Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Republic)   Those who benefit most from Obamacare are the same people who are most against it. This is why we can't have nice things   (tnr.com) divider line 329
    More: Ironic, obamacare, federal benefits, unpopularity, health law, government insurance, working poor  
•       •       •

3021 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2012 at 3:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



329 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-23 08:57:59 AM  
That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?
 
2012-06-23 10:44:09 AM  

voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING


It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.
 
2012-06-23 11:16:54 AM  
My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.
 
2012-06-23 11:35:34 AM  
It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.

Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.
 
2012-06-23 11:49:12 AM  
With very few exceptions, people who are impoverished are in that position due to ignorance, and chronic bad decision making.

That's why they vote GOP, even though the party's unspoken platform is to utterly guarantee that impoverished people will never have the opportunity to better themselves.
 
2012-06-23 11:50:54 AM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


No, it's not stealing. It's taxation. I'm cool with paying my taxes to help those less fortunate than myself, defend the country, provide invaluable services to all including myself.

/Don't be such a selfish dick.
 
2012-06-23 11:52:16 AM  
But the man responsible has a funny sounding name! That should be more than enough information for most people to make a rational decision!
 
2012-06-23 12:06:23 PM  
www.modleft.com
 
2012-06-23 12:07:17 PM  
Now that the Supreme Court has left the fate of the Affordable Care Act hanging another few days, it seems an opportune moment to pose a question that has been growing on me after several recent reporting trips: why aren't the most obvious beneficiaries of the law more aware of it?

Because FoxNews
 
2012-06-23 12:08:18 PM  

DarwiOdrade: [www.modleft.com image 500x370]


The hammer and sickle really drive the point home.
 
2012-06-23 12:12:08 PM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


Farking right. I'm going to build my own highway system!
 
2012-06-23 12:19:05 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

Farking right. I'm going to build my own highway system!


I have one but a bunch of other jerks keep using it.
 
2012-06-23 12:26:53 PM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


A toll both will be erected at the end of your driveway shortly.
 
2012-06-23 12:28:16 PM  
The same people who don't want others to have access to affordable healthcare because it costs money have no problem with their tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary wars and corporate welfare.
 
2012-06-23 12:28:20 PM  

unyon: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

A toll both will be erected at the end of your driveway shortly.


You really think he ever leaves his mom's basement?
 
2012-06-23 12:33:18 PM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


bankers, for one. Wall street, for another. why are bailouts for banks and CEOs good, but we can't help the sick and poor without the GOP getting into a snit over it?
 
2012-06-23 12:34:43 PM  

verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.


Whatever. I want every last cent of my money going towards a $1000 toilet seat, or a second engine of a jet fighter we don't need, not the healthcare of my fellow citizen.

/When you think about it, a strong military is the only healthcare a good American needs.
//I LOVE YOU FREEEDOM!!!
 
2012-06-23 12:42:14 PM  

Lorelle: The same people who don't want others to have access to affordable healthcare because it costs money have no problem with their tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary wars and corporate welfare.


not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.

I think that's really what illustrates the flaws in what passes for Republican philosophies these days: they do give government bailouts a free pass. And if you say it's ok for the Fed to bail out a banker who f*cked up...then you cannot say it's a bad idea for government to help out the sick and poor. open the door to spend public money to help out a CEO, and you open the door to government helping out everyone who needs public assistance. its no different - public assistance is public assistance is public assistance. Be it a CEO needing a bailout or a single mother with 4 kids from 3 different fathers. you help one, you help them all.
 
2012-06-23 12:44:18 PM  
Expanded availability to healthcare is something good. Government intervention seems like the way to get it until things happen like drug companies learning that the government won't pay as much for some drugs so they stop producing effective meds. Even if you are willing to pay youself, the drugs no longer exist.

Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.

Expanding the healthcare is a good thing unless that healthcare becomes less effective.
 
2012-06-23 12:52:23 PM  

Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.


But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!

That's what Reagan told us in 1980. I naively believed him; then again, I was 18 years old.
 
2012-06-23 12:53:11 PM  

Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.



OK, I'll try to keep it simple. Bankers and investors are job creators. They create jobs. They're good for America.

Sick people can't work. They create no jobs. They are bad for America. Sick people are lucky we let them keep their citizenship.

And since I have a better chance of becoming a billionaire Wall Street investor than I do of ever needing the health care system, I'm OK with this.

/One cannot see the countless examples of the horrible consequences of Republican Ideology, both intended and unintended, without realizing exactly how incredibly sick these people really are.
 
2012-06-23 12:56:34 PM  

Lorelle: Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.

But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!

That's what Reagan told us in 1980. I naively believed him; then again, I was 18 years old.


the other thing that gets me is the religious angle. Christ made if VERY clear - it is the duty of christians everywhere to help the sick and poor. you wanna be in the silly hat club, you help the sick and poor. Period. No exceptions. But the GOP wants to STOP helping the sick and poor. they want to make it MORE difficult for the sick and poor to have access to affordable medical care. Then the GOP turns around and says that they're 'Christian' and very moral people.

it's almost as if the Republican leadership wants to force Christians to reject Christian morality.
 
2012-06-23 01:01:52 PM  

Dufus: Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.


It's Medicare/Medicaid's fault that the drugmakers are more interested in money than health?
 
2012-06-23 01:04:44 PM  

Weaver95:
the other thing that gets me is the religious angle. Christ made if VERY clear - it is the duty of christians everywhere to help the sick and poor. you wanna be in the silly hat club, you help the sick and poor. Period. No exceptions. But the GOP wants to STOP helping the sick and poor. they want to make it MORE difficult for the sick and poor to have access to affordable medical care. Then the GOP turns around and says that they're 'Christian' and very moral people.

it's almost as if the Republican leadership wants to force Christians to reject Christian morality.


If Jesus Christ showed up today, Republicans and Teabaggers would crucify him again. No way would they tolerate a homeless, unemployed dude who hung out with street people, defended prostitutes, and had the nerve to ask the rich for money to feed the poor.
 
2012-06-23 01:10:17 PM  

Weaver95: Lorelle: Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.

But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!

That's what Reagan told us in 1980. I naively believed him; then again, I was 18 years old.

the other thing that gets me is the religious angle. Christ made if VERY clear - it is the duty of christians everywhere to help the sick and poor. you wanna be in the silly hat club, you help the sick and poor. Period. No exceptions. But the GOP wants to STOP helping the sick and poor. they want to make it MORE difficult for the sick and poor to have access to affordable medical care. Then the GOP turns around and says that they're 'Christian' and very moral people.

it's almost as if the Republican leadership wants to force Christians to reject Christian morality.


Yeah, I have trouble picturing Christ campaigning against universal health care.
 
2012-06-23 01:25:09 PM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


Rich people get rich by having others work for them.
That "something for nothing" part you have touched on can be justified by my former statement.
 
2012-06-23 01:33:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dufus: Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.

It's Medicare/Medicaid's fault that the drugmakers are more interested in money than health?


No

Unfortunately, it IS a reality and the government can't FORCE the drug companies to keep producing those drugs. You have to take such things into account when passing new laws concerning healthcare. Everything has consequences, no matter how well intended.

One of the lessons learned from growing up in the country is that following an old path can be long and tiresome, but taking a new shorter path across a pasture means you're probably gonna find unexpected crap in your way and some of it might be extra nasty. Choices, choices.
 
2012-06-23 02:14:19 PM  

GAT_00: It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.


You have just provided the reason why Florida votes the way it does. We have all these retirees down here who keep voting for politicians who want to get rid of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, even though most of them are deriving benefits from one or both. These people are their own worst enemy when it comes to politics.
 
2012-06-23 02:22:11 PM  
pbh.pbhmedianetwork.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-06-23 02:35:39 PM  

St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.


So did Richard Nixon.
 
2012-06-23 02:39:14 PM  

snowjack: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

So did Richard Nixon.


Uh-oh. Sekrit commie.
 
2012-06-23 03:06:13 PM  

St_Francis_P: snowjack: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

So did Richard Nixon.

Uh-oh. Sekrit commie.


He did go to China, after all.
 
2012-06-23 03:44:27 PM  

lohphat: [pbh.pbhmedianetwork.netdna-cdn.com image 640x551]


That photo never gets old.
 
2012-06-23 03:44:35 PM  
it's simple: republicans have long gotten their constituents to vote against their interests using the three Gs: guns, god and gays. it's also why they oppose education so vehemently. an intelligent populace is much less likely to vote against its interests.
 
2012-06-23 03:45:23 PM  
What really kills me is the concept (like the argument I had here a few months back with some asshole) that some of these people, even before the Medicaid cap is raised, will not apply for government help - preferring instead to suffer (and hurt their children) so that they can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or whatever.

fark that. If you qualify for assistance, take the farking assistance. Don't let your goddamn petty politics endanger your children.
 
2012-06-23 03:45:56 PM  

GAT_00: It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.

Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.


Dickinson: Perhaps so, but don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us...

All [singing]: TO THE RIGHT! EVER TO THE RIGHT! NEVER TO THE LEFT! FOREVER TO THE RIGHT!!
 
2012-06-23 03:50:26 PM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


Because "I've got mine, fark you" is an unsustainable economic model, despite what Ayn Rand says.
 
2012-06-23 03:55:37 PM  
Ah, the GOP.

Getting morons to vote against their economic self interests using divide and conquer strategies and dog whistle racism is kinda their forte.
 
2012-06-23 03:56:14 PM  
Fine. These people love the current system so much, let a few hundred thousand more of these idiots loose their homes or declare bankruptcy due to unforeseen medical bills. Then maybe they'll wise up.

Makes me wonder if most people even deserve affordable medical care.
 
2012-06-23 04:01:39 PM  
Watching the US healthcare debate from across the border makes me queasy. It's like seeing Canada's past and future simultaneously.
 
2012-06-23 04:02:22 PM  
The GOP base vote GOP because they want to stick it to the libs, regardless of how much damage they do to themselves in the process. Its like trying to blow a raspberry at someone but in the process you end up cutting off your arm, foot and nose and lose a couple of major organs. but fark that noise about living well, you got one on those old libs!

GOPers take pyrric victories to heart.
 
2012-06-23 04:03:49 PM  

Gyrfalcon: GAT_00: It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.

Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.

Dickinson: Perhaps so, but don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us...

All [singing]: TO THE RIGHT! EVER TO THE RIGHT! NEVER TO THE LEFT! FOREVER TO THE RIGHT!!


There's a guy I work with who used to run his own business, who's having a really, really hard time with the fact that he'll never be a millionaire. He was railing against estate taxes one day, and I asked him if he was eligible for them. I asked if his father was eligible for them. Then I pointed out that, in all likelihood, he would never, ever be in a position where the estate tax would be an issue for him.

I swear, he looked as if he was about to cry. He was incredibly depressed for the rest of the day. Now he avoids me a lot. I don't really mind.
 
2012-06-23 04:05:47 PM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


photos1.blogger.com

It's fun to take from liberals, but we don't need no dental work.
 
2012-06-23 04:06:28 PM  
It's easy to get people to vote against their interests. Claim a different group is benefiting more than the chosen voting block (or just invent a group from whole cloth and claim they are benefiting more), and watch your little voters push their way to the front of the voting line to take something away from themselves.

If you don't want your citizens to have job safety, tell them some other group is getting better job safety, and you have the chance to take that away from them if you vote on X. Don't want them to have healthcare? Tell them someone else is benefiting from the healthcare law, and voters have the chance to take it away. Repeat as often as you'd like; it's not like the American voter is going to catch on any time soon.
 
2012-06-23 04:06:44 PM  

GAT_00: Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.


It also explains why the poor GOPers are so damn adamant against raising taxes on the rich who can EASILY take a tiny hit and still live comfortably: they see themselves as being millionaires any second now. At any point their ship will come in and they will be rich, so they don't want to pay more taxes on their imaginary riches.
 
2012-06-23 04:07:17 PM  

Dufus: Expanded availability to healthcare is something good. Government intervention seems like the way to get it until things happen like drug companies learning that the government won't pay as much for some drugs so they stop producing effective meds. Even if you are willing to pay youself, the drugs no longer exist.

Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.

Expanding the healthcare is a good thing unless that healthcare becomes less effective.


In my own lifetime the entire concept of a not for profit healthcare system, which my parents and I found quite affordable, was completely tossed out the window under the premise that the profit motive and competition will drive costs down.

How's that working out for ya so far?

/They did this same damn thing with energy generation and distribution too.
//And how's THAT working out for ya?
 
2012-06-23 04:07:49 PM  
Obvious tag at a townhall meeting screaming about soshulizm?
 
2012-06-23 04:07:57 PM  

Gyrfalcon: GAT_00: It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.

Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.

Dickinson: Perhaps so, but don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us...

All [singing]: TO THE RIGHT! EVER TO THE RIGHT! NEVER TO THE LEFT! FOREVER TO THE RIGHT!!


I saw a Futurama commercial the other day that summed this up pretty well. Nixon was ranting on how he would lower taxes for the rich and use the poor for shark food, while Fry cheered. Leela pointed out he was clearly voting against his best interests. Fry said, "Yeah, but I might get rich!"

/CSB.
//tell it at parties
 
2012-06-23 04:08:13 PM  
Americans are their own worst enemies. That's usually how it goes for large empires right before they collapse into obscurity.
 
2012-06-23 04:08:33 PM  
If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.
 
2012-06-23 04:08:57 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

Because "I've got mine, fark you" is an unsustainable economic model, despite what Ayn Rand says.


Far better to follow the morally superior tenet of "Fark you, give me yours"
 
2012-06-23 04:11:32 PM  

Dufus: Expanded availability to healthcare is something good. Government intervention seems like the way to get it until things happen like drug companies learning that the government won't pay as much for some drugs so they stop producing effective meds. Even if you are willing to pay youself, the drugs no longer exist.

Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.

Expanding the healthcare is a good thing unless that healthcare becomes less effective.


It's a global market, dude! Just buy them from Europe, Mexico, Canada or India. Human life has a higher value in these places which is why meds cost 10% what they do in the US. Mexico, India, isn't that ironic?
 
2012-06-23 04:11:38 PM  
HA HA!!! WE ARE WINNING!
 
2012-06-23 04:11:49 PM  

One Bad Apple: Tyrone Slothrop: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

Because "I've got mine, fark you" is an unsustainable economic model, despite what Ayn Rand says.

Far better to follow the morally superior tenet of "Fark you, give me yours" "Do you enjoy an orderly society with upward mobility for a majority of it's members? Well that costs a bit to maintain, so pay yer taxes"


Accuracy and all that....
 
2012-06-23 04:11:57 PM  

NeverDrunk23: It also explains why the poor GOPers are so damn adamant against raising taxes on the rich who can EASILY take a tiny hit and still live comfortably: they see themselves as being millionaires any second now. At any point their ship will come in and they will be rich, so they don't want to pay more taxes on their imaginary riches.


I had a friend like that. He was getting screwed on some home refinancing thing by his bank, and made a FaceBook status update out of an open letter to them. He literally said "I might not be rich right now, but I will be some day, and then you'll be sorry you lost my business!" He's a low-rent accountant for a corrugated box factory. How the fark is he going to get rich enough for a bank to take notice? He later unfriended me because I asked him to provide a single shred of proof backing up some rant he had about unions.
 
2012-06-23 04:12:26 PM  
Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.
 
2012-06-23 04:12:49 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: NeverDrunk23: It also explains why the poor GOPers are so damn adamant against raising taxes on the rich who can EASILY take a tiny hit and still live comfortably: they see themselves as being millionaires any second now. At any point their ship will come in and they will be rich, so they don't want to pay more taxes on their imaginary riches.

I had a friend like that. He was getting screwed on some home refinancing thing by his bank, and made a FaceBook status update out of an open letter to them. He literally said "I might not be rich right now, but I will be some day, and then you'll be sorry you lost my business!" He's a low-rent accountant for a corrugated box factory. How the fark is he going to get rich enough for a bank to take notice? He later unfriended me because I asked him to provide a single shred of proof backing up some rant he had about unions.


when are you leaving for Canada?
 
2012-06-23 04:13:24 PM  

St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.


This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery
 
2012-06-23 04:13:47 PM  

relcec: when are you leaving for Canada?


... ?
 
2012-06-23 04:14:45 PM  

NeverDrunk23: GAT_00: Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.

It also explains why the poor GOPers are so damn adamant against raising taxes on the rich who can EASILY take a tiny hit and still live comfortably: they see themselves as being millionaires any second now. At any point their ship will come in and they will be rich, so they don't want to pay more taxes on their imaginary riches.


The really funny part is that these yahoos are so farking stupid that even if they did win the lottery, they'd blow it all within a year on gold-plated NASCAR beer coolers and high-rise trailers.
 
2012-06-23 04:15:00 PM  

MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery


and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.
 
2012-06-23 04:15:27 PM  

NeverDrunk23: The GOP base vote GOP because they want to stick it to the libs, regardless of how much damage they do to themselves in the process. Its like trying to blow a raspberry at someone but in the process you end up cutting off your arm, foot and nose and lose a couple of major organs. but fark that noise about living well, you got one on those old libs!

GOPers take pyrric victories to heart.


Ah the "cut off your nose to spite your face" strategy. It's always a good one :P.
 
2012-06-23 04:15:40 PM  

badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.


How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.
 
2012-06-23 04:16:18 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: ... ?


your team lost and you were gonna leave the state you are from if not the country, right?
when are you moving?
 
2012-06-23 04:16:48 PM  

relcec: LouDobbsAwaaaay: ... ?

your team lost and you were gonna leave the state you are from if not the country, right?
when are you moving?


... ... ?
 
2012-06-23 04:17:20 PM  

relcec: MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery

and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.


So your shtick used to be arguing an incorrect point until you couldn't anymore and then apologizing for being wrong.

Now you just start right out by calling people names.

Why do you even bother?
 
2012-06-23 04:17:33 PM  

relcec: MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery

and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.


Not necessarily.

Even though there are better ways to provide for universal health coverage, the ACA was still a significant improvement.
 
2012-06-23 04:17:43 PM  

X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.


where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp
 
2012-06-23 04:20:26 PM  

relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp


Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.
 
2012-06-23 04:21:53 PM  

PillsHere: NeverDrunk23: The GOP base vote GOP because they want to stick it to the libs, regardless of how much damage they do to themselves in the process. Its like trying to blow a raspberry at someone but in the process you end up cutting off your arm, foot and nose and lose a couple of major organs. but fark that noise about living well, you got one on those old libs!

GOPers take pyrric victories to heart.

Ah the "cut off your nose to spite your face" strategy. It's always a good one :P.


I WISH it was just that. Right now the GOP base is the black knight crying about how its only a flesh wound.
 
2012-06-23 04:22:53 PM  

relcec: If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.


I also favor single-payer, universal healthcare: medicare for everyone.
 
2012-06-23 04:24:34 PM  

NeverDrunk23: PillsHere: NeverDrunk23: The GOP base vote GOP because they want to stick it to the libs, regardless of how much damage they do to themselves in the process. Its like trying to blow a raspberry at someone but in the process you end up cutting off your arm, foot and nose and lose a couple of major organs. but fark that noise about living well, you got one on those old libs!

GOPers take pyrric victories to heart.

Ah the "cut off your nose to spite your face" strategy. It's always a good one :P.

I WISH it was just that. Right now the GOP base is the black knight crying about how its only a flesh wound.


I would have thought they're more like the drunken reveler with a chainsaw about to cut off their own head.
 
2012-06-23 04:24:44 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: relcec: LouDobbsAwaaaay: ... ?

your team lost and you were gonna leave the state you are from if not the country, right?
when are you moving?

... ... ?




LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.


did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?
 
2012-06-23 04:26:00 PM  

Lunaville: relcec: If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.

I also favor single-payer, universal healthcare: medicare for everyone.


I think relcec might be off his anti-psychotics. He accused me of planning to move to Canada because ... well, I actually have no idea why he accused me of that.

/not that I have anything against Canada
//seems like a decent country
 
2012-06-23 04:26:57 PM  

relcec:

LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.

did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?


Holy crap I have a stalker. Who do I report this kind of thing to?
 
2012-06-23 04:27:28 PM  

X-boxershorts: NeverDrunk23: PillsHere: NeverDrunk23: The GOP base vote GOP because they want to stick it to the libs, regardless of how much damage they do to themselves in the process. Its like trying to blow a raspberry at someone but in the process you end up cutting off your arm, foot and nose and lose a couple of major organs. but fark that noise about living well, you got one on those old libs!

GOPers take pyrric victories to heart.

Ah the "cut off your nose to spite your face" strategy. It's always a good one :P.

I WISH it was just that. Right now the GOP base is the black knight crying about how its only a flesh wound.

I would have thought they're more like the drunken reveler with a chainsaw about to cut off their own head.


Tell them that feedom oil is in their veins and they will start slicing themselves before you finish the sentence.

Whatever they protest against other groups doing which may or may not be totally imaginary, they actually support 100% in their group.
 
2012-06-23 04:29:17 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lunaville: relcec: If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.

I also favor single-payer, universal healthcare: medicare for everyone.

I think relcec might be off his anti-psychotics. He accused me of planning to move to Canada because ... well, I actually have no idea why he accused me of that.

/not that I have anything against Canada
//seems like a decent country>

Except for the Canadians, amirite?

/i'm not

 
2012-06-23 04:30:59 PM  
Keep your government hands off my Medicare you damn dirty apes. It's my Medicare and I want it now!
 
2012-06-23 04:31:19 PM  

relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp


I qualify for $218/mo in foodstamp benefits. Divided by 30 that's 7 dollars a day for 2 people. Slighly over $1 per meal.

I love you man, you make my arguments so clearly.
 
2012-06-23 04:31:23 PM  

New Farkin User Name: Except for the Canadians, amirite?

/i'm not


I've never noticed anything particularly annoying about Canadians. Had a waitress in Montreal once who obviously didn't like Americans, but what are you going to do. She gave us terrible service and we left a terrible tip.
 
2012-06-23 04:35:46 PM  

Weaver95: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

bankers, for one. Wall street, for another. why are bailouts for banks and CEOs good, but we can't help the sick and poor without the GOP getting into a snit over it?


When in reality the bankers and wall street would get it anyway. The money was taking to long via monthly payments to trickle up into their pockets.
 
2012-06-23 04:39:21 PM  

X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.



I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.
 
2012-06-23 04:40:01 PM  
If Obamacare is repealed, the insurance company will roll back the tripling in premiums we have had over the last 3 or 4 years that they blamed Obamacare for right? right?
 
2012-06-23 04:41:20 PM  

relcec: X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.


I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.


Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you?
 
2012-06-23 04:42:06 PM  

relcec: X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.


I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.


I used the farking calculator you childish dickhead. I posted it upthread asshole

What a farking jerk you are.
 
2012-06-23 04:42:20 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you?


I'm imagining him frantically typing his posts out while two nurses try to force-feed him a pill.
 
2012-06-23 04:43:53 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you?

I'm imagining him frantically typing his posts out while two nurses try to force-feed him a pill.


Yea, he seems to be 3 posts away from having a mass Fark meltdown. Its been awhile since that happened.
 
2012-06-23 04:45:00 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you?

I'm imagining him frantically typing his posts out while two nurses try to force-feed him a pill.


You many not have been around for this, so here is an interesting exchange I had with him a while back that is rather amusing considering his posts in this thread thus far.
 
2012-06-23 04:45:27 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: relcec:

LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.

did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?

Holy crap I have a stalker. Who do I report this kind of thing to?



I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.
 
2012-06-23 04:49:01 PM  

Lorelle: But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!


Just the very idea of people being glad for anything to "trickle down" is dehumanizing and degrading.
 
2012-06-23 04:51:20 PM  

relcec: I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.


Here's the part that makes me chuckle. I apparently said something in some post-Walker-election thread that twisted you up so bad you carried the rage around inside you for 17 straight days. Then you saw me post here and thought to yourself "this is my time to strike". You have specific quotes of mine committed to memory. Meanwhile, I have no farking clue who you are.

So is the revenge as sweet as you thought it would be? Is this a dish best served cold?

/I'm living rent-free inside your head and I didn't even know it
//thanks for melting down and letting me know
 
2012-06-23 04:51:31 PM  

relcec: LouDobbsAwaaaay: relcec:

LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.

did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?

Holy crap I have a stalker. Who do I report this kind of thing to?


I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.


Skills like your mad math skills for instance?

I mean really, can you explain how a guy that is "smarter than 99% of you assholes" (your quote) can't figure out that $4.01 per day equals $1.37 per meal?
 
2012-06-23 04:53:07 PM  

relcec: X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.


I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.


Emphasis mine. And this is why reading is fundamental.

Most people eat more than 1 meal a day. Three, in fact.

What's 4/3?
 
2012-06-23 04:53:36 PM  

relcec: LouDobbsAwaaaay: relcec:

LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.

did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?

Holy crap I have a stalker. Who do I report this kind of thing to?


I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.


what is it with you anyway?
 
2012-06-23 04:56:45 PM  

Weaver95: what is it with you anyway?


I apparently ruined this guy's life without realizing it in some other thread. This must be what people feel when they go to their highschool reunion and someone they barely spoke to in school breaks down in front of them sobbing about how you made every day of their life a living Hell.
 
2012-06-23 04:57:04 PM  
oh, 1.50 per meal.
boy was I wrong.
 
2012-06-23 04:59:58 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you?

I'm imagining him frantically typing his posts out while two nurses try to force-feed him a pill.


I think he uses a stick in his mouth to type because his arms are strapped into a strait jacket.
 
2012-06-23 05:00:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: what is it with you anyway?

I apparently ruined this guy's life without realizing it in some other thread. This must be what people feel when they go to their highschool reunion and someone they barely spoke to in school breaks down in front of them sobbing about how you made every day of their life a living Hell.


I get that sometimes from random people in the politics tab. i'm sure what you did was the most horrible thing to happen to relcec this year. to him, it was a defining moment that's reorganized his life and goals every since. But to you? it was Tuesday.
 
2012-06-23 05:01:59 PM  

Weaver95: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: what is it with you anyway?

I apparently ruined this guy's life without realizing it in some other thread. This must be what people feel when they go to their highschool reunion and someone they barely spoke to in school breaks down in front of them sobbing about how you made every day of their life a living Hell.

I get that sometimes from random people in the politics tab. i'm sure what you did was the most horrible thing to happen to relcec this year. to him, it was a defining moment that's reorganized his life and goals every since. But to you? it was Tuesday.


OF COURSE!

/I admit I have never seen that movie.
 
2012-06-23 05:04:33 PM  

Weaver95: I get that sometimes from random people in the politics tab. i'm sure what you did was the most horrible thing to happen to relcec this year. to him, it was a defining moment that's reorganized his life and goals every since. But to you? it was Tuesday.


I think I created a super-villain. He's going to put on a taffeta cape and half-mask and start murdering people and it's inadvertently my fault.

/my lawyers have advised me to note that I do not in fact take legal responsibility for the Taffeta Terror's killing spree
 
2012-06-23 05:04:45 PM  

GAT_00: Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.


The fact that you think it's stupid sums up the derp that is leftism perfectly. Ambition and optimism are what make this country great. Not everyone will succeed, but everyone should have every encouragement to try, and that includes not having the fruits of their labors stripped away from them to give to those who don't try.

And before you get your panties in a wad over the truly disadvantaged and needy, I don't oppose a safety net, but leftism isn't about a safety net, and hasn't been for decades. It's about cradle-to-grave centrally planned command economy, along with thought-police wharrgarbl like hate crimes laws. It's about leftists being in control of every aspect of every person's life, because leftists truly believe they are better than everyone else.

DO NOT WANT.

It's just that simple.
 
2012-06-23 05:05:29 PM  
We get it. He's banging a BLACK chick in the WHITE house.

/on the upside, only 4+ more years
 
2012-06-23 05:06:57 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.


It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.
 
2012-06-23 05:07:42 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: I get that sometimes from random people in the politics tab. i'm sure what you did was the most horrible thing to happen to relcec this year. to him, it was a defining moment that's reorganized his life and goals every since. But to you? it was Tuesday.

I think I created a super-villain. He's going to put on a taffeta cape and half-mask and start murdering people and it's inadvertently my fault.

/my lawyers have advised me to note that I do not in fact take legal responsibility for the Taffeta Terror's killing spree


static3.beanscdn.co.uk
 
2012-06-23 05:08:59 PM  

Lorelle: The same people who don't want others to have access to affordable healthcare because it costs money have no problem with their tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary wars and corporate welfare.


I have an enormous problem with both of those things. But neither Obama nor the Dems share this view, any more than the GOP does.

Next lie error, please?
 
2012-06-23 05:09:04 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: G
The fact that you think it's stupid sums up the derp that is leftism perfectly. Ambition and optimism are what make this country great. Not everyone will succeed, but everyone should have every encouragement to try, and that includes not having the fruits of their labors stripped away from them to give to those who don't try..


ambition is great...I just want to stop the GOP from shooting everyone in the foot right before the race starts....
 
2012-06-23 05:12:06 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.

It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.


Ouch. That one's going to leave a mark.
 
2012-06-23 05:14:30 PM  

relcec: oh, 1.50 per meal.
boy was I wrong.


Cool. You admitted your mistake. That is one step closer to becoming a rational human being. Keep up the good work!

/That is honestly more than can be said of many farkers and politicians. not much of a comparison i know.
 
2012-06-23 05:15:21 PM  

Tor_Eckman: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.

It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.

Ouch. That one's going to leave a mark.


Oh God. Did I do it again? Is he going to come barreling into a different thread on July 10 and have a meltdown?
 
2012-06-23 05:15:33 PM  
seriously - who in their right mind actually believes that the GOP is for a 'level playing field'? that's mind blowing. the Republicans are VERY obvious about their agenda and it does not benefit anyone except the top 5% of the country. i'm willing to bet that most of us in the politics tab ain't in that elite club so why would you vote for an agenda that does not and will never benefit you? esp when most GOP voters are of the 'f*ck you I got mine' mentality.

logically, most GOP voters (esp the purely economic theory ones) should be voting Democrat. that's the only party that has a policy agenda that directly benefits their bottom line.
 
2012-06-23 05:15:40 PM  
There should be opt in taxes. I can opt for my taxes to pay for socialized medicine but not war. If i have a need for healthcare I can access it. If terr'sts end up in Albuquerque I don't get help. And a righty can do the opposite. Sign away all access to any future health assistance to have their taxes not fund it. Its a smart bet for them. In addition to being one break away from being billionaires they're also immune to aging and failing health.
 
2012-06-23 05:17:49 PM  

New Farkin User Name: relcec: oh, 1.50 per meal.
boy was I wrong.

Cool. You admitted your mistake. That is one step closer to becoming a rational human being. Keep up the good work!

/That is honestly more than can be said of many farkers and politicians. not much of a comparison i know.


You didn't read my posts above. This is what he does. Calls people assholes and pos's and farking retards and then when his point is totally dismantled he admits defeat and slinks away.

He is not anywhere near to becoming a rational human being.
 
2012-06-23 05:20:21 PM  

relcec: MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery

and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.


I think you mean the mandate is a terrible idea rather than the idea of universal health care. Or at least that's my assumption since you're one of the biggest champions of Medicare for All that I know.
 
2012-06-23 05:21:37 PM  

rudemix: There should be opt in taxes. I can opt for my taxes to pay for socialized medicine but not war.


Can't really do that for war, but wouldn't the Public Option have essentially been an opt-in program like this? I remember the right-wing screaming that it would have been a nightmarish-ly awful insurance system, but simultaneously that it would have been so good that it would put all of the private insurers out of business.

Sadly, Obama dropped it after talking to some lobbyists.
 
2012-06-23 05:22:21 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.

It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.


Aaaaand right right off the edge into ad hominem we go.

Pfffft.
 
2012-06-23 05:24:27 PM  

Weaver95: ambition is great...I just want to stop the GOP from shooting everyone in the foot right before the race starts....


Agreed. My political affiliation is post-partisan. They're all full of shiat.
 
2012-06-23 05:24:40 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.

It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.

Aaaaand right right off the edge into ad hominem we go.

Pfffft.


I think its a little late to try and claim the moral high ground....but hey, if you just wanted to threadjack then its a good way to get one started.

speaking of morality - how does a good christian republican reconcile the GOP attitude of 'f*ck the poor' with Christ's message to heal the sick and help the poor?
 
2012-06-23 05:25:05 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: rudemix: There should be opt in taxes. I can opt for my taxes to pay for socialized medicine but not war.

Can't really do that for war, but wouldn't the Public Option have essentially been an opt-in program like this? I remember the right-wing screaming that it would have been a nightmarish-ly awful insurance system, but simultaneously that it would have been so good that it would put all of the private insurers out of business.

Sadly, Obama dropped it after talking to some lobbyists.


Oooh, swing and and a miss on that one, Lou. He actually dropped it after talking to this guy.
 
2012-06-23 05:25:21 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Aaaaand right right off the edge into ad hominem we go.

Pfffft.


Actually it started a bit earlier than that. Somewhere around:

SouthernFriedYankee: It's about leftists being in control of every aspect of every person's life, because leftists truly believe they are better than everyone else.


A hypocritical, projecting right-winger. Will wonders ever cease.
 
2012-06-23 05:27:28 PM  

Weaver95: relcec: LouDobbsAwaaaay: relcec:

LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.

did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?

Holy crap I have a stalker. Who do I report this kind of thing to?


I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.

what is it with you anyway?


you personally?
I can't believe you have the balls to ask this.

you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you.

you bug be because you spent 6 years as a fake republican on this site using puddle deep analysis that embarrassed me to me in the same party as you personally, and now after pulling a complete "180" in your you have somehow managed to learn absolute nothing in the transformation, and you are annoying in the exact same ways as in your new form as a a fake progressive/libertarian. it bugs me that your analysis of any set of circumstances is merely deep enough to pop out a cliche or pre-approved party talking point.

I get offended that you are a dumbass who can't hold down a job, yet you somehow think you have all the answers, economic or otherwise, for the how I and others should live their lives.

I get offended that assholes like you, rightly, take great offense at the h1b visa program because it threatens your job personally but are also active supporters of other forms of mass immigration that has destroyed the value of working class labor.

I get offended that assholes like you are the ones who drove the republican party off the deep end by demanding that the Constitution needed to be altered for our *security*, and then instead of sticking around to clean up the mess you created in that party you abandoned what you created as an authoritarian anachronism, and are now supporting the same exact shiat in the democrat party (such as the Obama administration demanding, and getting, the ability to indefinitely detain citizens of the united states once he deems them to be terrorists. citation).

the end of f*cking habaes corpus in America for Christ sake.
this is your fault.
you personally are what the f*ck is wrong with this country.

that's why I have a problem with you.




Weaver95 [TotalFark] 2004-10-16 07:05:25 PM
I'd rather catch the terrorists myself. I'm funny that way tho.
I'm thinking the constitution might need to 'bend' a little. Hey - Roe v Wade was bending the rules to fit the whims of society. Now that there's a group of people willing to trade their lives for a mass kill of US citizens it might be time for another 'reevaluation'.
 
2012-06-23 05:27:55 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.

It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.

Ouch. That one's going to leave a mark.

Oh God. Did I do it again? Is he going to come barreling into a different thread on July 10 and have a meltdown?


You folks are so smug and sure of yourselves. It's amazing and amusing. You also think I'm concerned with your name calling.

But when you devolve into strawman and ad hominem, it means you're out of actual debate points. This means I win. So go for it. : )
 
2012-06-23 05:29:39 PM  

relcec:
you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you....


what's a 'pholibertarian'?

*scratches head*
 
2012-06-23 05:29:44 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: It's about leftists being in control of every aspect of every person's life, because leftists truly believe they are better than everyone else.

A hypocritical, projecting right-winger. Will wonders ever cease.



I still can't understand how they look at Republicans trying to constitutionally outlaw same-sex marriage, log it away as a fact of life, then look at a socialized medicine proposal being touted as the best and most efficient way to pay for health insurance based on the number of people covered, and twist it into "LEFTY WANTS TO CONTROL EVERYTHING."

It's like this crap about "job-killing legislation" when the only job it's trying to eliminate is the guy whose job it is to dump arsenic in the river.
 
2012-06-23 05:29:54 PM  

Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.

It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.

Aaaaand right right off the edge into ad hominem we go.

Pfffft.

I think its a little late to try and claim the moral high ground....but hey, if you just wanted to threadjack then its a good way to get one started.

speaking of morality - how does a good christian republican reconcile the GOP attitude of 'f*ck the poor' with Christ's message to heal the sick and help the poor?


Oooh oooh can I take this one? It must have been on Limblabb last week, because I've heard it over and over again lately.

Ahem.

You should help people voluntarily. Helping people by having your hard earned money stolen at gunpoint by the government is not what Jebus meant.

Because being threatened with eternal damnation isn't being forced or anything.
 
2012-06-23 05:30:35 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Oooh, swing and and a miss on that one, Lou. He actually dropped it after talking to this guy.


I'm not saying the political road was clear for him to move on the Public Option. However ...

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

... he did make a deal to insure that it would never be part of the final bill. After that, the finger-pointing about who is ultimately to blame for it never getting to the floor is theater. The lobby said 'no', and the President and Congress obeyed.
 
2012-06-23 05:31:11 PM  

Weaver95: relcec:
you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you....

what's a 'pholibertarian'?

*scratches head*


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2012-06-23 05:32:35 PM  

Tor_Eckman:
You should help people voluntarily. Helping people by having your hard earned money stolen at gunpoint by the government is not what Jebus meant.

Because being threatened with eternal damnation isn't being forced or anything.


now that you mention it, I *have* heard that exact same phrase used again and again to defend the GOP's blatantly anti-christian messages regarding screwing over the sick and poor.

Like I said up thread, it's almost as if the GOP leadership is TRYING to make people reject Christ.
 
2012-06-23 05:33:45 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: But when you devolve into strawman and ad hominem, it means you're out of actual debate points. This means I win. So go for it. : )


Alright here goes: Your very Boobies on the subject was strawmen and ad hominem, so by your own admission you never had any actual debate points. So you "win" ... nothing.

/smug, smug, smug
 
2012-06-23 05:36:14 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: Oooh, swing and and a miss on that one, Lou. He actually dropped it after talking to this guy.

I'm not saying the political road was clear for him to move on the Public Option. However ...

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

... he did make a deal to insure that it would never be part of the final bill. After that, the finger-pointing about who is ultimately to blame for it never getting to the floor is theater. The lobby said 'no', and the President and Congress obeyed.


He knew Lieberman would never give him the vote he had to have to pass anything with a public option. He had to make a deal with the lobbyists or there would have been no health care reform bill passed for him to sign at all. As he usually does, he did what he could to get shiat done. It may not have been exactly what he or you or I wanted, but he got it done.
 
2012-06-23 05:37:31 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Weaver95: relcec:
you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you....

what's a 'pholibertarian'?

*scratches head*

Forget it, he's rolling.


yes, but his account was created in 2009 and yet he remembers quotes from as far back as 2004. interesting, that. I wonder what his original fark login was...? Did I discredit him before I wonder? have others destroyed his credibility in the past as well?
 
2012-06-23 05:38:23 PM  

Tor_Eckman: He knew Lieberman would never give him the vote he had to have to pass anything with a public option. He had to make a deal with the lobbyists or there would have been no health care reform bill passed for him to sign at all. As he usually does, he did what he could to get shiat done. It may not have been exactly what he or you or I wanted, but he got it done.


He got done precisely what the lobby allowed him to get done and not a single thing more than that. Ultimately we're still trapped by them, and no progress can be made without their say-so. Who you wish to blame on the House or Senate floor for that seems like a secondary issue to me.
 
2012-06-23 05:38:35 PM  

Weaver95: Tor_Eckman:
You should help people voluntarily. Helping people by having your hard earned money stolen at gunpoint by the government is not what Jebus meant.

Because being threatened with eternal damnation isn't being forced or anything.

now that you mention it, I *have* heard that exact same phrase used again and again to defend the GOP's blatantly anti-christian messages regarding screwing over the sick and poor.

Like I said up thread, it's almost as if the GOP leadership is TRYING to make people reject Christ.


The GOP leadership has their own Christ. It's certainly not the one I learned about during my 12 years of Catholic school, that's for sure.
 
2012-06-23 05:39:42 PM  

Serious Black: relcec: MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery

and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.

I think you mean the mandate is a terrible idea rather than the idea of universal health care. Or at least that's my assumption since you're one of the biggest champions of Medicare for All that I know.


yes. this is where you and I agree completely.
we need medicare for all. universal is the only answer for our problems.

it is thoroughly humanitarian and the ability to slow inflation to a reasonable level should overcome any objection to more directly paying for other peoples healthcare (which we all do in any event). without massive reform we'll all be paying for eachothers healthcare (or lack of it) anyway, and we'll all be paying much more to do it too.
 
2012-06-23 05:40:03 PM  

Tor_Eckman:
The GOP leadership has their own Christ. It's certainly not the one I learned about during my 12 years of Catholic school, that's for sure.


agreed. the god the GOP worships isn't Christ. which isn't to say that the Republicans lack faith. i'm sure they are very faithful to their god(s)...they're just not worshiping the christian deity is all.
 
2012-06-23 05:41:35 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: He knew Lieberman would never give him the vote he had to have to pass anything with a public option. He had to make a deal with the lobbyists or there would have been no health care reform bill passed for him to sign at all. As he usually does, he did what he could to get shiat done. It may not have been exactly what he or you or I wanted, but he got it done.

He got done precisely what the lobby allowed him to get done and not a single thing more than that. Ultimately we're still trapped by them, and no progress can be made without their say-so. Who you wish to blame on the House or Senate floor for that seems like a secondary issue to me.


What I am saying is that the lobbyists had much more actual influence on Lieberman than they had on Obama.

It may seem like picking nits, but I believe that it's a nit worth picking.
 
2012-06-23 05:46:21 PM  

Tor_Eckman: What I am saying is that the lobbyists had much more actual influence on Lieberman than they had on Obama.

It may seem like picking nits, but I believe that it's a nit worth picking.


That might be true, but the White House still literally sat down with the lobby and promised that a Public Option would never make it into the final bill. That paints a picture that's quite a bit different from "his hands were tied".
 
2012-06-23 05:49:31 PM  

Weaver95: seriously - who in their right mind actually believes that the GOP is for a 'level playing field'? that's mind blowing. the Republicans are VERY obvious about their agenda and it does not benefit anyone except the top 5% of the country.


No arguments here. But neither do the Dems. Their agenda cosists of trying to control as much of every person's life as possible, except of course the right to an abortion (I'm not "pro-life"), which should be available to a ten year old without parental consent.

At some point (not in this thread) I'll post my explanation of how Democrat economic policy directly benefits the top 0.01%, at the expense of the middle and upper middle classes. But I've got to go dig it up in the archives of my desktop 'puter.
i'm willing to bet that most of us in the politics tab ain't in that elite club so why would you vote for an agenda that does not and will never benefit you? esp when most GOP voters are of the 'f*ck you I got mine' mentality.

I've known a lot of GOP voters, and no, *most* of them are not of this mentality. WTH happened to you, Weaver95? You used to be one of the most level-headed Farkers here. If BushCo made you flip like this, you need to remember that BushCo had nothing to do with actual limited government free market conservatism, any more than ObamaCo actually cared about stopping corruption and getting the bootheel of the oligarchy off the necks of the middle and upper middle classes.
logically, most GOP voters (esp the purely economic theory ones) should be voting Democrat. that's the only party that has a policy agenda that directly benefits their bottom line.

Democrat policies are unsustainable. Collectivism and command economies always fail. the European socialist countries are going to collapse when the US finally has to default on its debt and can't be the world-police any more. US taxpayers foot the bill to keep shipping lanes open for countries that in turn devalue their currancies to win the trade war with us. This allows them to spend that money on cradle to grave stuff for the inept and the unwilling alike.

It is very very sad, the staggering lack of basic understanding of ecomonic and political principles that exists in America and a lot of the rest of the world. Google "Estonia," please. I'll leave it up to you to discover this pleasant bit of news on your own.
 
2012-06-23 05:51:13 PM  

Weaver95: speaking of morality - how does a good christian republican reconcile the GOP attitude of 'f*ck the poor' with Christ's message to heal the sick and help the poor?


I'm neither christian nor republican, so I couldn't begin to tell you.
 
2012-06-23 05:53:37 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Weaver95: speaking of morality - how does a good christian republican reconcile the GOP attitude of 'f*ck the poor' with Christ's message to heal the sick and help the poor?

I'm neither christian nor republican, so I couldn't begin to tell you.


I ask everyone who defends the GOP. I keep hoping that eventually I'll get an answer.
 
2012-06-23 05:54:35 PM  

Weaver95: Tor_Eckman: Weaver95: relcec:
you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you....

what's a 'pholibertarian'?

*scratches head*

Forget it, he's rolling.

yes, but his account was created in 2009 and yet he remembers quotes from as far back as 2004. interesting, that. I wonder what his original fark login was...? Did I discredit him before I wonder? have others destroyed his credibility in the past as well?


I've been farking since 2001 when I saw a link on another site for a photochopping contest or some such.

I added the account in 2009 specifically to argue about healthcare.
but I always remembered you and found your limited and hackneyed attempts at argumentation and your particular bastardization of conservative ideals embarrassing because you were considered a prominent conservative voice on here for a very long time.

I didn't specifically remember you called for the alteration of the constitution for our *safety*, but I knew you probably did because you are at heart an authoritarian, so I searched.
 
2012-06-23 05:54:42 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee:
Democrat policies are unsustainable. Collectivism and command economies always fail. the European socialist countries are going to collapse when the US finally has to default on its debt and can't be the world-police any more. US taxpayers foot the bill to keep shipping lanes open for countries that in turn devalue their currancies to win the trade war wi ...


um...what are you talking about?
 
2012-06-23 05:55:50 PM  

relcec:

I didn't specifically remember you called for the alteration of the constitution for our *safety*, but I knew you probably did because you are at heart an authoritarian, so I searched.


so you're creepy, weird AND not very good with the english language.
 
2012-06-23 05:56:04 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: Aaaaand right right off the edge into ad hominem we go.

Pfffft.

Actually it started a bit earlier than that. Somewhere around:

SouthernFriedYankee: It's about leftists being in control of every aspect of every person's life, because leftists truly believe they are better than everyone else.

A hypocritical, projecting right-winger. Will wonders ever cease.


Do you understand the words you type? Ad hominem refers to personal insults instead of facts. And the fact is that leftists truly believe they're smarter, better informed, more compassionate, and therfore better at running people's lives than the people themselves are.

Do you have another explanation for why so much of leftist policy seeks to remove freedom from individuals and increase the power and reach of the government? No insults or dodging, please.
 
2012-06-23 05:57:10 PM  

Weaver95: I ask everyone who defends the GOP. I keep hoping that eventually I'll get an answer.


Funny how there are so many people out there defending the GOP, who aren't GOP themselves. Just rugged, stalwart Fark IndependentsTM who are not part of any party and make their own decisions ... to vote GOP every single election.

But not GOP, no sir-ee. That would mean having to inherit all the toxic politics that go along with them. Much easier to just support them and defend them without taking ownership of the stuff you support and defend them for.
 
2012-06-23 05:57:31 PM  
subby, just because you can benefit from a stupid socialist program, doesn't mean you don't have a brain and principles and can't be opposed to it.
 
2012-06-23 05:58:46 PM  

Tor_Eckman: relcec: X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.


I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.

Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you?


You stupid fark.
 
2012-06-23 05:59:03 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Do you understand the words you type?


I do. I understand yours, too. I call it "The Liberal's Burden".
 
2012-06-23 05:59:18 PM  
If the ACA had been passed "as is", instead of the bastardized version we got, (after the Repubs got done with their "compromises"), we would have Universal Health care right now.
 
2012-06-23 05:59:40 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: I ask everyone who defends the GOP. I keep hoping that eventually I'll get an answer.

Funny how there are so many people out there defending the GOP, who aren't GOP themselves. Just rugged, stalwart Fark IndependentsTM who are not part of any party and make their own decisions ... to vote GOP every single election.

But not GOP, no sir-ee. That would mean having to inherit all the toxic politics that go along with them. Much easier to just support them and defend them without taking ownership of the stuff you support and defend them for.


there does seem to be a lot of that going around.
 
2012-06-23 05:59:59 PM  
Lorelle: The same people who don't want others to have access to affordable healthcare because it costs money have no problem with their tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary wars and corporate welfare.

I accidentally got into a political "conversation" with a coworker recently and this is, among other things, exactly his sentiment.
 
2012-06-23 06:01:24 PM  
Well, this thread has been really interesting...

/That's the best false mental illness I've ever seen. Nice job.
 
2012-06-23 06:04:17 PM  
Funny... I didn't think the insurance companies, pharma companies and lawyers and their lobbyists were against this law.
 
2012-06-23 06:04:56 PM  
Wow, this has been entertaining. Have many trolls on Fark just outright said they created accounts specifically to argue about politics?
 
2012-06-23 06:05:54 PM  

verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.


We are a nation of overgrown children that squandered the post WWII prosperity that gave them everything they wanted and now want no part of its upkeep. They'd rather us slide into 3rd world squalor than pay taxes for a civilized society.
 
2012-06-23 06:06:04 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: Oooh, swing and and a miss on that one, Lou. He actually dropped it after talking to this guy.

I'm not saying the political road was clear for him to move on the Public Option. However ...

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

... he did make a deal to insure that it would never be part of the final bill. After that, the finger-pointing about who is ultimately to blame for it never getting to the floor is theater. The lobby said 'no', and the President and Congress obeyed.


Lieberman, Senator from Connecticut, was also publicly stating in June 2009 (5 months after inauguration) that he would never allow a public option to come to the Senate floor for a vote.

He was threatening to filibuster his own caucus over a public option or an expansion of medicare for all.
With video of the corrupt douchebag's own statement

He also came out against a Single Payer plan as well.
 
2012-06-23 06:06:29 PM  

Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee:
Democrat policies are unsustainable. Collectivism and command economies always fail. the European socialist countries are going to collapse when the US finally has to default on its debt and can't be the world-police any more. US taxpayers foot the bill to keep shipping lanes open for countries that in turn devalue their currancies to win the trade war wi ...

um...what are you talking about?


I'm saying that the euro countries don't have to pay for all of their own defense, because 'Murica spends a farkton of money policing shipping lanes. We also maintain all these huge military bases all over the world, thus relieving them of the need to maintain standing armies large enough to actually defend themselves if the shiat were ever to hit the fan. This frees up a lot of cash to be spent on socialist programs, healthcare, welfare, etc.

When we can't afford to do that any more - and the day is rapidly approaching - these socialist "utopias" are going to be in for a bit of a rude awakening.
 
2012-06-23 06:06:38 PM  

Opeth1429: Funny... I didn't think the insurance companies, pharma companies and lawyers and their lobbyists were against this law.


These are the people I always assume are being talked about when someone mentions that the "Supreme Court" is weighing arguments about the law.
 
2012-06-23 06:13:16 PM  

relcec:
you bug be because you spent 6 years as a fake republican on this site...
Weaver95 [TotalFark] 2004-10-16 07:05:25 PM...


Hmm...

Login: relcec [TotalFark]
Fark account number: 491895
Account created: 2009-08-09 02:48:10


So, what was your old handle?
 
2012-06-23 06:14:07 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee:
Democrat policies are unsustainable. Collectivism and command economies always fail. the European socialist countries are going to collapse when the US finally has to default on its debt and can't be the world-police any more. US taxpayers foot the bill to keep shipping lanes open for countries that in turn devalue their currancies to win the trade war wi ...

um...what are you talking about?

I'm saying that the euro countries don't have to pay for all of their own defense, because 'Murica spends a farkton of money policing shipping lanes. We also maintain all these huge military bases all over the world, thus relieving them of the need to maintain standing armies large enough to actually defend themselves if the shiat were ever to hit the fan. This frees up a lot of cash to be spent on socialist programs, healthcare, welfare, etc.

When we can't afford to do that any more - and the day is rapidly approaching - these socialist "utopias" are going to be in for a bit of a rude awakening.


We had no problem affording these programs in 2000. Hell, we were actively paying off our debt AND affording these programs.

What on earth do you think might have occurred between 2000 and 2003 to cause American deficit spending to begin once again in earnest?

Perhaps a very poorly designed restructuring of the American tax code?
/And 2 wars on the credit card
//And an unfunded and uncontrolled massive expansion of Medicare
///All with a republican congress and administration
////With a huge assist from the blue dog conservadems and democratic corporatist allies
//SLASHIES OVERLOAD FOR TRUTH!!!!!!
 
2012-06-23 06:18:57 PM  

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


Well, since it's stealing, I suppose you decline all government social welfare moneys. Or do you feel you have a right to receive stolen property while other people don't?
 
2012-06-23 06:19:13 PM  

X-boxershorts: We had no problem affording these programs in 2000. Hell, we were actively paying off our debt AND affording these programs.

What on earth do you think might have occurred between 2000 and 2003 to cause American deficit spending to begin once again in earnest?

Perhaps a very poorly designed restructuring of the American tax code?
/And 2 wars on the credit card
//And an unfunded and uncontrolled massive expansion of Medicare
///All with a republican congress and administration
////With a huge assist from the blue dog conservadems and democratic corporatist allies
//SLASHIES OVERLOAD FOR TRUTH!!!!!!


If America can continue to be the world's police, that is afford to do it, I say go ahead. We can afford it. We can also afford to live in a socialist "utopia" like those in Europe, while at the same time maintaining a military 10 times the size of our closest rival. We could afford both. The rub is there's a class or two of Americans that refuse to pay for them, and one of them has 70% of the money and convinces the other TAXES BAD.
 
2012-06-23 06:20:50 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: But not GOP, no sir-ee. That would mean having to inherit all the toxic politics that go along with them. Much easier to just support them and defend them without taking ownership of the stuff you support and defend them for.


I voted for Obama in 2008, because I saw full well how BushCo had sold us all out to the banksters, and I knew McCain would be BushCo's third term. I was a self-directed trader at that time (less than 50K, because I know you'll ask), so I had a front row seat for the creation and detonation of the financial crisis.

Instead, Obama has proved to be Bush's third term and Carter's second, all at the same time. The only thing missing is the high interest rates, and that's on Bernanke; trust me, he isn't doing us any favors. Volcker ran interest rates high to break the back of inflation; right now, inflation is going crazy, as anyone who remembers what prices were at the grocery store just a few years ago, or has been watching the commodity prices over the last decade. Unemployment is close to 20%, by the time you count the underemployed and the folks who've just given up looking.

The problems you have with the GOP are also the problems of the Dems. It boils down to the top 0.01% systematically raping the entire citizenry in every sphere of life. Obama hasn't stopped it, and he won't.

I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong and both sides are farking us up badly, and in ways that aren't all that different, overall. You like the flavor of the shiat the Dems are feeding the country better than the GOP flavor, so you think Dems good/GOP bad. I'm saying you are wrong and misguided.

But by all means, keep attacking me personally. Obviously, that's all you can do.
 
2012-06-23 06:22:40 PM  

Opeth1429: Funny... I didn't think the insurance companies, pharma companies and lawyers and their lobbyists were against this law.


Warrants repeating.
 
2012-06-23 06:27:04 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: But not GOP, no sir-ee. That would mean having to inherit all the toxic politics that go along with them. Much easier to just support them and defend them without taking ownership of the stuff you support and defend them for.

I voted for Obama in 2008, because I saw full well how BushCo had sold us all out to the banksters, and I knew McCain would be BushCo's third term. I was a self-directed trader at that time (less than 50K, because I know you'll ask), so I had a front row seat for the creation and detonation of the financial crisis.

Instead, Obama has proved to be Bush's third term and Carter's second, all at the same time. The only thing missing is the high interest rates, and that's on Bernanke; trust me, he isn't doing us any favors. Volcker ran interest rates high to break the back of inflation; right now, inflation is going crazy, as anyone who remembers what prices were at the grocery store just a few years ago, or has been watching the commodity prices over the last decade. Unemployment is close to 20%, by the time you count the underemployed and the folks who've just given up looking.

The problems you have with the GOP are also the problems of the Dems. It boils down to the top 0.01% systematically raping the entire citizenry in every sphere of life. Obama hasn't stopped it, and he won't.

I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong and both sides are farking us up badly, and in ways that aren't all that different, overall. You like the flavor of the shiat the Dems are feeding the country better than the GOP flavor, so you think Dems good/GOP bad. I'm saying you are wrong and misguided.

But by all means, keep attacking me personally. Obviously, that's all you can do.


There's only 1 way to stop it.

A complete sweep of Congress.
Highly unlikely.
Barring that, the lesser evil is to finally make the Republicans in congress accountable for 1996-2006

Either one would be a major wake up call to Congress.

We'd probably need to undo Citizen's United and enact some form of public campaign finance system first.
 
2012-06-23 06:27:16 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong


There's an original statement! I sure had you pegged wrong!
 
2012-06-23 06:31:37 PM  

X-boxershorts: We had no problem affording these programs in 2000. Hell, we were actively paying off our debt AND affording these programs.

What on earth do you think might have occurred between 2000 and 2003 to cause American deficit spending to begin once again in earnest?


George Dubya Bush, that's what. But even so, we need to get out of the business of doing all that stuff.

And Obamacare is going to do nothing to improve anything, except the bottom lines of the already insanely wealthy. I'm not tslking about the doctor who saves your life, I'm talkng about the insurance company who denies your claim, or prices their preiums out of your range, forcing you into Medicaid. Oh and BTW, Medicaid has been increased at the expense of MediCARE, which is due to get cut under Obamacare.

No free lunch. It does not exist.
 
2012-06-23 06:32:17 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: The problems you have with the GOP are also the problems of the Dems. It boils down to the top 0.01% systematically raping the entire citizenry in every sphere of life.


That must be why Obama and the Democrats:

1) increased food stamp spending to help people make ends meet during a recession,

2) repeatedly extended unemployment benefits,

3) made part of his historical legacy enacting health care reform which increases the availability of Medicaid by significantly loosening its eligibility requirements, subsidized other low earners to buy health insurance if they couldn't afford to buy it themselves, and required insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions

4) enacted Wall Street reform which, though incomplete, still pissed off Wall Street

5) enacted credit card reform which makes it harder for banks to dick people over with made up fees,

Because Obama, the Demonrats, and the Republicans are all equally bad.

/end tone of irony here
 
2012-06-23 06:38:39 PM  
Actually gonna call BS on this.

The ones who benefit the most imo are those 18-26 year olds who can now get health insurance. Everyone I know under 30 is voting for Obama.

My parents (70s) are against it. But they watch Fox news 24x7. My mom nearly gagged when I pointed out that 5 of her 7 grand kids will lose health insurance if Obamacare is over turned.
 
2012-06-23 06:43:09 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: one of them has 70% of the money and convinces the other TAXES BAD.


Who pays taxes?

However, the top 0.01% is slipping out of their fair share through tax shelters, provided by loopholes, written by politicians of both parties, whose campaign coffers stuffed by those oligarchs.

So you can raise taxes all you like; for all of Warren Buffet's blather, he will skate out of any tax increases that happen. His less-wealthy competition, however, will get clobbered by them. AND HE KNOWS THIS, the farking hypocrite. And lucky for him, he's got all these leftists in America who lack the basic understanding of politics and economics needed to see through the sham of economic leftism.
 
2012-06-23 06:44:33 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: There's an original statement! I sure had you pegged wrong!


The auto knee jerk reply of 'Both sides are bad' make me miss their cries of 'B...b...but Clinton!'
 
2012-06-23 06:45:04 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: And Obamacare is going to do nothing to improve anything, except the bottom lines of the already insanely wealthy


Wait a second. I thought OsamaHusseinCare was a socialist fascist government takeover of health care. How can it make CEOs wealthy if it's socialist fascism?


I'm talkng about the insurance company who denies your claim,


OsamaHusseinCare creates a new ability to appeal denial of claims by insurance companies.


or prices their preiums out of your range, forcing you into Medicaid.


Happily, under OsamaHusseinCare, people who can't afford private insurance will a) receive a subsidy to purchase, or b) be eligible for Medicaid. Not so pre-OsamaHusseinCare.

Oh and BTW, Medicaid has been increased at the expense of MediCARE, which is due to get cut under Obamacare.

Wow. You finally said something true. So because of these cuts, I'm sure you can direct me to some seniors or disabled people who were kicked off of Medicare, or had their claims denied because of these cuts? I await your response with bated breath.
 
2012-06-23 06:45:17 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong

There's an original statement! I sure had you pegged wrong!


I, on the other hand, have had you pegged from the get-go.
 
2012-06-23 06:46:13 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: So you can raise taxes all you like; for all of Warren Buffet's blather, he will skate out of any tax increases that happen. His less-wealthy competition, however, will get clobbered by them. AND HE KNOWS THIS, the farking hypocrite. And lucky for him, he's got all these leftists in America who lack the basic understanding of politics and economics needed to see through the sham of economic leftism.


"Damn left! Leftity left left libbie lib liberal I hate liberals so much goddamn liberals ruining everything ...

... what? I'm saying both sidez are teh badz."
 
2012-06-23 06:47:16 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong

There's an original statement! I sure had you pegged wrong!

I, on the other hand, have had you pegged from the get-go.


Yeah ... I was being sarcastic. So that ... that comeback really doesn't work.

/sorry
 
2012-06-23 06:56:58 PM  

Tor_Eckman: relcec: MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery

and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.

So your shtick used to be arguing an incorrect point until you couldn't anymore and then apologizing for being wrong.

Now you just start right out by calling people names.

Why do you even bother?


I've never seen him admit to being wrong...
 
2012-06-23 07:05:50 PM  

Weaver95: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

bankers, for one. Wall street, for another. why are bailouts for banks and CEOs good, but we can't help the sick and poor without the GOP getting into a snit over it?


My parents were the ultra-Christian TeaPublican variety who suddenly flashed a white-hot cruel streak when it came to the idea of providing health care to the indigent. After a lifetime of worshiping my mom and dad, one day I realized that they were farking jerks. It was a sad and life-altering realization.

Sure, they spent that one day a year on a church outing to sort items at the food bank, thus deriving self-satisfaction of spreading Jesus' love. But the other 364 days? Fark you, I got mine. The very idea of a society that even attempts to look after the least powerful was abhorrent to them. Yet I was still subject to lectures about Jesus and how teh homogheys and MSNBC are a terminal cancer on some imagined, exceptionally American way of life.

I understand that it isn't fair to paint with a broad brush, but fark...how do we characterize people who seem to get pleasure from others' suffering? Maybe I am a hard-drinking, womanizing, and impulsive asshole, but goddammit I still have a stronger moral base than the modern right. I'd like to think that if I'm ever judged, some of my dumber decisions would be mitigated by the fact that I've done my best to leave my community in slightly better shape than I found it. That's what separates "us" from "them."
 
2012-06-23 07:10:26 PM  

relcec: Weaver95: relcec: LouDobbsAwaaaay: relcec:

LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.

did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?

Holy crap I have a stalker. Who do I report this kind of thing to?


I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.

what is it with you anyway?

you personally?
I can't believe you have the balls to ask this.

you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you.

you bug be because you spent 6 years as a fake republican on this site using puddle deep analysis that embarrassed me to me in the same party as you personally, and now after pulling a complete "180" in your you have somehow managed to learn absolute nothing in the transformation, and you are annoying in the exact same ways as in your new form as a a fake progressive/libertarian. it bugs me that your analysis of any set of circumstances is merely deep enough to pop out a cliche or pre-approved party talking point.

I get offended that you are a dumbass who can't hold down a job, yet you somehow think you have all the answers, economic or otherwise, for the how I and others should live their lives.

I get offended that assholes like you, rightly, take great offense at the h1b visa program because it threatens your job personally but are also active supporters of other forms of mass immigration that has destroyed the value of working class labor.

I get offended that assholes like you are the ones who drove the republican party off the deep end by demanding that the Constitution needed to be altered for our *security*, and then instead of sticking around to clean up the mess you created in that party you abandoned what you created as an authoritarian anachronism, and are now supporting the same exact shiat in the democrat party (such as the Obama administration demanding, and getting, the ability to indefinitely detain citizens of the united states once he deems them to be terrorists. citation).

the end of f*cking habaes corpus in America for Christ sake.
this is your fault.
you personally are what the f*ck is wrong with this country.

that's why I have a problem with you.




Weaver95 [TotalFark] 2004-10-16 07:05:25 PM
I'd rather catch the terrorists myself. I'm funny that way tho.
I'm thinking the constitution might need to 'bend' a little. Hey - Roe v Wade was bending the rules to fit the whims of society. Now that there's a group of people willing to trade their lives for a mass kill of US citizens it might be time for another 'reevaluation'.


2004, that's a little disturbing...
 
2012-06-23 07:15:03 PM  
bugontherug:

That must be why Obama and the Democrats:

1) increased food stamp spending to help people make ends meet during a recession,

Undoing most of the Clinton era welfare reform and adding billions to the deficit, yeah.
2) repeatedly extended unemployment benefits,

Thus spending up the unemployment insurance pools of the state, thus forcing the federal gov't to pick up the check, also adding billions to the deficit. Absolutely.
3) made part of his historical legacy enacting health care reform which increases the availability of Medicaid by significantly loosening its eligibility requirements, subsidized other low earners to buy health insurance if they couldn't afford to buy it themselves, and required insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions

All of which is done at the expense of others.
4) enacted Wall Street reform which, though incomplete, still pissed off Wall Street

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
5) enacted credit card reform which makes it harder for banks to dick people over with made up fees,

Yes, that was great, wasn't it?! Now I pay a $10 fee on my checking account, which I didn't pay before. Obama really showed them, didn't he? And small banks are dying under the weight of the regulations, while the big banks that caused all the problems had a hand in writing the "reform." BTW, Paypal gets to charge stupid transaction fees to sellers because it's not classified as a bank, even though it walks, quacks and swims like one. Super-spiffy, that bank reform.
Because Obama, the Demonrats, and the Republicans are all equally bad.

I understand that you're not going to get it. I am a small-government, personal freedom, anti-oligarch conservative; this is true. But there is no political party who advances my ideals, and there hasn't been for a long, long time. I think your worldview and ideas are dead wrong, and I won't be shy about saying so. But you'd do better to address what I actually believe, instead of all this strawman and ad hominem. I know it works on the typical GOP cheerleader, but it isn't going to work on me.
 
2012-06-23 07:17:38 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong

There's an original statement! I sure had you pegged wrong!

I, on the other hand, have had you pegged from the get-go.

Yeah ... I was being sarcastic. So that ... that comeback really doesn't work.

/sorry


No, I knew you were being sarcastic. This comment merely confirmed your erroneously high opinion of yourself. Thanks for playing.
 
2012-06-23 07:23:14 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong

There's an original statement! I sure had you pegged wrong!

I, on the other hand, have had you pegged from the get-go.

Yeah ... I was being sarcastic. So that ... that comeback really doesn't work.

/sorry

No, I knew you were being sarcastic. This comment merely confirmed your erroneously high opinion of yourself. Thanks for playing.


I know you are but what.am I?

/did I sink far enough to meet you at your level?
 
2012-06-23 07:24:20 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: No, I knew you were being sarcastic.


Yeah ... I don't think you did. You're oblivious to how utterly ordinary you are as just another Republican who avoids criticism by pretending to be an independent. You're all like this, and you all have a chip on your shoulder about how people look down on you as intellectually inferior.

Every solidly Republican district in the country is filled with people like you, each one thinking they're a unique, mysterious, misunderstood creature. So tell me again how the librulz are ruining the world. Because these are all fresh, innovative ideas that have not in any way been regurgitated a million times over by every single Republican on this board.
 
2012-06-23 07:27:24 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: So you can raise taxes all you like; for all of Warren Buffet's blather, he will skate out of any tax increases that happen. His less-wealthy competition, however, will get clobbered by them. AND HE KNOWS THIS, the farking hypocrite. And lucky for him, he's got all these leftists in America who lack the basic understanding of politics and economics needed to see through the sham of economic leftism.

"Damn left! Leftity left left libbie lib liberal I hate liberals so much goddamn liberals ruining everything ...

... what? I'm saying both sidez are teh badz."


You don't read very well, do you? I said both parties are bad, and the partisans on both sides are wrong. I believe in limited government and free markets. Not anarchy, like the current Libertarian party tries to pretend they don't really advocate. But I want a government with no more power than the absolute minimum required to keep order, defend the country, stabilize the currency, provide help to those who truly cannot provide for themselves, and bring swift and uncorruptable punishment to those whose actions, whether business or personal, bring harm to others. I firmly believe we can do that with a fraction of the bloated D.C. monster we are saddled with today. You disagree. That's fine. But all I've gotten from you is a load of blabbering nonsense. I'm forced to conclude that you don't have much of an argument, which is not uncommon amongst leftists. Their ideas sound good and make them feel good, but subjected to the cold light of logic and the absolute scientific principles of the world in which we actually live, they don't really work.
 
2012-06-23 07:31:11 PM  
*looks around at the calamity and aftermath*

This was a fun thread.

relcec: You are insane, or at least severely emotionally vulnerable and pretentious (or act like it).

SFY: While I somewhat agree with your sentiments, you took the 'both sides are bad' argument a bit too far. I'm sure [hope?] that most Fark liberals try to avoid corruption, and aren't as two-faced as you perceive.

NFUN: Still being annoying as usual I see.

ACA: DOESN'T GO TOO FAR ENOUGH!
 
2012-06-23 07:33:34 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: You don't read very well, do you? I said both parties are bad


Yeah, I got that. Just like every other ashamed Republican in existence. And just like every other ashamed Republican in existence, you think it's a totally unique perspective.

You couldn't possibly be more like all of your brethren. A million individual snowflakes, marching in lock-step to the beat of their own drum.
 
2012-06-23 07:35:45 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah ... I don't think you did. You're oblivious to how utterly ordinary you are as just another Republican who avoids criticism by pretending to be an independent. You're all like this, and you all have a chip on your shoulder about how people look down on you as intellectually inferior.


I don't care what you think. And bub, the way you write proves that you look down on everyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior. If you could articulate your views intelligently, that would be a better way to go than personal attacks. The most I've said is that leftists tend to think they're better than everyone else. That's not a slam on you personally, that's what I believe to be an accurate assessment of the leftist worldview, based upon dozens if not hundreds of interactions with them over the decades. Nothing you're posted here has in any way changed this perception. You, OTOH, have been snide, superioristic and have done nothing but personally attack me for daring to disagree with your worldview. But I'm the immature one in this conversation. Right.
 
2012-06-23 07:39:46 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: I don't care what you think.


I can tell by the way you've ignored me thus far. You clearly don't have an inferiority complex or anything.
 
2012-06-23 07:41:05 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah, I got that. Just like every other ashamed Republican in existence. And just like every other ashamed Republican in existence, you think it's a totally unique perspective.

You couldn't possibly be more like all of your brethren. A million individual snowflakes, marching in lock-step to the beat of their own drum.


And when I see you substantively respond to any of the actual priciples I hold, which I've articulated in the very post from which you took that little snip to justify your derp, then I might get my feelings hurt by your insults.

Nah, I won't, but still.

Until you do, a partisan hack is you... snowflake.
 
2012-06-23 07:43:22 PM  

Smackledorfer: I know you are but what.am I?


SouthernFriedYankee: Until you do, a partisan hack is you... snowflake.


Apparently.
 
2012-06-23 07:44:40 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I can tell by the way you've ignored me thus far. You clearly don't have an inferiority complex or anything.


It's good mental excercise, staying on intellectual target in the face of a tidalwave of wharrgarbl. I'm having a lot of fun with you.
 
2012-06-23 07:48:18 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: I'm having a lot of fun with you.


Yeah, that rings about as true as "I don't care what you think". I'm guessing you're a Mormon.
 
2012-06-23 07:51:55 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: I'm having a lot of fun with you.

Yeah, that rings about as true as "I don't care what you think". I'm guessing you're a Mormon.


lol
 
2012-06-23 07:52:35 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I can tell by the way you've ignored me thus far. You clearly don't have an inferiority complex or anything.

It's good mental excercise, staying on intellectual target in the face of a tidalwave of wharrgarbl. I'm having a lot of fun with you.


[inigomontoya,jpg]
 
2012-06-23 07:54:59 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: So you can raise taxes all you like; for all of Warren Buffet's blather, he will skate out of any tax increases that happen. His less-wealthy competition, however, will get clobbered by them. AND HE KNOWS THIS, the farking hypocrite. And lucky for him, he's got all these leftists in America who lack the basic understanding of politics and economics needed to see through the sham of economic leftism.

"Damn left! Leftity left left libbie lib liberal I hate liberals so much goddamn liberals ruining everything ...

... what? I'm saying both sidez are teh badz."

You don't read very well, do you? I said both parties are bad, and the partisans on both sides are wrong. I believe in limited government and free markets. Not anarchy, like the current Libertarian party tries to pretend they don't really advocate. But I want a government with no more power than the absolute minimum required to keep order, defend the country, stabilize the currency, provide help to those who truly cannot provide for themselves, and bring swift and uncorruptable punishment to those whose actions, whether business or personal, bring harm to others. I firmly believe we can do that with a fraction of the bloated D.C. monster we are saddled with today. You disagree. That's fine. But all I've gotten from you is a load of blabbering nonsense. I'm forced to conclude that you don't have much of an argument, which is not uncommon amongst leftists. Their ideas sound good and make them feel good, but subjected to the cold light of logic and the absolute scientific principles of the world in which we actually live, they don't really work.


Holy shiat...he's a Progressive!!!!
 
2012-06-23 08:06:15 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah ... I don't think you did. You're oblivious to how utterly ordinary you are as just another Republican who avoids criticism by pretending to be an independent. You're all like this, and you all have a chip on your shoulder about how people look down on you as intellectually inferior.

I don't care what you think. And bub, the way you write proves that you look down on everyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior. If you could articulate your views intelligently, that would be a better way to go than personal attacks. The most I've said is that leftists tend to think they're better than everyone else. That's not a slam on you personally, that's what I believe to be an accurate assessment of the leftist worldview, based upon dozens if not hundreds of interactions with them over the decades. Nothing you're posted here has in any way changed this perception. You, OTOH, have been snide, superioristic and have done nothing but personally attack me for daring to disagree with your worldview. But I'm the immature one in this conversation. Right.


You know, Ad Hominem arguments are usually considered pretty weak.
 
2012-06-23 08:12:05 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug:

That must be why Obama and the Democrats:

1) increased food stamp spending to help people make ends meet during a recession,
Undoing most of the Clinton era welfare reform and adding billions to the deficit, yeah.
2) repeatedly extended unemployment benefits,
Thus spending up the unemployment insurance pools of the state, thus forcing the federal gov't to pick up the check, also adding billions to the deficit. Absolutely.
3) made part of his historical legacy enacting health care reform which increases the availability of Medicaid by significantly loosening its eligibility requirements, subsidized other low earners to buy health insurance if they couldn't afford to buy it themselves, and required insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions
All of which is done at the expense of others.
4) enacted Wall Street reform which, though incomplete, still pissed off Wall Street
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
5) enacted credit card reform which makes it harder for banks to dick people over with made up fees,
Yes, that was great, wasn't it?! Now I pay a $10 fee on my checking account, which I didn't pay before. Obama really showed them, didn't he? And small banks are dying under the weight of the regulations, while the big banks that caused all the problems had a hand in writing the "reform." BTW, Paypal gets to charge stupid transaction fees to sellers because it's not classified as a bank, even though it walks, quacks and swims like one. Super-spiffy, that bank reform.
Because Obama, the Demonrats, and the Republicans are all equally bad.
I understand that you're not going to get it. I am a small-government, personal freedom, anti-oligarch conservative; this is true. But there is no political party who advances my ideals, and there hasn't been for a long, long time. I think your worldview and ideas are dead wrong, and I won't be shy about saying so. But you'd do better to address what I actually believe, instead of all this s ...


Fascinating. Virtually none of this post addresses the original point of contention: re: both sides are equally bad, serving only the interests of the top .001%. I've pointed out several reforms which have helped and will continue to help millions of people well outside that income range.. You've responded with "well, I disagree with all of this as a matter of policy." But you have not demonstrated how:

1) increasing food stamp benefits doesn't help people who can't afford to buy their own food, or how food stamps help people in the .001%
2) extending unemployment benefits doesn't help people who can't find work, or how extending unemployment benefits helps the .001%
3) PPACA doesn't help people with pre-existing conditions, and people who otherwise could not afford to buy health insurance. Nor how mandating coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and indigents helps the .001%.
4) How the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, while inadequate, helped Wall Street, who lobbied vigorously against its passage, and now give overwhelmingly to Republicans.
5) How credit card reform doesn't help people--mostly very poor, and outside the .001%--who've been historically targeted for bogus fees and transactions structured to create faux overdrafts.

You have not demonstrated these things, because you cannot do so. You cannot do so, because they are false. Food stamps help the hungry, not the rich. Unemployment benefits help the unemployed, not the rich. Pre-existing condition discrimination, health insurance subsidies, and expanded Medicaid coverage helps those people, not the rich. Dodd-Frank, while inadequate, restricts Wall Street in ways it doesn't like. And credit card reform helps the victims of fee gouging.

But you'd do better to address what I actually believe, instead of all this strawman and ad hominem. I know it works on the typical GOP cheerleader, but it isn't going to work on me.


It's a good thing I manufactured no strawmen, nor hurled any ad homs. You, however, have falsely accused me of manufacturing strawmen, and hurling ad homs. Both forms of strawmen and ad hom in and of themselves. Tsk tsk.
 
2012-06-23 08:24:38 PM  
I just noticed something:

Login: SouthernFriedYankee
Fark account number: 49178
Account created: 2002-08-09 06:07:29

He's been here since 02, this is the first time I've ever seen him here, and he's spouting the same old crap as the rest of the alt-trolls.

Funny, that.
 
2012-06-23 08:26:30 PM  

BubbaWayne: SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah ... I don't think you did. You're oblivious to how utterly ordinary you are as just another Republican who avoids criticism by pretending to be an independent. You're all like this, and you all have a chip on your shoulder about how people look down on you as intellectually inferior.

I don't care what you think. And bub, the way you write proves that you look down on everyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior. If you could articulate your views intelligently, that would be a better way to go than personal attacks. The most I've said is that leftists tend to think they're better than everyone else. That's not a slam on you personally, that's what I believe to be an accurate assessment of the leftist worldview, based upon dozens if not hundreds of interactions with them over the decades. Nothing you're posted here has in any way changed this perception. You, OTOH, have been snide, superioristic and have done nothing but personally attack me for daring to disagree with your worldview. But I'm the immature one in this conversation. Right.

You know, Ad Hominem arguments are usually considered pretty weak.


NO! YOU ARE!

Sorry SouthernFriedYankee, I jumped the gun and took your line. Go ahead. Let him have it.
 
2012-06-23 08:27:27 PM  
How could anyone be against a health care reform bill written by the insurance companies? It's a mystery.
 
2012-06-23 08:28:06 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: So you can raise taxes all you like; for all of Warren Buffet's blather, he will skate out of any tax increases that happen. His less-wealthy competition, however, will get clobbered by them. AND HE KNOWS THIS, the farking hypocrite. And lucky for him, he's got all these leftists in America who lack the basic understanding of politics and economics needed to see through the sham of economic leftism.

"Damn left! Leftity left left libbie lib liberal I hate liberals so much goddamn liberals ruining everything ...

... what? I'm saying both sidez are teh badz."


Saying "both sides are bad" is a great way of "chickenshiatting" your way out of having to defend Republican policies while decrying the lefty leftist lefty libs. It's always been sad...now it's just kinda tired.
 
2012-06-23 08:33:23 PM  

paygun: How could anyone be against a health care reform bill written by the insurance companies? It's a mystery.


At least somebody gets it.
 
2012-06-23 08:33:26 PM  

born_yesterday: Saying "both sides are bad" is a great way of "chickenshiatting" your way out of having to defend Republican policies while decrying the lefty leftist lefty libs. It's always been sad...now it's just kinda tired.


Exactly. The amazing thing is that the ploy is so old, yet every one of them thinks they invented a new thing when they trot it out. I'd imagine SouthernFriedYankee in front of a whiteboard completely scrawled with failed ways to avoid being outed as a Republican. Then, suddenly, his eyes grow wide as he sees the universe as it really is for the first time. "I'VE GOT IT! I'LL JUST SAY BOTH SIDES ARE TEH BADZ!!! It's fool-proof! I'm a genius!" I want to know how they manage to somehow not see the 15 or so other guys pulling the exact same shtick in the same thread on the same day.
 
2012-06-23 08:34:08 PM  
Wow, the trolls got really angry in this thread. Awesome.

I'm not sure what I enjoyed more; relcec exhibiting creepy stalker behaviour towards Weaver, or SouthernFriedIndependent's butthurt and projection as he got his ass handed to him on numerous occasions.
 
2012-06-23 08:37:59 PM  

Trapper439: I'm not sure what I enjoyed more; relcec exhibiting creepy stalker behaviour towards Weaver, or SouthernFriedIndependent's butthurt and projection as he got his ass handed to him on numerous occasions.


relcec's flame-out was seriously disturbing. He had those forum posts ready to go without any warning. Like he has a text file full of them on his desktop just in case.
 
2012-06-23 08:38:47 PM  

Tor_Eckman: I just noticed something:

Login: SouthernFriedYankee
Fark account number: 49178
Account created: 2002-08-09 06:07:29

He's been here since 02, this is the first time I've ever seen him here, and he's spouting the same old crap as the rest of the alt-trolls.

Funny, that.


You know...I'm not sure that date actually means anything...if you know the right people.

/The links ain't gonna click themselves!
 
2012-06-23 08:40:04 PM  
I kind of wish relcec hadn't rage quit, that could have been an epic meltdown.
GaryPDX epic.
 
2012-06-23 08:40:45 PM  

born_yesterday: You know...I'm not sure that date actually means anything...if you know the right people.

/The links ain't gonna click themselves!


I don't think so. I've run across that situation before, and the mods don't like their pets to be picked on. I had forum posts deleted by a mod for calling out a troll, then had further ones deleted for even mentioning that it happened. I didn't see any of that here.
 
2012-06-23 08:44:23 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: paygun: How could anyone be against a health care reform bill written by the insurance companies a conservative think tank? It's a mystery.

At least somebody gets it.



A little more accurate this way.

If insurance companies alone had authored this bill, there's no way in hell they would have included a max 20% profit/overhead cap on their business model.

/Think it through. You're talking about companies that deny proven treatments, even letting their paying customers die, in order to boost their bottom line.
 
2012-06-23 08:50:15 PM  

Weaver95: Lorelle: Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.

But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!

That's what Reagan told us in 1980. I naively believed him; then again, I was 18 years old.

the other thing that gets me is the religious angle. Christ made if VERY clear - it is the duty of christians everywhere to help the sick and poor. you wanna be in the silly hat club, you help the sick and poor. Period. No exceptions. But the GOP wants to STOP helping the sick and poor. they want to make it MORE difficult for the sick and poor to have access to affordable medical care. Then the GOP turns around and says that they're 'Christian' and very moral people.

it's almost as if the Republican leadership wants to force Christians to reject Christian morality.


Damn, I knew there was an awesome reason you are in my favorites, thanks for reminding me, feel free to be rational more often, doubt it will help but it is refreshing.
 
2012-06-23 08:51:18 PM  

One Bad Apple: Tyrone Slothrop: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

Because "I've got mine, fark you" is an unsustainable economic model, despite what Ayn Rand says.

Far better to follow the morally superior tenet of "Fark you, give me yours"


Neither tenet is an appropriate description. It's more like "Ok, Billy, you got the red crayon first; now that you are done using it, share it with your classmates." If Billy is a Republican he will color his entire page red and then break the crayon out of spite because IT'S MINE I GOT IT FIRST!
 
2012-06-23 08:54:37 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: My political affiliation is post-partisan. They're all full of shiat.


And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Sure, you're a 'post-partisan' 'independent'. But The Party has built up such an imaginary threat in your head, that every time its you and the ballot you fall in line hook line and sucker. You fear that letting those evil 'command economy' 'leftists' even an ounce of power will commence the Red Revolution.

Both Sides Are Bad, So You'll Vote Republican.

Now bend over, Sunny Jim, 'cause Mitt Romney needs another horse and it ain't comin' out of his Cayman bank account.
 
2012-06-23 09:00:18 PM  
At least half to the expanded health coverage in the law-an estimated 16 million people-is to come through bringing Medicaid eligibility, in 2014, up to a national threshold, 133 percent of the poverty level (about $31,000 for a family of four.)

Too bad the Supreme Corporatists -- err Supreme Court will be ruling against the medicaid expansion once they rule in favor of the mandate.
 
2012-06-23 09:00:38 PM  

GAT_00: It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.

Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.


Next week's Futurama is touching on that very subject
 
2012-06-23 09:05:46 PM  

dervish16108: At least half to the expanded health coverage in the law-an estimated 16 million people-is to come through bringing Medicaid eligibility, in 2014, up to a national threshold, 133 percent of the poverty level (about $31,000 for a family of four.)

Too bad the Supreme Corporatists -- err Supreme Court will be ruling against the medicaid expansion once they rule in favor of the mandate.


I'm curious what reasoning they could possibly use to declare the expansion unconstitutional. Clement was completely unconvincing to my eyes.
 
2012-06-23 09:08:14 PM  

bugontherug: Virtually none of this post addresses the original point of contention: re: both sides are equally bad, serving only the interests of the top .001%. I've pointed out several reforms which have helped and will continue to help millions of people well outside that income range.. You've responded with "well, I disagree with all of this as a matter of policy." But you have not demonstrated how:

1) increasing food stamp benefits doesn't help people who can't afford to buy their own food, or how food stamps help people in the .001%


How about decreasing the regulations that have frozen the hiring in this country? People are not obligated to hire others just because someone things they should. I'd rather see jobs instead of welfare checks. And again - how is it going to be paid for? The out of control spending is ruining the country's credit and the economy overall. This is not good for the poor, who are by definition at the bottom of the heap. And the abuse of the system has become staggering; I live in Memphis, and there are lots of people who only work long enough to max out their EITC, at which point they quit and go back on welfare until next year. I'm sure that happens in a lot of other places, and Obama's expansion of welfare eligibility and relaxation of restrictions has only made it worse. As to how leftist entitlement speding benefits the top 0.01%, that's a subject for another day. I believe it does, and can offer a solid argument to support it. But I need to go find the essay I wrote, and that's going to involve a lot of digging around in my desktop's archive drive.

2) extending unemployment benefits doesn't help people who can't find work, or how extending unemployment benefits helps the .001%

There is evidence that the extension of unemployment benefits, which are substantially higher than welfare in many cases, have delayed the recovery, because a lot of folks are content to limp by on unemployment. As to entitlement spending and the oligarchy, see above. I will go find it, and soon, but not immediately.

3) PPACA doesn't help people with pre-existing conditions, and people who otherwise could not afford to buy health insurance. Nor how mandating coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and indigents helps the .001%.

Obamacare is a total mess. If you think the insurance companies (0.01%ers, mind you) wrote anything that actually will benefit people in the long term, you're dreaming. It's going to bankrupt the private healthcare system and then the government will "have" to ride in and save the day.

4) How the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, while inadequate, helped Wall Street, who lobbied vigorously against its passage, and now give overwhelmingly to Republicans.

The regulations are crippling the smaller institutions, while the Wall Streeters helped write the damn thing and know the loopholes. So it helped to remove competition from the biggest fish in that pond, which does help them.

5) How credit card reform doesn't help people--mostly very poor, and outside the .001%--who've been historically targeted for bogus fees and transactions structured to create faux overdrafts.

And again, whatever money they've kept the banks from getting by whatever restrictions they put in place just gets taken from those people in a different way.

You have not demonstrated these things, because you cannot do so. You cannot do so, because they are false.

You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not. The amount spent on thee War on Poverty is equal to the officially-stated amount of the national debt. (If you include all the off-the-books, unfunded obligations, you can add at least a zero to the actual amount of the debt.) And yet we still have poverty, and the percentage of people living in it has not decreased. Why is that? Oh yeah, because Reagan. Because capitalism. Because teabaggers. Because everything except the truth, which is that the policies you support do not work.
 
2012-06-23 09:12:11 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.


Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

And wrong.
 
2012-06-23 09:13:56 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

And wrong.


so which democrats do you support?
 
2012-06-23 09:14:24 PM  

X-boxershorts: If insurance companies alone had authored this bill, there's no way in hell they would have included a max 20% profit/overhead cap on their business model.


They know they can get that changed, down the road.
 
2012-06-23 09:15:44 PM  

Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

And wrong.

so which democrats do you support?


the white ones
 
2012-06-23 09:18:23 PM  

Weaver95: relcec:
you're a pholibertarian/progressive authoritarian who wants to his personal ideas on the limits of human morality dictating what constitutes illegal behavior for everyone. that's why I have a problem with you....

what's a 'pholibertarian'?

*scratches head*


He likes his pho all bootstrappy. Personally, I like mine with rice noodles.
 
2012-06-23 09:19:52 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not.


THAT Line right there is where you find your full derp. It comes straight from the Hannity playbook. And it's complete bunk.

Every post you've made in this thread has some level of rationality. But ALWAYS comes back to full derp in one sentence.
 
2012-06-23 09:21:30 PM  

St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.


Sp did Dwight Eisehauer. Todays republicans are some sort of collection of odd nitwits
 
2012-06-23 09:26:19 PM  

X-boxershorts: SouthernFriedYankee: You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not.

THAT Line right there is where you find your full derp. It comes straight from the Hannity playbook. And it's complete bunk.

Every post you've made in this thread has some level of rationality. But ALWAYS comes back to full derp in one sentence.


It's derp all the way down-standard boilerplate Beck, Limblabb, Savage, Hannity bullshiat. "Job killing regulations" "Obama is Bush's third term and Carter's second" "libs want to control every part of your life", etc, etc. I don't think I've seen him claim that liberals are "un-American" yet, but I'm sure it's not going to be long.

He's like a machine that spouts willful ignorance.
 
2012-06-23 09:30:53 PM  

Tor_Eckman: "Obama is Bush's third term and Carter's second"


Is this the official talking point now? This morning, someone on FB posted a "what Obama inherited versus what we have now" load of derp, but to do so, they had to list some pretty crappy numbers that Bush rang up. It's as if to get rid of their personal embarrassment of Bush, they're trying to lump him in with Obama.

But Romney would be different. Yeah.
 
2012-06-23 09:39:36 PM  

Weaver95: so which democrats do you support?


I did vote for Obama in 2008, for previously stated reasons, namely McCain being Bush's third term, and being tired of Wall Street robbing us blind. Whoops. Patriot Act ramp-ups, Wall Street thievery, plus double digit unemployment and inflation. Thanks, Barry.

At this point, I don't think there's a damn bit of difference between them, except on superficial issues. I don't believe in rampant entitlement spending, so "but he gave more tax money to the poor" doesn't convince me that Obama is a good thing. The trend toward smaller families amongst the tax payers and larger ones amongst the tax-getters is predictable - and disasterous. It's created a permanent dependency class - also predictable and disasterous...for the country and citizenry. For the pols it's a great deal, which is why the GOP has lept on the bandwagon recently.

The Republicans still tout trickle down as if it's actually going to work, while giving the lip service to entitlements needed to get votes. Then they sprikle a fat layer of Jesus all over it to distract people from the fact that the oligarchs are plundering us with reckless abandon.

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor. They also blather on about "the top 1%" while ignoring the top 0.01% who actually profit from the redistribution of wealth, and pay virtually nothing in taxes.

Both parties allow the top 0.01% to do as they please, because those individuals own the pols in both parties.

Ergo, both parties are bad.

If either party actually did anything that truly improved the lives of the middle and upper middle classes, I'd support them. If either side actually embraced the idea of reducing the size and scope of government, I'd support them. To the leftists on this thread, since I don't support their leftist collectivist ideals, I'm a republican. I'm also called a troll and accused of "butthurt." Well, they can keep saying it, but it isn't true. I'm a limited government, free market, sound money conservative. The Republian party is none of those things. I disagree with leftist ideals because I firmly believe they do not work, and that the country is in free fall right now thanks largely to the out of control spending by the government, not only on personal welfare, but also on corporate welfare and the military-industrial-banking complex.

Leftist Frkers obviously like to pretend that the liberty movement in this country doesn't exist. Or they think it's limited to the post-Palin Tea Party. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
2012-06-23 09:39:55 PM  

born_yesterday: Tor_Eckman: "Obama is Bush's third term and Carter's second"

Is this the official talking point now? This morning, someone on FB posted a "what Obama inherited versus what we have now" load of derp, but to do so, they had to list some pretty crappy numbers that Bush rang up. It's as if to get rid of their personal embarrassment of Bush, they're trying to lump him in with Obama.

But Romney would be different. Yeah.


Just about everything he has posted is the same crap I hear every day from my co-worker who is a regular Beck listener (and who told me the other day that Brightbart was a "crusader") He also lies and tells me he never voted for Bush. He's the most frightened twenty-nine year old person I've ever met.
 
2012-06-23 09:40:25 PM  

Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee: G
The fact that you think it's stupid sums up the derp that is leftism perfectly. Ambition and optimism are what make this country great. Not everyone will succeed, but everyone should have every encouragement to try, and that includes not having the fruits of their labors stripped away from them to give to those who don't try..

ambition is great...I just want to stop the GOP from shooting everyone in the foot right before the race starts....


If they can't shoot people in the foot before the race, how are they going to determine who wins?
 
2012-06-23 09:40:43 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.


No, all I needed to see was you go off on Obamacare, 'leftists', and 'command economy', then make some mealy-mouthed attempts at Both Sides Are Bad. You couldn't have outed yourself worse if you had slapped a Romney 2012 sticker in your profile.

And wrong.

Secret ballots are amazing things, but I know bullshiat when I smell it. And so does everyone else here too.
 
2012-06-23 09:41:51 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Weaver95: so which democrats do you support?

I did vote for Obama in 2008, for previously stated reasons, namely McCain being Bush's third term, and being tired of Wall Street robbing us blind. Whoops. Patriot Act ramp-ups, Wall Street thievery, plus double digit unemployment and inflation. Thanks, Barry.

At this point, I don't think there's a damn bit of difference between them, except on superficial issues. I don't believe in rampant entitlement spending, so "but he gave more tax money to the poor" doesn't convince me that Obama is a good thing. The trend toward smaller families amongst the tax payers and larger ones amongst the tax-getters is predictable - and disasterous. It's created a permanent dependency class - also predictable and disasterous...for the country and citizenry. For the pols it's a great deal, which is why the GOP has lept on the bandwagon recently.

The Republicans still tout trickle down as if it's actually going to work, while giving the lip service to entitlements needed to get votes. Then they sprikle a fat layer of Jesus all over it to distract people from the fact that the oligarchs are plundering us with reckless abandon.

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor. They also blather on about "the top 1%" while ignoring the top 0.01% who actually profit from the redistribution of wealth, and pay virtually nothing in taxes.

Both parties allow the top 0.01% to do as they please, because those individuals own the pols in both parties.

Ergo, both parties are bad.

If either party actually did anything that truly improved the lives of the middle and upper middle classes, I'd support them. If either side actually embraced the idea of reducing the size and scope of government, I'd support them. To the leftists on this thread, since I don't support their leftist collectivist ideals, I'm a republican. I'm also called a troll and accused of "butthurt." Well, they can keep sayi ...


"Leftists" is the new "libtard". Progressive never really stuck as an insult, did it?
 
2012-06-23 09:42:16 PM  

falcon176: Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: And yet you vote straight-ticket Republican.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Were you in the voting booth with me in 2008? Huh? You weren't. I see. So you're psychic.

And wrong.

so which democrats do you support?

the white ones


OF COURSE I'm racist; why else would I oppose Obama? Certainly it can't be for his policies, or for the fact that he lied about who he was and what he was going to do.

Calling you an idiot is not ad hominem - it's the truth.
 
2012-06-23 09:42:31 PM  
One of the burdens of society is having to pay taxes. Taxes that provide for services I use, such as roads, and services that I hope to not need to use, such as the fire department.

One of the benefits of society is that my taxes pay for stuff that I can't afford by myself, such as roads and fire protection.

One of the benefits of having medicare in place is that I don't have to worry about paying for my parents medical care. I know they can't afford to pay for it. I know I can't afford to pay for it.

One of the benefits of food stamps, medicaid, and welfare is that it allows people around me to have access to things like health care, food, a place to live. If they can't legally get those things, they either go without, or turn to crime. I don't want people breaking into my house to steal things so they can get food or medicine. That is why we have a safety net.


/I'll start voting Republican once I'm a multi-millionare. Until then, I'll start looking out for people that have a direct impact on my life.
 
2012-06-23 09:43:24 PM  

Benni K Rok: One of the burdens of society is having to pay taxes. Taxes that provide for services I use, such as roads, and services that I hope to not need to use, such as the fire department.

One of the benefits of society is that my taxes pay for stuff that I can't afford by myself, such as roads and fire protection.

One of the benefits of having medicare in place is that I don't have to worry about paying for my parents medical care. I know they can't afford to pay for it. I know I can't afford to pay for it.

One of the benefits of food stamps, medicaid, and welfare is that it allows people around me to have access to things like health care, food, a place to live. If they can't legally get those things, they either go without, or turn to crime. I don't want people breaking into my house to steal things so they can get food or medicine. That is why we have a safety net.


/I'll start voting Republican once I'm a multi-millionare. Until then, I'll start looking out for people that have a direct impact on my life.


LEFTIST!!!!!!
 
2012-06-23 09:43:39 PM  

X-boxershorts: SouthernFriedYankee: You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not.

THAT Line right there is where you find your full derp. It comes straight from the Hannity playbook. And it's complete bunk.


So you're saying you do not believe in this, either?

/Hannity sucks balls
 
2012-06-23 09:49:33 PM  

Tor_Eckman: LEFTIST!!!!!!


So?
 
2012-06-23 09:52:42 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay:
I don't think so. I've run across that situation before, and the mods don't like their pets to be picked on. I had forum posts deleted by a mod for calling out a troll, then had further ones deleted for even mentioning that it happened. I didn't see any of that here.


To be fair, doing that would have made it way too obvious that its a mod approved account, or mod itself.

Although, to be fairer, the two common mod regular posters on this tab aren't exactly known for logical thinking or rationale.
 
2012-06-23 09:53:18 PM  

Tor_Eckman: "Leftists" is the new "libtard". Progressive never really stuck as an insult, did it?


Leftist is an accurate description of your views; the fact that you think I mean it as an insult tells me a lot about you.

You are not "progressives." There's nothing progressive about your views. They result in less freedom, less opportunity and less success for the general public. But they never do manage to stop the real rulers from running roghshod over the lot of us, do they?! Those folks have plenty of freedom, success and opportunity. And behind the scenes, they hand-pick all the national canididates of both parties to make sure it stays that way.
 
2012-06-23 09:58:31 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: "Leftists" is the new "libtard". Progressive never really stuck as an insult, did it?

Leftist is an accurate description of your views; the fact that you think I mean it as an insult tells me a lot about you.

You are not "progressives." There's nothing progressive about your views. They result in less freedom, less opportunity and less success for the general public. But they never do manage to stop the real rulers from running roghshod over the lot of us, do they?! Those folks have plenty of freedom, success and opportunity. And behind the scenes, they hand-pick all the national canididates of both parties to make sure it stays that way.


So I guess it's Johnson then, right?

You're so predictable.
 
2012-06-23 09:58:46 PM  
Expand the welfare rolls - more great original thinking from the left.
 
2012-06-23 10:07:02 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: You believe in giving money to people just because they exist. I do not. The amount spent on thee War on Poverty is equal to the officially-stated amount of the national debt. (If you include all the off-the-books, unfunded obligations, you can add at least a zero to the actual amount of the debt.) And yet we still have poverty, and the percentage of people living in it has not decreased. Why is that? Oh yeah, because Reagan. Because capitalism. Because teabaggers. Because everything except the truth, which is that the policies you support do not work.


We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.

But I'll make this offer to you and all your ilk: We'll stop giving money to people "just because they exist" provided that when YOU need money, you don't come asking for it. When you get sick, or your child is born autistic, or you arrive at work to find that pink slip on your desk--we better not see your name on the public assistance rolls.
 
2012-06-23 10:07:23 PM  
Over 65% of the American public DO NOT WANT ObamaCare. Shows how "in tune" our "President" is, doesn't it?
 
2012-06-23 10:14:42 PM  

NeverDrunk23: To be fair, doing that would have made it way too obvious that its a mod approved account, or mod itself.

Although, to be fairer, the two common mod regular posters on this tab aren't exactly known for logical thinking or rationale.


I'm not a mod. I've had this account since 2002. I used to argue exactly the way you guys do - invective and insult - only from the other side. I quit coming here because it was not productive nor a good use of my time. I ran across the link in my bookmarks a few months ago, and decided to come check the place out again.

Nor am I a mod pet. I've been put on timeout several times for spouting the same sort of blather you folks have been spouting - all heat, no light. I've also had a posts deleted and so forth, for the same reason.

I understand that your only recourse is to label me a troll, mod's pet, etc. because my central assertion - that the entitlement spending championed by the economic left does not work out in the long run, and has severely damaged the country - is one you do not wish to address. I've been accused of being a racist, and predicted to call you folks "un-American." Next you'll accuse me of hating poor people and minorities. None of it's true, but that's obviously all you've got. A decade ago, when I was here, I would have responded in kind, with "libtard" and so forth. That accomplishes exactly nothing. I've also seen every rational point I've made labeled "derp" because you don't agree with it. Again, I could respond in kind, but what does that accomplish, exactly?

The big problem you will have with me in these threads is that I'm not a Christian, nor do I support the perpetual war philosophy, nor do I support the complete and total deregulation of all business, industry and finance, nor do I believe it's unreasonable to think that a country as prosperous as ours should have a safety net in place for the truly disadvantaged, and people who truly fall on hard times. So the things you reflexively hurl at most folks who today call themselves "conservatives" aren't going to work on me.

But I invite thoughtful discussion with anyone who wants to engage in it.
 
2012-06-23 10:15:58 PM  
Who's that subby... the Supreme Court justices?
 
2012-06-23 10:26:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.


You miss the point. We've spent $15 trillion on the War on Poverty over 4 decades, and the percentage of people in it has not decreased; in fact, through the miracle of tabbed browsing, I was able to do a quick search and find this story about poverty being the second highest percentage in 45 years. Now I know, "but Bush." Enough. Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted. 5 trillion in deficit spending in not even 4 years. It. Has. Not. Worked.
 
2012-06-23 10:29:54 PM  

Tor_Eckman: So I guess it's Johnson then, right?


Non sequitur.
 
2012-06-23 10:39:01 PM  

Trapper439: Wow, the trolls got really angry in this thread. Awesome.

I'm not sure what I enjoyed more; relcec exhibiting creepy stalker behaviour towards Weaver, or SouthernFriedIndependent's butthurt and projection as he got his ass handed to him on numerous occasions.


this thread delivers!

relcec went off the deep end and SFI is just a rambling idiot as far as I can tell
 
2012-06-23 10:43:05 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah ... I don't think you did. You're oblivious to how utterly ordinary you are as just another Republican who avoids criticism by pretending to be an independent. You're all like this, and you all have a chip on your shoulder about how people look down on you as intellectually inferior.

I don't care what you think. And bub, the way you write proves that you look down on everyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior. If you could articulate your views intelligently, that would be a better way to go than personal attacks. The most I've said is that leftists tend to think they're better than everyone else. That's not a slam on you personally, that's what I believe to be an accurate assessment of the leftist worldview, based upon dozens if not hundreds of interactions with them over the decades. Nothing you're posted here has in any way changed this perception. You, OTOH, have been snide, superioristic and have done nothing but personally attack me for daring to disagree with your worldview. But I'm the immature one in this conversation. Right.


just gonna point out the obvious fact that both sides think they're "better" than the other side

"better" being hugely vague and wide open to multiple interpretations
 
2012-06-23 10:44:27 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.

You miss the point. We've spent $15 trillion on the War on Poverty over 4 decades, and the percentage of people in it has not decreased; in fact, through the miracle of tabbed browsing, I was able to do a quick search and find this story about poverty being the second highest percentage in 45 years. Now I know, "but Bush." Enough. Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted. 5 trillion in deficit spending in not even 4 years. It. Has. Not. Worked.


Obama had a 10 seat majority in the Senate for exactly 12 weeks. The bare minimum needed to override a filibuster. Franken was delayed from being seated for several months because the MN GoP and Norm Coleman challenged every single finding of the MN Election commission in court, losing every single challenge. After Kennedy took leave to address his bran cancer, it was 59 Senators, and the filibuster was on in force yet again.

You have a pretty selective memory there....
 
2012-06-23 10:48:27 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: I'm a republican. I'm also called a troll and accused of "butthurt." Well, they can keep saying it, but it isn't true.



When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.


It means you're a troll, congratulations.
 
2012-06-23 10:49:00 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.

You miss the point. We've spent $15 trillion on the War on Poverty over 4 decades, and the percentage of people in it has not decreased; in fact, through the miracle of tabbed browsing, I was able to do a quick search and find this story about poverty being the second highest percentage in 45 years. Now I know, "but Bush." Enough. Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted. 5 trillion in deficit spending in not even 4 years. It. Has. Not. Worked.


You've been labeled as a troll because you spout nothing but talking points that have all been shot down here so many times that it's not worth the trouble to do it again. But just for shiats and grins, let's look at the national debt so far under Obama:

i.imgur.com

Now you'll notice, most of the 5 trillion you mentioned above is related to ongoing spending policies that he had nothing to do with. So your point is bullshiat.

And the whopper "He got practically everything he wanted"? I mean, if this is not a troll then you are one of the most willfully ignorant posters I've ever seen here.

So there are two blatant bullshiat talking points. Frankly, I'm too lazy to point out every one of the lies that you have posted in this thread. So please stop.
 
2012-06-23 10:49:49 PM  

tony41454: Over 65% of the American public DO NOT WANT ObamaCare.


I don't know which is worse. Having corrupt millionaires make decisions for me or having the amazingly large number of morons in this country do it. I'm leaning toward the former.

Here's some things that americans believe in:

80% believe there's a man who lives in the sky and watches everything we do
62% think that hell exists
61% believe in the virgin birth
59% say the devil exists
47% don't believe in evolution
44% believe in ghosts
36% believe UFOs are real
31% believe in both witches and astrology

No wonder George W. was elected twice.
 
2012-06-23 10:52:30 PM  

7zark7: 61% believe in the virgin birth


Hey now, everyone is born a virgin...
 
2012-06-23 10:54:30 PM  
Amen to the headline, its been proven time and again to me personally. I don't begrudge them but it's getting really hard to keep it up and not just blow up and be like YOU GET shiat FOR FREE I DON'T, what's wrong with helping those down and out, you are? Personally, I don't want to sit at home all day afraid someone is going to go through my pile of trash.
 
2012-06-23 10:55:08 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.

You miss the point. We've spent $15 trillion on the War on Poverty over 4 decades, and the percentage of people in it has not decreased; in fact, through the miracle of tabbed browsing, I was able to do a quick search and find this story about poverty being the second highest percentage in 45 years. Now I know, "but Bush." Enough. Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted. 5 trillion in deficit spending in not even 4 years. It. Has. Not. Worked.


He did not get "practically everything he wanted." He was stymied by unanimous Republican filibusters at every single turn. Lieberman stabbed him in the back over giving all Americans the option to enroll in Medicare in particular. And he did not have two years of supermajority rule to "shove shiat down America's throat" either. As for the whole poverty issue, that's what happens when you let a bunch of bankers turn our economy into the world's largest casino, install themselves as the house, and force people to play a losing game.
 
2012-06-23 11:01:29 PM  

cchris_39: Expand the welfare rolls - more great original thinking from the left.


keep squeezing blood from the middle and lower classes - more great yada yada

also the topic is not welfare rolls, but i understand you're using it as a catch-all derogatory term
 
2012-06-23 11:08:33 PM  
There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'
 
2012-06-23 11:14:06 PM  

tony41454: Over 65% of the American public DO NOT WANT ObamaCare. Shows how "in tune" our "President" is, doesn't it?


yes we know regressive agitprop has been working overtime to pull the wool over people's eyes to disparage the very bill, the parts of which they favor, but when it's called "obamacare", it's a paper plate of dried boogies

btw, never seen anyone yet on the right respond why a heritage-foundation-created idea like insurance mandates, promoted by cons and repubs for years, is suddenly omfg soshulism govt takeover evil liberalism.

bueller?
 
2012-06-23 11:16:57 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.


I think the entire country and everyone living in it would benefit from Obama sending SEAL Team 6 to assassinate you in the middle of the night.
 
2012-06-23 11:26:13 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'


i lolled
 
2012-06-23 11:35:41 PM  
Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.
 
2012-06-23 11:41:23 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'


Unmitigated bullshiat. The "cannot decline people due to prexisiting conditions" clause alone will benefit the hell out of my girlfriend/future wife, when I go into the work force. What with her having a stroke at *23* due to prescribed medication, and all, most insurance companies wouldn't farking touch her otherwise.

So you know what?

Fark you.

/She's fine now, thankfully, but they still won't touch her.
 
2012-06-23 11:45:59 PM  

marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.


How cute. Here's a quarter. Go play a song on the jukebox.
 
2012-06-23 11:46:25 PM  

marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.


wtfamireading.jpg
 
2012-06-23 11:47:36 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'


please stop what you're doing. i ask you as one human to another, both of us with hearts, minds, and internets. please stop, and find another way to entertain yourself.
hugs,
capnblues
 
2012-06-24 12:23:35 AM  

marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.


this derp is a thing of beauty
 
2012-06-24 12:32:57 AM  
That's because they are just doing what they are told! They are too stupid to know any difference and just wait for their corporate whore overlords to tell them what to say and what to do!
 
2012-06-24 12:37:10 AM  

cherrydog: this derp is a thing of beauty


as beautiful as a goblin shark maybe.
 
2012-06-24 12:38:56 AM  
Being poor isn't a crime or worthy of punishment.

It's hard to remember that after a few hours of listening to talk radio.
 
2012-06-24 12:44:24 AM  

Felgraf: randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'

Unmitigated bullshiat. The "cannot decline people due to prexisiting conditions" clause alone will benefit the hell out of my girlfriend/future wife, when I go into the work force. What with her having a stroke at *23* due to prescribed medication, and all, most insurance companies wouldn't farking touch her otherwise.

So you know what?

Fark you.

/She's fine now, thankfully, but they still won't touch her.


Me too. That preexisting condition clause has kept me from having private insurance for nearly 30 years. If I don't have work insurance, I don't have insurance--I ran out my COBRA and Cal-Cobra last year. I kept up with my insurer on a continuation clause until they jacked my rates AGAIN. Now if I get sick it's on the County dime.

So that makes two people who would ultimately benefit from Obamacare. You lose, randommotherf*cker.
 
2012-06-24 12:49:52 AM  

Truncks1: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

wtfamireading.jpg


Please, let me.

scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2012-06-24 12:51:05 AM  

cherrydog: just gonna point out the obvious fact that both sides think they're "better" than the other side


Not gonna disagree with you here.

I do not think I'm better than anyone. I think my ideas are correct; if I didn't I wouldn't hold them, obviously. But this doesn't translate into me being superior to someone who disagrees with me.
 
2012-06-24 12:57:04 AM  

Serious Black: He did not get "practically everything he wanted."


I am so motherfarking sick of that talking point, that he had some supermajority to rule the world with and create any legislation he personally felt like the whole time. Like there isn't such a thing as a blue dog democrat (among other factors).
 
2012-06-24 01:01:26 AM  

Truncks1: When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.

It means you're a troll, congratulations.


Except for the incovenient fact that it is their answer: more taxes, more spending. Always. The only reason Obama hasn't raised taxes is because a big percentage of the country went a bit apeshiat when he suggested it (remember "letting the Bush tax cuts expire"? Letting a tax cut expire is a tax increase, no matter how you try to spin it.) Which means both parties are the party of don't tax & spend, which is not sustainable, unless you wanna learn Mandarin. I do not.

However, the fact is that if they thought they could get re-elected while raising taxes, they'd do it. Except on the oligarchs. And it would be very easy to do; create a brand-new tax bracket for people making over $1 million/year. Also, you could actually give a $500 - 750K exemption on capital gains taxes per year, and then raise the rates up to about 20%. All of that is doable stuff. But they won't do any of it, because the oligarchs have bought them all off. Thus, I say that the Democrats want to take all the middle anmd upper middle class's money and give it to the poor (and to their oligarch cronies, but that's another story). And when I say this, I am correct.
 
2012-06-24 01:05:04 AM  

Tor_Eckman: You've been labeled as a troll because you spout nothing but talking points that have all been shot down here so many times that it's not worth the trouble to do it again. But just for shiats and grins, let's look at the national debt so far under Obama:

graph.jpg

Now you'll notice, most of the 5 trillion you mentioned above is related to ongoing spending policies that he had nothing to do with. So your point is bullshiat.


Try again.
 
2012-06-24 01:09:07 AM  

cherrydog: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

this derp is a thing of beauty


So derp merely means "disagree with leftists." Got it.
 
2012-06-24 01:09:39 AM  
Yeah lets go back to the good old days where private companies denied life-saving care. It is the American Way for the "market forces" to decide winners and losers based on net worth.
 
2012-06-24 01:11:21 AM  

OneBrightMonkey: Being poor isn't a crime or worthy of punishment.


Being successful doesn't obligate us to give the unsuccessful whatever the leftists think us owe them, either. And you aren't going to shame us into thinking otherwise.
 
2012-06-24 01:15:37 AM  

rev. dave: Yeah lets go back to the good old days where private companies denied life-saving care. It is the American Way for the "market forces" to decide winners and losers based on net worth.


Destroying the private health care system is not a good trade off for ending the pre-existing condition. I think it's crap too, but we don't need 2500 pages to end PEC clauses and extend coverage to age 26.

Can anyone tell me why pre-existing condition clauses even came into being? Hint: they were for one year. What were they trying to prvent?
 
2012-06-24 01:17:04 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: just gonna point out the obvious fact that both sides think they're "better" than the other side

Not gonna disagree with you here.

I do not think I'm better than anyone. I think my ideas are correct; if I didn't I wouldn't hold them, obviously. But this doesn't translate into me being superior to someone who disagrees with me.


you're not getting it. conservatives also believe they are "better", "superior" to liberals. but you were repeatedly making the charge one-sided against the left

a tendency very common among "moderates" and "independents"
 
2012-06-24 01:17:14 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Truncks1: When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.

It means you're a troll, congratulations.

Except for the incovenient fact that it is their answer: more taxes, more spending. Always. The only reason Obama hasn't raised taxes is because a big percentage of the country went a bit apeshiat when he suggested it (remember "letting the Bush tax cuts expire"? Letting a tax cut expire is a tax increase, no matter how you try to spin it.) Which means both parties are the party of don't tax & spend, which is not sustainable, unless you wanna learn Mandarin. I do not.

However, the fact is that if they thought they could get re-elected while raising taxes, they'd do it. Except on the oligarchs. And it would be very easy to do; create a brand-new tax bracket for people making over $1 million/year. Also, you could actually give a $500 - 750K exemption on capital gains taxes per year, and then raise the rates up to about 20%. All of that is doable stuff. But they won't do any of it, because the oligarchs have bought them all off. Thus, I say that the Democrats want to take all the middle anmd upper middle class's money and give it to the poor (and to their oligarch cronies, but that's another story). And when I say this, I am correct.


You can keep saying it, but you're still wrong.
 
2012-06-24 01:24:21 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Me too. That preexisting condition clause has kept me from having private insurance for nearly 30 years. If I don't have work insurance, I don't have insurance--I ran out my COBRA and Cal-Cobra last year. I kept up with my insurer on a continuation clause until they jacked my rates AGAIN. Now if I get sick it's on the County dime.

So that makes two people who would ultimately benefit from Obamacare. You lose, randommotherf*cker.


Yes, I'm aware that by screwing up the system for absolutely everyone, making it worse for absolutely everyone, and lowering the quality of care for absolutely everyone might seem like it's ultimately a good thing if you get something out if it in the short term but you're burning down the house to keep yourself warm for awhile.

And everyone else in the house, hot, cold, or otherwise, is going to suffer for it, but hey, you got to be warm for a little while so screw everyone else as long as you got what you wanted here and now.

How about we let liberals set up their own insurance company and let them run it with the rules they think are fair and right. I'm totally sure it won't go bankrupt and out of business in less than a decade.

Now if you'd like to create some reform that was not intentionally designed to "burn the house" down so to speak then let's hear it but ObamaCare is, as I said, going to burn the whole house down to keep some people warm... But then again, that's precisely what it was intended to do. It was designed to be a disaster so government could step in again and be the solution in a 'Yes, we burned the house down, but trust us, we're going to rebuild a much better house now...!' moment.
 
2012-06-24 01:27:14 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Truncks1: When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.

It means you're a troll, congratulations.

Except for the incovenient fact that it is their answer: more taxes, more spending. Always. The only reason Obama hasn't raised taxes is because a big percentage of the country went a bit apeshiat when he suggested it (remember "letting the Bush tax cuts expire"? Letting a tax cut expire is a tax increase, no matter how you try to spin it.) Which means both parties are the party of don't tax & spend, which is not sustainable, unless you wanna learn Mandarin. I do not.

However, the fact is that if they thought they could get re-elected while raising taxes, they'd do it. Except on the oligarchs. And it would be very easy to do; create a brand-new tax bracket for people making over $1 million/year. Also, you could actually give a $500 - 750K exemption on capital gains taxes per year, and then raise the rates up to about 20%. All of that is doable stuff. But they won't do any of it, because the oligarchs have bought them all off. Thus, I say that the Democrats want to take all the middle anmd upper middle class's money and give it to the poor (and to their oligarch cronies, but that's another story). And when I say this, I am correct.


If you chose to live in ignorance at what Democrats actually want - I can't convince you otherwise. Making generalizations that fit your own world view is no way to ever convince anyone that you're right. If you don't want to be considered a troll (and I think you probably think its a badge of honor), you'd just stop and argue against things democrats actually want instead of what you perceive. The "both sides are bad" argument you make is not helping anyone chose better government officials and just continues to spread outright misinformation about both sides and the people they represent.

I don't always agree with republicans but I understand where their arguments are coming from (most of the time) and I understand they want to make the country better in a different way. I hate even the argument that Dems want big government and "tax and spend" because it hasnt been true at all, everyone would want smaller and more efficient government, but Dems simply do not think the private sector can be trusted to handle certain industries, while many Republicans believe that the private sector should be used with everything. Republicans don't trust government because there is not a good metric for evaluating many government functions, while businesses always have a solid evaluation tool - profits.
 
2012-06-24 01:27:57 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

this derp is a thing of beauty

So derp merely means "disagree with leftists." Got it.


no dude. derp in this case refers to every cracked notion in this gem.

here, take my hand:

"nothing to do with healthcare"

"control over every aspect of your life"

"nationalize your body" [my favorite]

"no longer own yourself"

"creepy"

and like such as

this should be evident to anybody who is rational and fair-minded.

i thought maybe you even, espcially as an "independent"?

perhaps i'm mistaken
 
2012-06-24 01:35:13 AM  

randomjsa: Gyrfalcon: Me too. That preexisting condition clause has kept me from having private insurance for nearly 30 years. If I don't have work insurance, I don't have insurance--I ran out my COBRA and Cal-Cobra last year. I kept up with my insurer on a continuation clause until they jacked my rates AGAIN. Now if I get sick it's on the County dime.

So that makes two people who would ultimately benefit from Obamacare. You lose, randommotherf*cker.

Yes, I'm aware that by screwing up the system for absolutely everyone, making it worse for absolutely everyone, and lowering the quality of care for absolutely everyone might seem like it's ultimately a good thing if you get something out if it in the short term but you're burning down the house to keep yourself warm for awhile.

And everyone else in the house, hot, cold, or otherwise, is going to suffer for it, but hey, you got to be warm for a little while so screw everyone else as long as you got what you wanted here and now.

How about we let liberals set up their own insurance company and let them run it with the rules they think are fair and right. I'm totally sure it won't go bankrupt and out of business in less than a decade.

Now if you'd like to create some reform that was not intentionally designed to "burn the house" down so to speak then let's hear it but ObamaCare is, as I said, going to burn the whole house down to keep some people warm... But then again, that's precisely what it was intended to do. It was designed to be a disaster so government could step in again and be the solution in a 'Yes, we burned the house down, but trust us, we're going to rebuild a much better house now...!' moment.


wow.

again:

were the conservatives in error to give birth to the concept of the insurance mandate via the heritage foundation?

what's the solution from cons for the problems of our healthcare costs, quality and coverage?

awaiting with baited breath for any response from the right.
 
2012-06-24 01:53:02 AM  

Benni K Rok: One of the burdens of society is having to pay taxes. Taxes that provide for services I use, such as roads, and services that I hope to not need to use, such as the fire department.

One of the benefits of society is that my taxes pay for stuff that I can't afford by myself, such as roads and fire protection.

One of the benefits of having medicare in place is that I don't have to worry about paying for my parents medical care. I know they can't afford to pay for it. I know I can't afford to pay for it.

One of the benefits of food stamps, medicaid, and welfare is that it allows people around me to have access to things like health care, food, a place to live. If they can't legally get those things, they either go without, or turn to crime. I don't want people breaking into my house to steal things so they can get food or medicine. That is why we have a safety net.


/I'll start voting Republican once I'm a multi-millionare. Until then, I'll start looking out for people that have a direct impact on my life.


This makes me think of when I was having a talk with my super conservative future brother-in-law when he was ripping on people the welfare systems because some people exploit it. I told him I'd rather see some people who do not deserve mercy get it than people who do deserve mercy not get it. Mind you, this talk happened two months after he got job after having gone through all unemployment extensions during which he got free room and board from his parents, free meals from my parents now and then on top of the free car maintenance from my dad.
 
2012-06-24 02:01:04 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: This makes me think of when I was having a talk with my super conservative future brother-in-law when he was ripping on people the welfare systems because some people exploit it. I told him I'd rather see some people who do not deserve mercy get it than people who do deserve mercy not get it. Mind you, this talk happened two months after he got job after having gone through all unemployment extensions during which he got free room and board from his parents, free meals from my parents now and then on top of the free car maintenance from my dad.


Conversation with coworkers the other day:

Them: all these people don't want jobs, they prefer welfare to having a job.

Me: Do you really think its preferable to be on welfare than having a job? That all these people are smart and could have great jobs but are just living the dream on the dole?

Them: They are smart enough to get good jobs.

Me: So why aren't you guys on the dole?

Them: because life is better having a job.

Me: So why do you think they want to not have a job?

Them: Because they are idiots, I don't think they realize how much better off you are with a job.


Now, the them likely referred mostly to blacks, since we are in the downriver area. That could be meant as racist, or not, you can never be sure. But what struck me was this belief that nobody was worse off than my coworkers in terms of natural gifts, talent, skills, opportunity, etc. They all also agreed you were much better off working and drawing a decent wage/salary than living the shiat life of foodstamps and welfare. And yet they still insisted that these people would choose that and couldn't possibly have the actual hardships that would lead them to deserving the help.

Its mindboggling.
 
2012-06-24 02:18:08 AM  

relcec: If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.


Why, again, did B. Hussein Osama propose a public option? And which party obstructed its passage?
 
2012-06-24 02:41:36 AM  
I know that this will come as a shock to most farkers, but not everybody bases their political opinions on what's in it for them.
 
2012-06-24 02:46:49 AM  

cherrydog: perhaps i'm mistaken


There is something to the idea that once the government gains sufficient control over heathcare, they can control practically every aspect of a person's life, because practically every aspect of a person's life can be described and viewed in terms of being a health-related issue.

Look at what the clowns on both sides of the isle have done with the concept of "terror." There's practically nothing that the government can't give itself the power to do any more, because they've defined practically every aspect of our lives in terms of the terrorist threat. Now they're trying to get control over the rest of our lives under the guise of "health."

She didn't explain it out like that, but I got what she meant, which is why I reacted to you calling it "derp." Are you cool with all the Patriot Act crap that Bush started and which Obama has ramped up? The oligarchs know the economy is going to collapse sooner rather than later, and all these "terror" laws are really about making sure a desperate citizenry can't rise up against them - we'll all be "terrorists" for opposing the cronyistic system that's putting the finishing touches on global neofeudalism.
 
2012-06-24 02:48:43 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: relcec: If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.

Why, again, did B. Hussein Osama propose a public option? And which party obstructed its passage?


See, the republicans only got in the way because they have a superior reform in mind, which they haven't really explained to the public yet (and didn't attempt any time they held the legislature in the last 2 decades).

But 0bongo had full control for like 2 years, and everyone would do exactly what he wanted, and he totally sold out to the insurance companies out of pure evil and greed.

Worst case scenario: both sides are bad. And also, of course the average american thinks that the truth lies in the center of the two sides, regardless of who is stretching the truth more. Foxnews crafts a humdinger of a lie and Obama exaggerates a cost estimate, and that means the -13 averages with the +1, and the truth which is really a 0 is now viewed as a -6.

Bullshiat like that is why we can't get anything done in this country. The same people irl biatching about obamacare fully admit that the republican party they've always voted for both halted reform under clinton and didn't do anything proactively during what, 6 years under bush's republican control?, and yet they are ready to vote republican again because Obamacare isn't what they want.
 
2012-06-24 02:49:12 AM  

verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.


I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

www.geoffpinkus.com
You know, we're living in a society.
 
2012-06-24 02:49:32 AM  

cherrydog: were the conservatives in error to give birth to the concept of the insurance mandate via the heritage foundation?


Yes.

what's the solution from cons for the problems of our healthcare costs, quality and coverage?

Too long for a reply right now; it's damn near 2 am and I'm going to get of the internet for the night. Ask me again sometime. Really.
 
2012-06-24 02:50:55 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: There is something to the idea that once the government gains sufficient control over heathcare, they can control practically every aspect of a person's life, because practically every aspect of a person's life can be described and viewed in terms of being a health-related issue.


No, there is nothing to that idea but whargarble. But feel free to connect those dots. Instead of just claiming the argument exists in theory: make it yourself.

Comparing Obamacare to the Patriot act is just lunacy.
 
2012-06-24 02:53:07 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: This makes me think of when I was having a talk with my super conservative future brother-in-law when he was ripping on people the welfare systems because some people exploit it.


I rip on the people who exploit it, but not on the people who truly need it. My mom's been a tax preparer for 26 years, and I can tell you a lot about how they do exploit it. And yes, earned income tax credits count as welfare in my mind; you get more money back than you paid in. And yes, republicans started it (Ford) and ramped it up (Reagan).
 
2012-06-24 02:54:17 AM  

Smoking GNU: Americans are their own worst enemies. That's usually how it goes for large empires right before they collapse into obscurity.


You do know what the "bread" in "bread and circuses" was, don't you?
 
2012-06-24 02:58:22 AM  

Smackledorfer: The same people irl biatching about obamacare fully admit that the republican party they've always voted for both halted reform under clinton and didn't do anything proactively during what, 6 years under bush's republican control?,


Yes they did. They passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, which added a shiat-ton to the deficit.

Oh, you meant they didn't do anything good. Well, you're right, there.
 
2012-06-24 03:03:18 AM  

Smackledorfer: No, there is nothing to that idea but whargarble. But feel free to connect those dots. Instead of just claiming the argument exists in theory: make it yourself.

Comparing Obamacare to the Patriot act is just lunacy.


When you don't take slippery slopes and governmental creep into account, then yes, you arrive at your point of view. I do consider those things, so I have a different view.

And seriously: is disagreeing with you folks derp - or wharrgarbl?

/derpy wharrgarbl FTW!!
 
2012-06-24 03:44:41 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: When you don't take slippery slopes into account


Link

I only take them into account when people connect the dots.

Mentioning that you use a slippery slope while refusing to connect the dots is like a child picking his nose and showing it to his mom. You may be proud of yourself for using one, but it just makes you look ignorant to everyone else.

I expect the next step to be moving the goalposts as far from "once the government gains sufficient control over heathcare, they can control practically every aspect of a person's life, because practically every aspect of a person's life can be described and viewed in terms of being a health-related issue." as possible while suggesting its basically the same thing?
 
2012-06-24 04:04:40 AM  
Somewhat off-topic, but ...

My parents were working-class folks who always voted Democrat. They told me that the Dems usually favored trying to help the "little guy" while Republicans were more about helping Big Business. As I grew older, I realized that both a pure Democratic (or pure Republican, for that matter) platform of policies was a Bad Thing(tm), and that both viewpoints were needed to moderate each other's excesses.

A good example of this was something I read in one chapter of Robert Hooke's book, "How To Tell The Liars From The Statisticians"; the chapter about Type I and Type II errors. A type I error is, using a burglar alarm analogy, the alarm not going off when someone breaks and enters, while a type II error is a false alarm. Another example Hooke gave was a quotation from the Book of Common Prayer, something about "we have done things that we shouldn't have done and we have left undone things which we ought to have done." The first would be a type II error and the second a type I error.

Hooke carries this idea into American politics, stating that on some issues such as welfare and social programs, Liberals go all out to avoid the type I error of someone not getting benefits who needs them, while conservatives work hard at reducing type II errors of people getting benefits who don't actually need or deserve them. (He gave a second example where the two political groups' positions were reversed, but I don't remember what it was nor can I find the book right now. Something about military spending or something like that, I think: liberals not wanting to spend any more than necessary on our military in order to use the money elsewhere, on programs that would benefit more Americans; and conservatives wanting a strong a military as possible in order to be a deterrent to aggression and further our agenda in the world: something like that.)

Anyway, Hooke concludes that you can't totally eliminate either kind of error, practically speaking, without instances of the other kind skyrocketing. Back to the burglar alarm analogy, if you increase the alarm's sensitivity enough so that it always detects burglars, it will also go off every time there's a gust of wind or a heavy truck drives past; and if you decrease it enough to avoid all false alarms it's almost guaranteed not to go off during some actual burglaries. He mentions that it may be possible to greatly reduce both types of errors through research and superior technology, but doing so adds other problems to the issue, usually that of more expense.

(Hooke also mentioned that if instead of using the emotionally-charged terminology that we use when discussing these issues, if we instead used the statistician's reference to type I and type II errors these discussions might be a lot cooler and more professional, with a greater chance of seeing the other side's viewpoint and reaching common ground.)

Where I'm going with this is that with a totally liberal government we'd end up wasting money on social programs that give benefits to those not in need while reducing the military to the point of ineffectiveness (to use just the two examples that Hooke gave) while with a purely conservative government in charge we'd end up with poor people homeless and starving with the military's budget out of control. So obviously, what's needed is that both groups exist, working together to hammer out compromises such that we end up with government policies that, for the most part, work OK and that we can live with.

The problem, as I see it, is that in the past several years, the GOP has been actively embracing members of its lunatic fringe in order to attract their votes; while at the same time their idea of "compromise" is more like "my way or the highway." You can even see it amongst the Republican base, seeing all issues as black and white (a "You're either with me or you're with the terrorists" mentality.) This does not bode well at all for the next several years in America. We could possibly end up with one of three scenarios: A) a landslide, overall Dem victory followed by years of spending in such ways that might end up disastrous for the economy and/or the country, B) a landslide Repub victory with the same implications, or C) a mixed bag of both, containing uncooperative Republicans and nothing whatsoever getting done, which would also have disastrous results. All because Republicans refuse to compromise on anything.

As an aside, it's always been the way that during any economic hard times, foreign immigrants (whether legal or not) have always served as a scapegoat, as have the extremely wealthy. When times are good and everyone's doing pretty well, no one really minds that much if foreigners want to come here and get a share, nor that the rich are getting richer. When times are hard, people look for someone to blame and want to pull them down. "Why should she be getting these social benefits and or a job when I can't get them? Why should he have all that money when I can't even afford my mortgage/student loan payments?" Hence, our current outcry against "foreigners coming here and taking our jerbs" and the OWS movement. Look at your history: at least for the first item I know there were race riots against Chinese in (I think) California and other western states in the late 1800s, and I've seen pictures of signs saying "Help Wanted: no Irish need apply." If almost everyone who wants a good, living-wage job can get one you don't see these things so much. During an economic bust it all comes boiling to the surface.

Just an observation.
 
2012-06-24 04:07:11 AM  

DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.


You can't tell the difference between taxes and personal property? As I said, childish.
 
2012-06-24 04:31:57 AM  
I admit to skimming that post, Vinnie, but I agree. As you say though, the republicans are no longer capable of good original ideas for dems to balance out, nor are they interested in improving democratic ideas by presenting their own balance.

Instead they crash credit ratings while biatching about NPR, planned parenthood, homos,.and socialism. They break the programs they dislike to fulfill their predictions that the programs are bad.
 
2012-06-24 04:53:52 AM  

verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.

You can't tell the difference between taxes

the money people would use to buy personal property and personal property? As I said, childish.

FTFY
 
2012-06-24 05:26:22 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: were the conservatives in error to give birth to the concept of the insurance mandate via the heritage foundation?

Yes.

what's the solution from cons for the problems of our healthcare costs, quality and coverage?

Too long for a reply right now; it's damn near 2 am and I'm going to get of the internet for the night. Ask me again sometime. Really.


or you could just answer when you wake up. or not. whatever. it's always crickets from the right.

there aren't really many directions to go in besides creepy ooga-booga-care or single-payer omfg nationalized-body/socialized medicine.

well we could always go galt. that'll be fun
 
2012-06-24 05:31:43 AM  

DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.

You can't tell the difference between taxes the money people would use to buy personal property and personal property? As I said, childish.

FTFY


it all boils down to the same randian amorality:

"i got mine, fark you, get sick, get hurt and die in the poorhouse for all i care"

im sure you remember that moment after paul answered this question during the primary debates.
 
2012-06-24 05:35:09 AM  

DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.

You can't tell the difference between taxes the money people would use to buy personal property and personal property? As I said, childish.

FTFY


ha i just realized.. "drpainmd"

a little on the nose, don't you think?
 
2012-06-24 05:35:36 AM  

DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.

You can't tell the difference between taxes the money people would use to buy personal property and personal property? As I said, childish.

FTFY
DDDDEEERRRPPPPPP


We get such low quality trolls these days. Back in MY day, trolling meant something. Now, all we get are morons.
 
2012-06-24 05:38:52 AM  
Why do Americans hate being healthy?
 
2012-06-24 06:01:43 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted.


Come on, dude. Seriously?

Against my better judgement I trudged through this entire thread; read every post. Since you weren't being inflammatory with your comments I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when I recognized some blatant talking points in your posts. I agree with some of your ideas, though I disagree with more of them. Which is fine, we don't have to agree. I wasn't ready to classify you as a troll or anything.

In one of your posts, you invite anyone interested to have an intelligent discussion (didn't quote that post) and then you come out with this, and this is where you lost me. If you don't believe this, then you're a troll for posting it. If you do believe it, then, I'm sorry to say, you're deluding yourself. Before Obama was sworn in congressional Republicans went on record that their primary goal was to ensure he only got one term. Wrap your head around that. In the middle of two wars and the worst recession in generations, their primary goal had nothing to do with helping the country.

You came down a bit hard on liberals in general (before you started arguing with specific ones) and you said that neither party represents your interests. You're not alone in that viewpoint. There are many people who feel they aren't truly represented by either party and that, indeed, "both sides are bad." The thing is, though, is that right, wrong or indifferent, we only have the two choices when it comes time to vote (yes, I know third parties exist). That's why so many voters feel they're choosing the lesser of two evils when they go to the ballot box. You haven't openly stated it, but some of your comments make it seem as if you'd advocate not voting since neither of the major parties come anywhere close to representing your ideals.

You might want to keep that in mind when you perceive some liberal as claiming to be better than their conservative counterpart. Sometimes that's a fair viewpoint considering that better = not worse. And if trying to get something, even a less than satisfactory, watered down version of legislation, isn't better than refusing to compromise in a vain attempt to ensure the ill conceived primary goal of the Republican congress, then please tell me how it's worse.

/with small words, please
//and pictures
 
2012-06-24 06:11:30 AM  

relcec:
I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.


Does this also apply to conservatives who threatened to leave the country if a Democrat was elected?

I'm only asking in the interests of balance.
 
2012-06-24 06:44:19 AM  

cherrydog: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.

You can't tell the difference between taxes the money people would use to buy personal property and personal property? As I said, childish.

FTFY

it all boils down to the same randian amorality:

"i got mine, fark you, get sick, get hurt and die in the poorhouse for all i care"

im sure you remember that moment after paul answered this question during the primary debates.


No, what's amoral is saying, "Fark you, I'm not giving anything to charity... go sign up for a government handout. Heck, I might as well sign up for that same handout myself. Then I can spend all my money on beer and smokes. Beats the hell out of saving for a rainy day."
 
2012-06-24 08:29:38 AM  

cherrydog: SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

this derp is a thing of beauty

So derp merely means "disagree with leftists." Got it.

no dude. derp in this case refers to every cracked notion in this gem.

here, take my hand:

"nothing to do with healthcare"

"control over every aspect of your life"

"nationalize your body" [my favorite]

"no longer own yourself"

"creepy"

and like such as

this should be evident to anybody who is rational and fair-minded.

i thought maybe you even, espcially as an "independent"?

perhaps i'm mistaken


He is an independent. It's just that everything the lefty left leftist demonrats do is absolutely 100% wrong all the time forever. Oh, and the Republicans are bad, too.
 
2012-06-24 08:30:31 AM  

DrPainMD: cherrydog: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.

You can't tell the difference between taxes the money people would use to buy personal property and personal property? As I said, childish.

FTFY

it all boils down to the same randian amorality:

"i got mine, fark you, get sick, get hurt and die in the poorhouse for all i care"

im sure you remember that moment after paul answered this question during the primary debates.

No, what's amoral is saying, "Fark you, I'm not giving anything to charity... go sign up for a government handout. Heck, I might as well sign up for that same handout myself. Then I can spend all my money on beer and smokes. Beats the hell out of saving for a rainy day."


first part isn't making sense but, yup, the cost of keeping your ass covered from or treating chronic illness and medical conditions or catastrophic injury is about the same as extra cash for beer and smokes

this what the cult of ayn rand really thinks

go galt!
 
2012-06-24 08:34:00 AM  

born_yesterday: cherrydog: SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

this derp is a thing of beauty

So derp merely means "disagree with leftists." Got it.

no dude. derp in this case refers to every cracked notion in this gem.

here, take my hand:

"nothing to do with healthcare"

"control over every aspect of your life"

"nationalize your body" [my favorite]

"no longer own yourself"

"creepy"

and like such as

this should be evident to anybody who is rational and fair-minded.

i thought maybe you even, espcially as an "independent"?

perhaps i'm mistaken

He is an independent. It's just that everything the lefty left leftist demonrats do is absolutely 100% wrong all the time forever. Oh, and the Republicans are bad, too.


heheh. hammer, nail
 
2012-06-24 09:25:23 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: Aaaaand right right off the edge into ad hominem we go.

Pfffft.

Actually it started a bit earlier than that. Somewhere around:

SouthernFriedYankee: It's about leftists being in control of every aspect of every person's life, because leftists truly believe they are better than everyone else.

A hypocritical, projecting right-winger. Will wonders ever cease.

Do you understand the words you type? Ad hominem refers to personal insults instead of facts. And the fact is that leftists truly believe they're smarter, better informed, more compassionate, and therfore better at running people's lives than the people themselves are.

Do you have another explanation for why so much of leftist policy seeks to remove freedom from individuals and increase the power and reach of the government? No insults or dodging, please.


You were actually doing a really good troll job until right here. But those second and third sentences gave you away, though I think that was likely intentional.

I'll mark you as "pretty good troll, but still learning."
 
2012-06-24 12:01:34 PM  

LazarusLong42: SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: SouthernFriedYankee: Aaaaand right right off the edge into ad hominem we go.

Pfffft.

Actually it started a bit earlier than that. Somewhere around:

SouthernFriedYankee: It's about leftists being in control of every aspect of every person's life, because leftists truly believe they are better than everyone else.

A hypocritical, projecting right-winger. Will wonders ever cease.

Do you understand the words you type? Ad hominem refers to personal insults instead of facts. And the fact is that leftists truly believe they're smarter, better informed, more compassionate, and therfore better at running people's lives than the people themselves are.

Do you have another explanation for why so much of leftist policy seeks to remove freedom from individuals and increase the power and reach of the government? No insults or dodging, please.

You were actually doing a really good troll job until right here. But those second and third sentences gave you away, though I think that was likely intentional.

I'll mark you as "pretty good troll, but still learning."


Forget it, he's gone. Just like the rest of the 5+ year old accounts that suddenly show up on the pol tab for the first time spewing the same tired hyperbole and talking points. There will be others.
 
2012-06-24 04:43:08 PM  

DrPainMD: the money people would use to buy personal property


You seriously think there's no difference between the means to acquire property and that property itself? *eyeroll*

You live in a society that has security and infrastructure and you benefit from it. EVERYONE owes society for that. You may not like everything included in that infrastructure but if we let people pick and chose we would devolve into a dysfunctional state. If we still lived in small neolithic tribes or if people were different we could let them donate to the common good on their own initiative, but that's not how people work and that's not the world we live in, thus we have taxes. Every society that functions realizes this.
 
2012-06-24 05:23:01 PM  

cherrydog: what's the solution from cons for the problems of our healthcare costs, quality and coverage?


Well, a big thing I would like to see is a removal of the restriction on selling health insurance across state lines. Right now, we have 50 little fiefdoms; there's no reason for all the players to actually compete. They all do far better if they collude, and pretend to compete while keeping the dollars paid to benefits provided ratios roughly the same across the board. The economic pool of a single state is too small for anyone to find a decent profit in breaking rank. But, if a company in one state could sell policies to everyone in the country, some enterprising group of folks will decide that a lower percentage of profit is balanced out by much higher revenues - basically, economy of scale. If a company can provide the same or better benefits at a lower cost, and still make good money, that benefits everyone. The companies that didn't follow suit would bleed customers like crazy.

The Health savings accounts are also a good idea. I know that my chiropractor charges a lot less for folks who pay cash, because he doesn't have all the administrative overhead. Getting insurance out of maintenance care would also bring costs down. To me, insurance is for catatrophic events. A routine doctor's visit should not need insurance. To me, that constitutes "pre-paid health care."

The mandate is a recipe for disaster. Back in the mid 90s, I knew a girl who grew up in Florida. She told me about manditory auto insurance in Florida. (I know, it's img1.fark.net, but still.) I'm not talking about "cops ticket you" mandate, I'm talking about "proof of insurance or no driver's license" mandate. And IIRC, correctly, you had to have a license to buy a car, too. Car insurance costs were sky high in Florida, compared to other states - because they had you backed into a corner. You couldn't avoid buying it. The health insurance mandate is the same way. Every time the government raises the fine for not buying it, the companies will raise their rates. The Democrats will eventually raise the fine to several thousand dollars; what insurance company is going to sell their coverage at an anual rate lower than the fine? Eventually they'll pass a law stating that doctors and hospitals are not allowed to treat you without proof of insurance, even if you don't intend to file a claim. (That one would be done by the Republicans, if it were to happen; the oligarchs couldn't make that look convincing coming from the Democrats.)

And I had a doctor tell me once that if he was inspected, and found to have the $1 bottle of peroxide from the drug store instead of the $6 bottle of the exact same peroxide from the medical supply house, he'd lose his license. Now I'm sure one bottle of peroxide would not cost someone their medical license, but the point is that regulations are often written to allow a company or industry to be able to grossly overcharge its customers. While certain regulations are absolutely essential for public safety, a lot of them are just back-room crony payoffs.

The issue of heathcare costs is not a simple one. You're not going to get talented people to spend a decade in school and residency and go high six figures into student loan debt to become doctors if they're not allowed to make a commensurate income. And we can talk about addressing the high costs of education, (which as I understand it are growing much, much faster than the rate of inflation), but that's a whole other subject.

Again, I come back to cutting the power of the government to be able to write endless regulations, and then carve out loopholes for the highest bidders. The more power the government has, the more able it is to advance the aims and agendas of the most ruthless among us. Anarchy does not work, but neither does collectivism. "Just enough power to provide an orderly and free society to as many as possible, and no more" is my stance on government in general.
 
2012-06-24 06:10:51 PM  

geek_mars: SouthernFriedYankee: Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted.

Come on, dude. Seriously?

Against my better judgement I trudged through this entire thread; read every post. Since you weren't being inflammatory with your comments I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when I recognized some blatant talking points in your posts. I agree with some of your ideas, though I disagree with more of them. Which is fine, we don't have to agree. I wasn't ready to classify you as a troll or anything.

In one of your posts, you invite anyone interested to have an intelligent discussion (didn't quote that post) and then you come out with this, and this is where you lost me. If you don't believe this, then you're a troll for posting it. If you do believe it, then, I'm sorry to say, you're deluding yourself. Before Obama was sworn in congressional Republicans went on record that their primary goal was to ensure he only got one term. Wrap your head around that. In the middle of two wars and the worst recession in generations, their primary goal had nothing to do with helping the country.


Thus the word "practically." But let's look at it. Trillion dollar stumulus? Check. Health care bill? Check. Wall Street regulation? Check. Expanding welfare roles? Check. Prop up Fannie and Freddie? Check. I won't go into the stuff he promised to do and didn't (e.g. Gitmo), as that's the case with every politian. Sometimes it due to lying, sometimes it's opposition from the other party, and sometimes they promise things it's simply not possible to do. But yeah, he got a shiat-ton of his agenda passed, and we're still looking at double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, real estate in the shiatter, relentless loss of personal freedom and legal rights in the name of "terror," and the oligarchs plundering the economy from stem to stern.

You came down a bit hard on liberals in general (before you started arguing with specific ones) and you said that neither party represents your interests. You're not alone in that viewpoint. There are many people who feel they aren't truly represented by either party and that, indeed, "both sides are bad." The thing is, though, is that right, wrong or indifferent, we only have the two choices when it comes time to vote (yes, I know third parties exist). That's why so many voters feel they're choosing the lesser of two evils when they go to the ballot box. You haven't openly stated it, but some of your comments make it seem as if you'd advocate not voting since neither of the major parties come anywhere close to representing your ideals.

Well, I come down hard on entitlement spending because I think we've dug a bottomless pit by doing so much of it. It's not that I advocate not voting. I advocate becoming aware that neither party has the interests of the common person in mind. I advocate coming to grips with the fact that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity. I advocate a public safety net that's adequate but not too comfortable, so folks have an incentive to get off of it. But most of all, I advocate that people demand real choices, real improvements, real solutions. I'm not sure how to get through the din of infotainment. But we've goit to shake the public out of its apathy with something less than a widespread economic collapse.

You might want to keep that in mind when you perceive some liberal as claiming to be better than their conservative counterpart. Sometimes that's a fair viewpoint considering that better = not worse. And if trying to get something, even a less than satisfactory, watered down version of legislation, isn't better than refusing to compromise in a vain attempt to ensure the ill conceived primary goal of the Republican congress, then please tell me how it's worse.

/with small words, please
//and pictures


Well, legislation like the health care act, which is going to make things worse, is not better than doing nothing. Bush did this too - claim a problem needed fixing, and then proceed to make things worse than if he'd done nothing. Obama and the Democrat party of today want nothing else but to take the country into as full-blown of a socialist economy as they can. They appear not to care for anybody but about the bottom 10%, economically. The Republicans only seem to care about the top 5%. Both parties are actually the bought and paid for property of the top 0.01% I'd rather see nothing get done then for these two groups of toadies to keep screwing things up farther; that might be enough to get the middle class public to turn off the 'reality' TV and take an interest in actual reality. Crazy talk, I know. But a guy can dream.
 
2012-06-24 06:30:23 PM  

verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: the money people would use to buy personal property

You seriously think there's no difference between the means to acquire property and that property itself? *eyeroll*

You live in a society that has security and infrastructure and you benefit from it. EVERYONE owes society for that. You may not like everything included in that infrastructure but if we let people pick and chose we would devolve into a dysfunctional state. If we still lived in small neolithic tribes or if people were different we could let them donate to the common good on their own initiative, but that's not how people work and that's not the world we live in, thus we have taxes. Every society that functions realizes this.


That's absurd on many levels.

A) Were we a "dysfunctional state" in 1964, before there was MediCare?
B) Medical care isn't a common good. Roads and post offices are. If your definition of "common good" is "anything that everybody needs," then let's socialize food, housing, clothing, communication, transportation, vacations, etc., etc., etc. Otherwise we'll become a dysfunctional state.
C) Your claim that "we could let them donate to the common good on their own initiative, but that's not how people work" just proves that the system's only function is to create moral bankruptcy among the population. Before government-run charities, people (including people we now consider "poor" and in need of charity) DID give to charity. So much so that the government takeover of the charity business has done absolutely NOTHING for those who depend on charity, because the general population NO LONGER DONATES LIKE THEY USED TO. The average moron (yes, I'm talking about you) thinks that all he has to do is vote for Democrats and he's done his part to help the needy; no further effort required. I lived in the Philippines for a few years, and the nuns would go door-to-door collecting money for the poor. People who lived in dirt-floored huts with no running water would donate. So don't tell me "that's not how people work." You're just trying to ease your guilty conscience because you can't be bothered to do anything for anybody... you're too busy with your hand out, ready to vote for anybody who will give you other people's stuff for free. YOU are what's wrong with the world.
 
2012-06-24 07:01:57 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: what's the solution from cons for the problems of our healthcare costs, quality and coverage?

Well, a big thing I would like to see is a removal of the restriction on selling health insurance across state lines. Right now, we have 50 little fiefdoms; there's no reason for all the players to actually compete. They all do far better if they collude, and pretend to compete while keeping the dollars paid to benefits provided ratios roughly the same across the board. The economic pool of a single state is too small for anyone to find a decent profit in breaking rank. But, if a company in one state could sell policies to everyone in the country, some enterprising group of folks will decide that a lower percentage of profit is balanced out by much higher revenues - basically, economy of scale. If a company can provide the same or better benefits at a lower cost, and still make good money, that benefits everyone. The companies that didn't follow suit would bleed customers like crazy.

The Health savings accounts are also a good idea. I know that my chiropractor charges a lot less for folks who pay cash, because he doesn't have all the administrative overhead. Getting insurance out of maintenance care would also bring costs down. To me, insurance is for catatrophic events. A routine doctor's visit should not need insurance. To me, that constitutes "pre-paid health care."

The mandate is a recipe for disaster. Back in the mid 90s, I knew a girl who grew up in Florida. She told me about manditory auto insurance in Florida. (I know, it's , but still.) I'm not talking about "cops ticket you" mandate, I'm talking about "proof of insurance or no driver's license" mandate. And IIRC, correctly, you had to have a license to buy a car, too. Car insurance costs were sky high in Florida, compared to other states - because they had you backed into a corner. You couldn't avoid buying it. The health insurance mandate is the same way. Every time the government raises the fine for not buying it, the companies will raise their rates. The Democrats will eventually raise the fine to several thousand dollars; what insurance company is going to sell their coverage at an anual rate lower than the fine? Eventually they'll pass a law stating that doctors and hospitals are not allowed to treat you without proof of insurance, even if you don't intend to file a claim. (That one would be done by the Republicans, if it were to happen; the oligarchs couldn't make that look convincing coming from the Democrats.)

And I had a doctor tell me once that if he was inspected, and found to have the $1 bottle of peroxide from the drug store instead of the $6 bottle of the exact same peroxide from the medical supply house, he'd lose his license. Now I'm sure one bottle of peroxide would not cost someone their medical license, but the point is that regulations are often written to allow a company or industry to be able to grossly overcharge its customers. While certain regulations are absolutely essential for public safety, a lot of them are just back-room crony payoffs.

The issue of heathcare costs is not a simple one. You're not going to get talented people to spend a decade in school and residency and go high six figures into student loan debt to become doctors if they're not allowed to make a commensurate income. And we can talk about addressing the high costs of education, (which as I understand it are growing much, much faster than the rate of inflation), but that's a whole other subject.

Again, I come back to cutting the power of the government to be able to write endless regulations, and then carve out loopholes for the highest bidders. The more power the government has, the more able it is to advance the aims and agendas of the most ruthless among us. Anarchy does not work, but neither does collectivism. "Just enough power to provide an orderly and free society to as many as possible, and no more" is my stance on government in general.


points considered, a reasonable response

unlike the right-wing pants-on-head nuttery upthread you defensively white-knighted for

as a presumed "independent"
 
2012-06-24 07:34:14 PM  

cherrydog: points considered, a reasonable response

unlike the right-wing pants-on-head nuttery upthread you defensively white-knighted for

as a presumed "independent"


Well, I'm a small government, free market sorta guy; party politics means nothing to me because I don't trust any of them to tell me the truth about anything.

To which POH nuttery do you refer?
 
2012-06-24 08:39:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: I admit to skimming that post, Vinnie, but I agree. As you say though, the republicans are no longer capable of good original ideas for dems to balance out, nor are they interested in improving democratic ideas by presenting their own balance.

Instead they crash credit ratings while biatching about NPR, planned parenthood, homos,.and socialism. They break the programs they dislike to fulfill their predictions that the programs are bad.


What's weird and sad is, it used to be like that, and not so very long ago. I can still remember when the Republicans were not all about trashing the Democrats--they might attack each other individually, but never to the detriment of the country. There's always been friction between the rich and poor; but this attitude of "let's screw the country because we don't like the President" is new and frightening. There's always been a tendency for parties to support "our" President and undermine "their" President; and for Presidents to ignore data from one side if it puts their side in a bad light.

I have this uneasy feeling that it stems from the failed attempt to impeach and convict Clinton: "They" wanted paybacks for Watergate and didn't get it, so now if they can't destroy a President personally, they have to do it nationally. I also suspect that, had there not been a war in the way, Bush would have gotten the same treatment from the Democrats.
 
2012-06-24 09:05:38 PM  

DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: the money people would use to buy personal property

You seriously think there's no difference between the means to acquire property and that property itself? *eyeroll*

You live in a society that has security and infrastructure and you benefit from it. EVERYONE owes society for that. You may not like everything included in that infrastructure but if we let people pick and chose we would devolve into a dysfunctional state. If we still lived in small neolithic tribes or if people were different we could let them donate to the common good on their own initiative, but that's not how people work and that's not the world we live in, thus we have taxes. Every society that functions realizes this.

That's absurd on many levels.

A) Were we a "dysfunctional state" in 1964, before there was MediCare?
B) Medical care isn't a common good. Roads and post offices are. If your definition of "common good" is "anything that everybody needs," then let's socialize food, housing, clothing, communication, transportation, vacations, etc., etc., etc. Otherwise we'll become a dysfunctional state.
C) Your claim that "we could let them donate to the common good on their own initiative, but that's not how people work" just proves that the system's only function is to create moral bankruptcy among the population. Before government-run charities, people (including people we now consider "poor" and in need of charity) DID give to charity. So much so that the government takeover of the charity business has done absolutely NOTHING for those who depend on charity, because the general population NO LONGER DONATES LIKE THEY USED TO. The average moron (yes, I'm talking about you) thinks that all he has to do is vote for Democrats and he's done his part to help the needy; no further effort required. I lived in the Philippines for a few years, and the nuns would go door-to-door collecting money for the poor. People who lived in dirt-floored huts with no running water would dona ...


A) Why are you picking medicare out here? The concept is that if we let people opt out of taxes if they disagreed with anything that they were spent on we wouldn't have a functional state. Do you disagree with that?

B) Common good is a pretty disputable thing, isn't it? To say that one thing isn't a common good though based on your own ideology doesn't make it correct. The fact that we have to come to consensus on it means some people are going to disagree. Once again, you don't toss the whole thing because you disagree with some of it.

C) So, before welfare, during the depression, people were taken care of just as well as they were during our most recent downturn? You think, if we dropped all forms of welfare now, people would, on their own, donate just as much? With as polarized as the nation is now. I mean, they never did before, why would you think they would now. And also, you believe it's the government's function to regulate morality in the population? Seriously? I think we may have incompatible frames of reference because I don't believe you can even back up any of the assumptions you've made in this point.
 
2012-06-24 09:18:18 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: points considered, a reasonable response

unlike the right-wing pants-on-head nuttery upthread you defensively white-knighted for

as a presumed "independent"

Well, I'm a small government, free market sorta guy; party politics means nothing to me because I don't trust any of them to tell me the truth about anything.

To which POH nuttery do you refer?


nationalized-body marilyn
 
2012-06-24 11:03:38 PM  

cherrydog: nationalized-body marilyn


Ahhh. Well, as I explained, I don't look at it the extreme terms she used, but basically yeah, I think that among other things, the health care act is an attempt to gain more control over people. When the government has such sweeping powers to regulate healthcare, how long is it before we're told what foods we can't eat, what activities are too dangerous, and so forth. As I noted before, just as "terror" gives the gov't the power to take away huge chunks of our freedom with no recourse available to us ("indefinite detention of American citizens without formal charges or a hearing"), so can "health" be used to do the same thing, under the guise of "saving taxpayer dollars" and the old standby, "for your own good."

They'll start with something easy to target, like Chicken McNuggets, just to set the precident. They're not gonna legalize marijuana - bad for productivity, plus it leads to independent thought, both of which are contrary to the oligarchs' aims - so it will be a fairly short march from McNuggets to Coca Cola to Fritos to tobacco to alcohol. Continuing on to sports, first the team sports like football, then on to fun stuff like white-water rafting and rock climbing...

I know you think this is crazy. I'm telling you I understand human beings, particularly the sort who lust for and cling to power over other human beings, well enough to tell you with almost perfect certainty that this is not at all farfetched. Of course there is no good reason for the government to want to do this. Those who lust for control over others have no good reasons for wanting it, they just want it to have it. It makes them feel like gods above the rabble, which is the whole point of it all.

Are you familiar with Lao Tzu? You might want to check out his thoughts on government.

As I've said all along: I'm a small-government, personal freedom, sound money independent.
 
2012-06-24 11:10:56 PM  
 
2012-06-25 01:45:34 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: nationalized-body marilyn

Ahhh. Well, as I explained, I don't look at it the extreme terms she used, but basically yeah, I think that among other things, the health care act is an attempt to gain more control over people. When the government has such sweeping powers to regulate healthcare, how long is it before we're told what foods we can't eat, what activities are too dangerous, and so forth. As I noted before, just as "terror" gives the gov't the power to take away huge chunks of our freedom with no recourse available to us ("indefinite detention of American citizens without formal charges or a hearing"), so can "health" be used to do the same thing, under the guise of "saving taxpayer dollars" and the old standby, "for your own good."

They'll start with something easy to target, like Chicken McNuggets, just to set the precident. They're not gonna legalize marijuana - bad for productivity, plus it leads to independent thought, both of which are contrary to the oligarchs' aims - so it will be a fairly short march from McNuggets to Coca Cola to Fritos to tobacco to alcohol. Continuing on to sports, first the team sports like football, then on to fun stuff like white-water rafting and rock climbing...

I know you think this is crazy. I'm telling you I understand human beings, particularly the sort who lust for and cling to power over other human beings, well enough to tell you with almost perfect certainty that this is not at all farfetched. Of course there is no good reason for the government to want to do this. Those who lust for control over others have no good reasons for wanting it, they just want it to have it. It makes them feel like gods above the rabble, which is the whole point of it all.

Are you familiar with Lao Tzu? You might want to check out his thoughts on government.

As I've said all along: I'm a small-government, personal freedom, sound money independent.


yes i think your slippery slope to outlawing alcohol (um, been there, done that, if you recall), junk food (watch that revolt) and dangerous sports (football?!1 sacrilege, if anything we're more likely to see a form of football-meets-running-man) is bat guano. if you notice, this slippery slope doesn't seem to be happening in other countries with socialized medicine.

you have a valid point with the "war on terror", a troubling can of worms, but whether we're invariably heading to some kind of nwo 1984-blade runner police-state dystopia with cameras and drones everywhere...mm, possible, a lot of variables at play, we'll see i guess

it's tempting, the libertarian thing, i can see, but ultimately an unpractical (and amoral, imo) scenario tending towards anarchy and breakdown

i know of sun tzu, not lao tzu. will consider.

/cheers
 
2012-06-25 02:07:26 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Smackledorfer: I admit to skimming that post, Vinnie, but I agree. As you say though, the republicans are no longer capable of good original ideas for dems to balance out, nor are they interested in improving democratic ideas by presenting their own balance.

Instead they crash credit ratings while biatching about NPR, planned parenthood, homos,.and socialism. They break the programs they dislike to fulfill their predictions that the programs are bad.

What's weird and sad is, it used to be like that, and not so very long ago. I can still remember when the Republicans were not all about trashing the Democrats--they might attack each other individually, but never to the detriment of the country. There's always been friction between the rich and poor; but this attitude of "let's screw the country because we don't like the President" is new and frightening. There's always been a tendency for parties to support "our" President and undermine "their" President; and for Presidents to ignore data from one side if it puts their side in a bad light.

I have this uneasy feeling that it stems from the failed attempt to impeach and convict Clinton: "They" wanted paybacks for Watergate and didn't get it, so now if they can't destroy a President personally, they have to do it nationally. I also suspect that, had there not been a war in the way, Bush would have gotten the same treatment from the Democrats.


I think it may be even simpler than that. The country has changed a great deal, and rapidly. We have more brown people than ever, technology has advanced at such a dizzying rate that most people over 50 are baffled by it, and these older, frightened people make up most of the Republican voting block. The days of their childhood, days when most of the country was seen as white and Christian, are fading fast. I suspect this is little more than a flailing temper tantrum in response to being frightened and feeling disenfranchised.
 
2012-06-25 11:39:48 AM  

cherrydog: if you notice, this slippery slope doesn't seem to be happening in other countries with socialized medicine.


Other countries don't have the batshiat insane leaders we have in the US either. Other countries don't do the same Patriot Act stuff we do. It's the precident of the Patriot Act that leads me to conclude that government intrusion into healthcare is going to result in loss of freedom.

I was taking things to a bit of an extreme with the examples I used.But you know about New York outlawing supersized sodas, right?And really, it's not so much about outright outlawing as it is about ridiculous taxes and regulations. I think that eveyone ought to know what's in things like McNuggets, but if folks want to eat that crap, not my problem, and certainly no concern of the government.
 
2012-06-25 07:01:56 PM  
And this is why, as of now, I am done with being concerned with the plight of the States' poorer classes. I feel sorry for the few who actually do understand the benefits of the AHCA and want to see it happen, but I would reckon it's a pretty small number.

/Canadian, so fark you I got mine
 
2012-06-26 12:18:37 AM  

DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: the money people would use to buy personal property

You seriously think there's no difference between the means to acquire property and that property itself? *eyeroll*

You live in a society that has security and infrastructure and you benefit from it. EVERYONE owes society for that. You may not like everything included in that infrastructure but if we let people pick and chose we would devolve into a dysfunctional state. If we still lived in small neolithic tribes or if people were different we could let them donate to the common good on their own initiative, but that's not how people work and that's not the world we live in, thus we have taxes. Every society that functions realizes this.

That's absurd on many levels.

A) Were we a "dysfunctional state" in 1964, before there was MediCare?


Back in 1964, the vast majority of health insurance was NON PROFIT

Wrap your tiny head around that for a moment and tell me what's wrong with your argument.
 
Displayed 329 of 329 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report