing. The kids already have health care.
: > Congress
: > just thought it might be nice to cover kids up to age 25 whose parents
: > make
: > up to $80,000 per year. In other words, let's take kids away from
: > private
: > insurance and put them on the government dole as a way to buy more
: > votes.
:
: Private insurance is the problem. Care to look at the all the civilized
: countries that provide heath care. We are one of biggest and we don't
: have [censored]. Private health is a money hole for more of have's to take $$$
: from the have nots. Just like oil. The middle class is shrinking, more
: poor. Got a love a system takes for the benefit of the few.
You're making no sense. First you talk about vetoeing health care for kids.
So I call you on it. Then you move on to how private health care is the
problem. You could really use a good Econ 101 class.
The problem with health care (and it DIDN'T exist in the 70's), by the way,
is government involvement. Prices are artificially inflated, paperwork is
through the roof, fraud is rampant (on my dime and yours, I might add) and
the artificially high prices have spawned insurance company controls that
never existed before.
You want government health care and think its free? It's not free- it comes
from you and me and the middle class you claim to care so much about. Nor
is it good. Those countries have waiting lines for major procedures.
Canadians regularly head into the US for surgery. Name ONE thing the
government does well and doesn't totally screw up. And please, for the love
of God, don't name the US post office. Cuz that ain't even close.
Now we're moving on to the subject of the middle class? Great, let's go.
We now have more millionaires than ever before in this country (in real
dollars, adjusted for inflation). So yeah, the middle class is shrinking-
BECAUSE we are creating the conditions for wealth.
Without the rich, there can be no middle class. Who do you think provides
the jobs for the middle class?
Another issue with the shrinking class is the changing of definitions as to
what range is considered middle class.
:
: > Democratic Capitalism only works up until the time the people realize
: > they
: > have the power to receive largesse from the government. We are now
: > there
: > and witnessing the collapse of the system.
:
: This collapse is giving the rich more money. Just think another 190
: billion for the war. Interesting sense of priorities. Capitalism at its
: ugliest
Yes, Doug, you've found out the secret plans of the rich- consume the middle
class till they're gone and the economy and country go into the toilet and
the rich have no truly free place on earth in which to live. God, give me a
fricken' break here.

Report
Doug Freese
Archived post

5 October 2007, 03:55 UTC #11

"userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Neocon BS! If you hurry you can still get a job with the Bush boys.
With a 30% approval rate I'm not surprised to get a response. Ready,
fire, aim and then use gray matter.

Report
userfriendly
Archived post

5 October 2007, 04:18 UTC #12

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: "userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:[email hidden]...
:
:
: Neocon BS! If you hurry you can still get a job with the Bush boys.
: With a 30% approval rate I'm not surprised to get a response. Ready,
: fire, aim and then use gray matter.
:
ROFL! So you refused to answer anything I said in a substantive fashion,
then accused ME of not using MY brain! Thanks, man- I needed the chuckle.
Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till he's
gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his butt so
far he can taste his testes. Not to mention the growth of government,
allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of Bill
Clinton.
Great sniping at me. Next time, try using a scope and doing some aiming.
You were waaaayyy off.
Oh, and I'm not Neocon, either. But then, you don't even know what that
means, do you?
30% approval rate? Yep, and the democratic-led congress is at all-time
historic lows. What that means is, none of us are happy with any of them.

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

5 October 2007, 07:23 UTC #13

userfriendly said:
"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:: "userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:news:[email hidden]...
:
:
: Neocon BS! If you hurry you can still get a job with the Bush boys.
: With a 30% approval rate I'm not surprised to get a response. Ready,
: fire, aim and then use gray matter.
:
ROFL! So you refused to answer anything I said in a substantive fashion,
then accused ME of not using MY brain! Thanks, man- I needed the chuckle.
Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till he's
gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his butt so
far he can taste his testes. Not to mention the growth of government,
allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of Bill
Clinton.
Great sniping at me. Next time, try using a scope and doing some aiming.
You were waaaayyy off.
Oh, and I'm not Neocon, either. But then, you don't even know what that
means, do you?
30% approval rate? Yep, and the democratic-led congress is at all-time
historic lows. What that means is, none of us are happy with any of them.

Report
Ozzie Gontang
Archived post

5 October 2007, 07:55 UTC #14

userfriendly said:
"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till he's
gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his butt so
far he can taste his testes. Not to mention the growth of government,
allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of Bill
Clinton.
So basically, you are just another malcontent [censored], with no
solutions, just [censored]. Don't get me wrong here because I'm not
defending Douglass, he's an idiot without a doubt, but you're a prize
too pumpkin.
Yours no longer on the run,
Ozzie
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Report
Doug Freese
Archived post

5 October 2007, 10:37 UTC #15

"userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till
he's
gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his
butt so
far he can taste his testes.
We agree on immigration. Is there one good thing Bush has done since he
has been in office? You really believe giving big business those tax
breaks on the backs of everyone is better? Employment is really great.
Now we have the opportunity for both parents to hold two or three
minimum wage jobs to make ends meet while the kids get fast food and fat
and little parental guidance. The notion of the family has been
distroyed with that Texas dickwad. How can they be parents home to
nurture when they have to work multiple jobs. This is more trickle down
and it isn't working unless moving the better paying jobs offshore is
the better.
For instance Mobile/Exxon has had record profits, no, exponential
profits as they take advantage of the fluctuating oil prices. Show me
where those billions have turned into jobs. How many refinery's have
they built which was why they claim prices were escalating. All that
pumping the money into big business has done is keep the big boys rich
beyond belief. There is a difference between making a reasonable
profit and usury. is any of this profit being pumped back to find
alternates to oil. Hell no, you don't bite the hand that keeps you in
multiple estates.
The big boys fed Bush's and now they get their rewards. Both parties
are guilty but the pub's are openly shameless.
Quoted message said:
Not to mention the growth of government,
But wait, he's a publican and aren't they anti big government?
Quoted message said:
allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of
Bill
Clinton.
So let's take a step back, what president have you ever, if any,
approved of. Other than Clinton's BJ, we were in damn good shape as a
country. Am I sniffing out a libertarian.
Quoted message said:
Yep, and the democratic-led congress is at all-time
historic lows. What that means is, none of us are happy with any of
them.
We agree on this point. The publicans are playing Che and thinking with
their [censored] (and I think Condi does have one) and the Dems to date are
panty wastes. If Bush and Co. Hadn't imploded the dems would be

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

5 October 2007, 11:51 UTC #16

Doug Freese said:
"userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till
he's
gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his
butt so
far he can taste his testes.
We agree on immigration. Is there one good thing Bush has done since he
has been in office? You really believe giving big business those tax
breaks on the backs of everyone is better? Employment is really great.
Now we have the opportunity for both parents to hold two or three
minimum wage jobs to make ends meet while the kids get fast food and fat
and little parental guidance. The notion of the family has been
distroyed with that Texas dickwad. How can they be parents home to
nurture when they have to work multiple jobs. This is more trickle down
and it isn't working unless moving the better paying jobs offshore is
the better.
For instance Mobile/Exxon has had record profits, no, exponential
profits as they take advantage of the fluctuating oil prices. Show me
where those billions have turned into jobs. How many refinery's have
they built which was why they claim prices were escalating. All that
pumping the money into big business has done is keep the big boys rich
beyond belief. There is a difference between making a reasonable
profit and usury. is any of this profit being pumped back to find
alternates to oil. Hell no, you don't bite the hand that keeps you in
multiple estates.
The big boys fed Bush's and now they get their rewards. Both parties
are guilty but the pub's are openly shameless.
Quoted message said:
Not to mention the growth of government,
But wait, he's a publican and aren't they anti big government?
Quoted message said:
allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of
Bill
Clinton.
So let's take a step back, what president have you ever, if any,
approved of. Other than Clinton's BJ, we were in damn good shape as a
country. Am I sniffing out a libertarian.
Quoted message said:
Yep, and the democratic-led congress is at all-time
historic lows. What that means is, none of us are happy with any of
them.
We agree on this point. The publicans are playing Che and thinking with
their [censored] (and I think Condi does have one) and the Dems to date are
panty wastes. If Bush and Co. Hadn't imploded the dems would be

Report
Dayrl
Archived post

5 October 2007, 13:23 UTC #17

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till he's
gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his butt
so
far he can taste his testes.
We agree on immigration. Is there one good thing Bush has done since he
has been in office? You really believe giving big business those tax
breaks on the backs of everyone is better? Employment is really great. Now
we have the opportunity for both parents to hold two or three minimum wage
jobs to make ends meet while the kids get fast food and fat and little
parental guidance. The notion of the family has been distroyed with that
Texas dickwad. How can they be parents home to nurture when they have to
work multiple jobs. This is more trickle down and it isn't working unless
moving the better paying jobs offshore is the better.
You still kind of remind me of my grandpa. Eisenhower was terrible, Kennedy
got us into Vietnam, Nixon was a crook, and Carter was the all time cat's
meow. The younger generation was imploding and the government was on the
verge of Armageddon. Is that about it?

Report
userfriendly
Archived post

5 October 2007, 16:50 UTC #18

"Ozzie Gontang" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
: On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:18:57 -0400, "userfriendly"
: <[email hidden]> wrote:
:
: >"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: >news:[email hidden]...
: >Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till he's
: >gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his butt
so
: >far he can taste his testes. Not to mention the growth of government,
: >allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
: >unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of
Bill
: >Clinton.
: >
:
: So basically, you are just another malcontent [censored], with no
: solutions, just [censored]. Don't get me wrong here because I'm not
: defending Douglass, he's an idiot without a doubt, but you're a prize
: too pumpkin.
: Yours no longer on the run,
: Ozzie
:
My God, how many different personalities do you need to take me on?

Report
userfriendly
Archived post

5 October 2007, 17:30 UTC #19

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: "userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:[email hidden]...
: > Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till
: > he's
: > gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his
: > butt so
: > far he can taste his testes.
:
: We agree on immigration. Is there one good thing Bush has done since he
: has been in office? You really believe giving big business those tax
: breaks on the backs of everyone is better? Employment is really great.
: Now we have the opportunity for both parents to hold two or three
: minimum wage jobs to make ends meet while the kids get fast food and fat
: and little parental guidance. The notion of the family has been
: distroyed with that Texas dickwad.
It sounds like you really are Doug Freese. That sucks. I was hoping you
were one of Bill's personalities. Then I'd understand then nonsense you are
spewing.
OK, let's have at it again. Yes, I believe we are better. The economy has
been through an unparalleled time of growth and expansion. This is made all
the more incredible in light of the huge problem caused by 9/11 and the
costs still being associated with it. That having been said, our deficits
are out of friggin' control.
Employment, as you point out, is great. You've obviously heard someone
talking about the new jobs being low-paying employment. This is not
necessarily the case, but overall there are problems that are not being
addressed. My wife's high-paying computer programmer job went to India.
The main reason- high health-care costs that won't be fixed with a
government takeover that still takes from employers and businesses in order
to shield the tax costs from the average consumer.
Instead, employers need to get out of the health care business and
individuals need to buy low pay, high deduct health care and allow
competition to once again enter the system. Otherwise, the costs skyrocket.
Because, really, if it only costs $20 to run to the doc everytime you got a
fever and want some pills (and only $15 for those), there's no reason not to
do so. Therefore, without the true cost/benefit ratio for consideration as
a prohibitive force, the costs run wild and everyone gets upset that they
have to pay more for something most people are creating.
But to then take it to the family as though Bush's policies made both
parents have to work is intellectually negligent.
Under Clinton, 2 parent households with both employed hit an all-time high.
Not NOW, but THEN. Moreover, studies from those who lean left have assured
us that kids actually do better when mom and dad work and the kids get all
that great socialization in the daycare centers. I think it's all [censored], but
that's what we've been hearing for years.
By the way, the number of women leaving the workplace to become full-time
moms is on the increase and has been for several years now.
: How can they be parents home to
: nurture when they have to work multiple jobs. This is more trickle down
: and it isn't working unless moving the better paying jobs offshore is
: the better.
:
Agreed, the global economy is supposed to produce economies of scale that
give comparative advantages for all. But I don't believe that to be the
case. If we export our high-paying jobs in this global environment, all we
have left is service and consumerism. As the tide rises for other
countries, it could actually become a zero sum game in which our waters fall
and we go back to one car families and meat only once or twice per week at
dinner. At this point, I honestly believe America is screwed.
I just don't believe looking askance at either party or any one person- even
a president- while looking to the other party to solve the problem is
helpful.
:
: For instance Mobile/Exxon has had record profits, no, exponential
: profits as they take advantage of the fluctuating oil prices. Show me
: where those billions have turned into jobs. How many refinery's have
: they built which was why they claim prices were escalating. All that
: pumping the money into big business has done is keep the big boys rich
: beyond belief. There is a difference between making a reasonable
: profit and usury. is any of this profit being pumped back to find
: alternates to oil. Hell no, you don't bite the hand that keeps you in
: multiple estates.
Actually, the oil companies know that their time is at an end when it comes
to oil and are trying hard to lead the way into alternative fuel
technologies so they can remain at the top of the heap. Interestingly, the
high prices have created record profits, but NOT because the oil companies
are taking a great share of profit per gallon pumped. They aren't.
The difference between profit and usury is competition. It's still working
with oil companies. It is not in place when it comes to the origin of oil.
And that creates problems through artificially high prices based on
preplanned bottlenecks. Not to mention the fact that we can't build
refineries or explore for oil anywhere near this country without people
screaming about the environment. Nevermind the 3rd world nations that are
turning the environment into a wasteland.
:
: The big boys fed Bush's and now they get their rewards. Both parties
: are guilty but the pub's are openly shameless.
So are the Democrats. It's not just one party that's the problem, Doug.
That's (part of) where you've gotten off track.
:
: > Not to mention the growth of government,
:
: But wait, he's a publican and aren't they anti big government?
NO- Bush is NOT anti-big government. That's one of the reasons why his base
has left him.
: > allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
: > unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of
: > Bill
: > Clinton.
:
: So let's take a step back, what president have you ever, if any,
: approved of. Other than Clinton's BJ, we were in damn good shape as a
: country. Am I sniffing out a libertarian.
No, Doug, we weren't. We were literally giving away secrets. It was under
Clinton that China became the world power militarily and economically that
it now is. They didn't have the ballistic systems to deliver nukes
accurately into the US until the 90's under Clinton. Remember the missing
laptops, etc. Look at Clinton's Asian connections, campaign contributions,
etc. During the Republican Craig scandal, Hillary's fundraising scandal was
obscured. Look it up.
We were busy social engineering our military under Clinton and we only got
spending under control because of the 1994 congressional elections.
Remember this from Bill Clinton after the landslide losses for the
Democrats: "To the American people I say, I have heard you." He then tried
to avoid a target date for getting the deficit under control. The
Republicans pressed him and got it. Then he claimed credit.
Clinton was like most people with power, utterly corrupt. Not just the BJ
in the workplace during office hours with a subordinate employee. Pardons,
people renting the Lincoln bedroom, spy scandals (as mentioned), bombing
Iraq and making a case for war based on- what?- the fact that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. This was LATE '90's.
No, I don't like Bush at all. Nor do I like Clinton and could never vote
for Hillary. God, what an awful joke she is.
Which prez did I like? Not even going there. There have been some. But
I'll continue to resist your efforts to label me and then attack the label.
: > Yep, and the democratic-led congress is at all-time
: > historic lows. What that means is, none of us are happy with any of
: > them.
:
: We agree on this point. The publicans are playing Che and thinking with
: their [censored] (and I think Condi does have one) and the Dems to date are
: panty wastes. If Bush and Co. Hadn't imploded the dems would be
:
Really? That's the level of your thinking? You have to attack the most
powerful African-American woman ever to hold office in the country?
Personally?
Tell me again about the rich, Doug. Clinton had more white millionaires in
his cabinet than Bush does. Clinton talked diversity, but Bush said nothing
and actually did something with Rice, Gonzales, Colin Powell, et al.
OK- with your Condi comment, we're done.

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

5 October 2007, 18:06 UTC #20

userfriendly said:
"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:: "userfriendly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:news:[email hidden]...
: > Further, you assume I approve of Bush. I don't. I can't wait till
: > he's
: > gone. On illegal immigration alone, the guy's got his head up his
: > butt so
: > far he can taste his testes.
:
: We agree on immigration. Is there one good thing Bush has done since he
: has been in office? You really believe giving big business those tax
: breaks on the backs of everyone is better? Employment is really great.
: Now we have the opportunity for both parents to hold two or three
: minimum wage jobs to make ends meet while the kids get fast food and fat
: and little parental guidance. The notion of the family has been
: distroyed with that Texas dickwad.
It sounds like you really are Doug Freese. That sucks. I was hoping you
were one of Bill's personalities. Then I'd understand then nonsense you are
spewing.
OK, let's have at it again. Yes, I believe we are better. The economy has
been through an unparalleled time of growth and expansion. This is made all
the more incredible in light of the huge problem caused by 9/11 and the
costs still being associated with it. That having been said, our deficits
are out of friggin' control.
Employment, as you point out, is great. You've obviously heard someone
talking about the new jobs being low-paying employment. This is not
necessarily the case, but overall there are problems that are not being
addressed. My wife's high-paying computer programmer job went to India.
The main reason- high health-care costs that won't be fixed with a
government takeover that still takes from employers and businesses in order
to shield the tax costs from the average consumer.
Instead, employers need to get out of the health care business and
individuals need to buy low pay, high deduct health care and allow
competition to once again enter the system. Otherwise, the costs skyrocket.
Because, really, if it only costs $20 to run to the doc everytime you got a
fever and want some pills (and only $15 for those), there's no reason not to
do so. Therefore, without the true cost/benefit ratio for consideration as
a prohibitive force, the costs run wild and everyone gets upset that they
have to pay more for something most people are creating.
But to then take it to the family as though Bush's policies made both
parents have to work is intellectually negligent.
Under Clinton, 2 parent households with both employed hit an all-time high.
Not NOW, but THEN. Moreover, studies from those who lean left have assured
us that kids actually do better when mom and dad work and the kids get all
that great socialization in the daycare centers. I think it's all [censored], but
that's what we've been hearing for years.
By the way, the number of women leaving the workplace to become full-time
moms is on the increase and has been for several years now.
: How can they be parents home to
: nurture when they have to work multiple jobs. This is more trickle down
: and it isn't working unless moving the better paying jobs offshore is
: the better.
:
Agreed, the global economy is supposed to produce economies of scale that
give comparative advantages for all. But I don't believe that to be the
case. If we export our high-paying jobs in this global environment, all we
have left is service and consumerism. As the tide rises for other
countries, it could actually become a zero sum game in which our waters fall
and we go back to one car families and meat only once or twice per week at
dinner. At this point, I honestly believe America is screwed.
I just don't believe looking askance at either party or any one person- even
a president- while looking to the other party to solve the problem is
helpful.
:
: For instance Mobile/Exxon has had record profits, no, exponential
: profits as they take advantage of the fluctuating oil prices. Show me
: where those billions have turned into jobs. How many refinery's have
: they built which was why they claim prices were escalating. All that
: pumping the money into big business has done is keep the big boys rich
: beyond belief. There is a difference between making a reasonable
: profit and usury. is any of this profit being pumped back to find
: alternates to oil. Hell no, you don't bite the hand that keeps you in
: multiple estates.
Actually, the oil companies know that their time is at an end when it comes
to oil and are trying hard to lead the way into alternative fuel
technologies so they can remain at the top of the heap. Interestingly, the
high prices have created record profits, but NOT because the oil companies
are taking a great share of profit per gallon pumped. They aren't.
The difference between profit and usury is competition. It's still working
with oil companies. It is not in place when it comes to the origin of oil.
And that creates problems through artificially high prices based on
preplanned bottlenecks. Not to mention the fact that we can't build
refineries or explore for oil anywhere near this country without people
screaming about the environment. Nevermind the 3rd world nations that are
turning the environment into a wasteland.
:
: The big boys fed Bush's and now they get their rewards. Both parties
: are guilty but the pub's are openly shameless.
So are the Democrats. It's not just one party that's the problem, Doug.
That's (part of) where you've gotten off track.
:
: > Not to mention the growth of government,
:
: But wait, he's a publican and aren't they anti big government?
NO- Bush is NOT anti-big government. That's one of the reasons why his base
has left him.
: > allowing Ted Kennedy to virtually write the last school bill. No, my
: > unthinking friend, I do NOT approve of GW Bush. Nor did I approve of
: > Bill
: > Clinton.
:
: So let's take a step back, what president have you ever, if any,
: approved of. Other than Clinton's BJ, we were in damn good shape as a
: country. Am I sniffing out a libertarian.
No, Doug, we weren't. We were literally giving away secrets. It was under
Clinton that China became the world power militarily and economically that
it now is. They didn't have the ballistic systems to deliver nukes
accurately into the US until the 90's under Clinton. Remember the missing
laptops, etc. Look at Clinton's Asian connections, campaign contributions,
etc. During the Republican Craig scandal, Hillary's fundraising scandal was
obscured. Look it up.
We were busy social engineering our military under Clinton and we only got
spending under control because of the 1994 congressional elections.
Remember this from Bill Clinton after the landslide losses for the
Democrats: "To the American people I say, I have heard you." He then tried
to avoid a target date for getting the deficit under control. The
Republicans pressed him and got it. Then he claimed credit.
Clinton was like most people with power, utterly corrupt. Not just the BJ
in the workplace during office hours with a subordinate employee. Pardons,
people renting the Lincoln bedroom, spy scandals (as mentioned), bombing
Iraq and making a case for war based on- what?- the fact that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. This was LATE '90's.
No, I don't like Bush at all. Nor do I like Clinton and could never vote
for Hillary. God, what an awful joke she is.
Which prez did I like? Not even going there. There have been some. But
I'll continue to resist your efforts to label me and then attack the label.
: > Yep, and the democratic-led congress is at all-time
: > historic lows. What that means is, none of us are happy with any of
: > them.
:
: We agree on this point. The publicans are playing Che and thinking with
: their [censored] (and I think Condi does have one) and the Dems to date are
: panty wastes. If Bush and Co. Hadn't imploded the dems would be
:
Really? That's the level of your thinking? You have to attack the most
powerful African-American woman ever to hold office in the country?
Personally?
Tell me again about the rich, Doug. Clinton had more white millionaires in
his cabinet than Bush does. Clinton talked diversity, but Bush said nothing
and actually did something with Rice, Gonzales, Colin Powell, et al.
OK- with your Condi comment, we're done.

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread