|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 13:51:07 GMT -5
Probably because you can't read. My job is not to sit here babysit you either go up and read the posts or just can it Poor baby What posts are you talking about? None! The calls were screened or something! Lol
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Oct 31, 2013 13:55:31 GMT -5
Poor baby What posts are you talking about? None! The calls were screened or something! Lol So you're just trying to pick a fight-got it.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Oct 31, 2013 13:58:27 GMT -5
Most of the Tea Party members that I'm aware of aren't all that interested in morality issues either, though that's not going to stop you from Googling it to see how wrong you can prove me. The Tea Party members I can support are tired of the status quo that establishment pols from both sides fight strongly to protect. The Tea Party members that I can support are focused on cutting spending and our burgeoning debt. The Tea Party members I can support don't see playing nice with the old boys's club as a way to reach the goals the voters who sent them to Congress want them to reach. In somewhat less than polite circles, the American revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries were seen as "terrorists." Holy cow. What a crock the tea party isn't interested in morality issues? Lol Since "Tea Party" is a loose coalition, there are likely more than a few people flying its flag that are morality pushers. Social conservatism doesn't seem to be part of the bigger parts of the coalition and are the ones I support.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 13:58:38 GMT -5
None! The calls were screened or something! Lol So you're just trying to pick a fight-got it. No. You're safe .
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 14:02:14 GMT -5
Holy cow. What a crock the tea party isn't interested in morality issues? Lol Since "Tea Party" is a loose coalition, there are likely more than a few people flying its flag that are morality pushers. Social conservatism doesn't seem to be part of the bigger parts of the coalition and are the ones I support. You must be kidding me. Is your whole life cut-and-paste you actually have any real life examples? I know T party types, everything with them, once you get around their mutual hatred of all things Obama, is all about abortion and God and their usual issues. That's why we call them social conservatives right?
|
|
|
Post by davo on Oct 31, 2013 14:15:16 GMT -5
That, right there, is a false equivalency. The 'strong ideology' of the Tea Party types is a sort of nihilism. No matter your bad opinion of the left, most of us aren't interested in blowing things or legislating morality. Mr. Obama is dead set on his legacy of health care "reform" despite bungling it. His idea that government should be about giving things to Democratic voters isn't rooted in nihilism but in self-interest. However, the result will be the same. I agree you're not interested in legislating morality. You are interesting in using legislation to act as free adults' parents, however - telling them where they can smoke, what they can eat, what healthcare they have to have. That's hardly better. It's pretty telling that you take a stance that is odds with all the other industralized nations on earth and decide that it's just not fair that all the citizens of the richest nation on earth might be entitled to health care if it means that the well off folks might not get every last, grubbing dollar they have coming. What's more, it's short-sighted, as the CBO predicts that we come quite a bit ahead in the ledger with the ACA. Remember, the ACA care was a Republican idea, orginally. Perhaps if Republicans would work to actually improve it instead of trying to run it to ground, it would improve to the point where it is more like what the Heritage Foundation had in mind at the outset. And it has a lot more to do with capitalism than socialism, if you would bother to educate yourself more thoroughly about it, someplace far, far away from the hysteria of Fox News and others in the right wing bubble. Most of the piddly five percenters who have had their policies rejected are in the highly volatile individual market, where policies are dropped all the time, year in year out well before Obama Care. It's not in an insurance company's interest to inform you that you probably can get get comparable coverage (many times better insurance for less money). They'd much, much rather offer you the higher priced policy when the crappy over-priced loser they were offering loses its standing in the market place. That's what the exchanges are all about: the purest form of capitalism. The Republicans partially fear it because their rich, mostly white buddies in the insurance industry may well suffer from a system that allows for true competition. God knows, our ever-rising health care costs could benefit from it, and so, too, the nation. Also, it would be no small thing for the poor to stop using the ER's as their healthcare of first resort, which of course gets passed along to everyone else. If it works as it's supposed to, it could be a win win situation: the poor and near poor get their coverage, and we benefit from an improved economy and lower healthcare costs.
|
|
|
Post by davo on Oct 31, 2013 14:18:44 GMT -5
Wait . . . the implication is that it's right wingers who have open minds?? Thanks for the laugh. Your base rejects science that runs afoul of its ideology. And then of course there's 'intelligent design.' Oil and water, indeed. I don't see the right wing disrupting and shutting down speakers when they disagree-that's the purview of the left.....it's also curious that you don't disapprove of those actions. No, how about when those Brooks Brothers-wearing thugs showed up in Broward County in 2000 to muscle people around as they were attempting to recount votes in Florida, for an example right off the top of my head? That was pretty phucking disruptive, not to mention the town halls were right wingers were screaming at their Representatives about the 'death panels' that never were? The list goes on, pal.
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Oct 31, 2013 14:45:59 GMT -5
I don't see the right wing disrupting and shutting down speakers when they disagree-that's the purview of the left.....it's also curious that you don't disapprove of those actions. No, how about when those Brooks Brothers-wearing thugs showed up in Broward County in 2000 to muscle people around as they were attempting to recount votes in Florida, for an example right off the top of my head? That was pretty phucking disruptive, not to mention the town halls were right wingers were screaming at their Representatives about the 'death panels' that never were? The list goes on, pal. Be very careful, son, you'll separate a shoulder trying to reach that far. Let's see if I can make it simple enough for you: Kelly was invited to speak at brown university and was prevented from doing so by a vocal and disruptive minority whose admitted agenda was to stop the lecture. Is this a good or bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Oct 31, 2013 15:14:10 GMT -5
It's pretty telling that you take a stance that is odds with all the other industralized nations on earth and decide that it's just not fair that all the citizens of the richest nation on earth might be entitled to health care if it means that the well off folks might not get every last, grubbing dollar they have coming. If you think the rich are paying for this, there's something you need to pay: attention. It's the middle class, and the young healthy, that are footing the bill. And since medical care is a scare resource, you can't just arbitrarily say that there's enough to go around. So, if you want to cover more people, they will get poorer care. Eventually we will get a tiered system where the best doctors opt out of Obamacare in favor of wealthy patients, perhaps creating concierge practices, who can pay them what they want to charge. Everyone else will get the doctors who are left. What's more, it's short-sighted, as the CBO predicts that we come quite a bit ahead in the ledger with the ACA. The CBO is required to accept initial conditions given it when making its projections. It's a garbage in, garbage out process. That doesn't make it wrong all the time, just highly directed by whoever's in charge and therefore untrustworthy. Most of the piddly five percenters who have had their policies rejected are in the highly volatile individual market, But since that's me, I'm allowed to despise Mr. Obama for it. I don't know if I'll be dropped or not, yet. They also haven't told me how much my premium will go up. I'll bet a lot. It's not in an insurance company's interest to inform you that you probably can get get comparable coverage (many times better insurance for less money). Better? Because it demands that I, a single male, underwrite maternity and child care for people who choose to have children, and therefore should underwrite that cost themselves with surcharges? Better because it demands that I, not a hype, underwrite rehab and other treatments for weak-willed fools who fill their arms with poison and then expect someone else to collect the wreckage of their lives and reassemble it for 'em? Yeah, it's a lot better. The Republicans partially fear it because their rich, mostly white buddies in the insurance industry may well suffer from a system that allows for true competition. The insurance industry wrote a lot of it. The individual mandate came from them - to drum up business. God knows, our ever-rising health care costs could benefit from it, and so, too, the nation. Nothing about Obamacare is designed to lower costs. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The way you cut costs is by making things done frequently less costly. Find ways to make an MRI or a CT cost less. R&D could do it, and without wrecking healthcare havoc as Resident Obama has. Also, it would be no small thing for the poor to stop using the ER's as their healthcare of first resort, which of course gets passed along to everyone else. Recall EMTALA. People would be begging for insurance then, no individual mandate necessary. If it works as it's supposed to, it could be a win win situation: Oh, ye of much faith. There's literally no evidence at all that anything Obama has done will work as it is supposed to. The man has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to s**t. And he clearly doesn't care, or he'd have at least demanded Sebelius fall on her sword. That is (and should be) the usual price for utter failure.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Oct 31, 2013 16:02:36 GMT -5
A lecture by New York City Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly scheduled for Tuesday afternoon was canceled after protesters halted Kelly’s speech and would not yield the floor.
Controversy preceded the talk — titled, “Proactive Policing in America’s Biggest City” — due to its speaker’s staunch support for the contentious stop-and-frisk policy. The event was presented by the Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions as part of the Noah Krieger ’93 Memorial Lecture series......
Protesters reacted vocally to mentions of Kelly and his policies throughout Orr’s introduction. When Kelly himself took the stage, protesters’ boos mixed with applause. As soon as he began to speak, many protesters stood with their fists in the air and began shouting in unison, after which neither Kelly nor Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services Margaret Klawunn and Vice President for Public Affairs and University Relations Marisa Quinn — two administrators present — could regain control of the auditorium.
....“Our goal was for the lecture to be canceled from the beginning,” said Irene Rojas-Carroll ’15, one of the mobilizers behind the protest. Rojas-Carroll previously told The Herald she felt there was no format in which Kelly would be an appropriate speaker at Brown.www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/30/brown-university-s-campus-liberals-vs-free-speech.html Ah. She's got a mind like a steel trap... rusted shut.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Oct 31, 2013 21:17:58 GMT -5
Since "Tea Party" is a loose coalition, there are likely more than a few people flying its flag that are morality pushers. Social conservatism doesn't seem to be part of the bigger parts of the coalition and are the ones I support. You must be kidding me. Is your whole life cut-and-paste you actually have any real life examples? I know T party types, everything with them, once you get around their mutual hatred of all things Obama, is all about abortion and God and their usual issues. That's why we call them social conservatives right? I would bet the T party types you know are from descriptions by Left Wing Media and no more than one personally.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 21:21:25 GMT -5
You must be kidding me. Is your whole life cut-and-paste you actually have any real life examples? I know T party types, everything with them, once you get around their mutual hatred of all things Obama, is all about abortion and God and their usual issues. That's why we call them social conservatives right? I would bet the T party types you know are from descriptions by Left Wing Media and no more than one personally. Well you are a minority! Lol Dude I have tea party members in my family so Don't tell me that crap
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Oct 31, 2013 21:23:54 GMT -5
I would bet the T party types you know are from descriptions by Left Wing Media and no more than one personally. Well you are a minority! Lol Dude I have tea party members in my family so Don't tell me that crap Why not you are trying to feed us crap by the boat load.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 21:26:54 GMT -5
Well you are a minority! Lol Dude I have tea party members in my family so Don't tell me that crap Why not you are trying to feed us crap by the boat load. You are a brilliant poster
|
|
|
Post by BullIsland on Nov 1, 2013 5:51:04 GMT -5
I thought the Tea Party was all but dead...
Not sure how they were injected into a conversation about the childish behavior of leftist crybabies at Brown.
Different forum; same ole Jeb. It's fun watching the ole baby cry.
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 1, 2013 11:03:18 GMT -5
It's pretty telling that you take a stance that is odds with all the other industralized nations on earth and decide that it's just not fair that all the citizens of the richest nation on earth might be entitled to health care if it means that the well off folks might not get every last, grubbing dollar they have coming. If you think the rich are paying for this, there's something you need to pay: attention. It's the middle class, and the young healthy, that are footing the bill. And since medical care is a scare resource, you can't just arbitrarily say that there's enough to go around. So, if you want to cover more people, they will get poorer care. Eventually we will get a tiered system where the best doctors opt out of Obamacare in favor of wealthy patients, perhaps creating concierge practices, who can pay them what they want to charge. Everyone else will get the doctors who are left. What's more, it's short-sighted, as the CBO predicts that we come quite a bit ahead in the ledger with the ACA. The CBO is required to accept initial conditions given it when making its projections. It's a garbage in, garbage out process. That doesn't make it wrong all the time, just highly directed by whoever's in charge and therefore untrustworthy. Most of the piddly five percenters who have had their policies rejected are in the highly volatile individual market, But since that's me, I'm allowed to despise Mr. Obama for it. I don't know if I'll be dropped or not, yet. They also haven't told me how much my premium will go up. I'll bet a lot. It's not in an insurance company's interest to inform you that you probably can get get comparable coverage (many times better insurance for less money). Better? Because it demands that I, a single male, underwrite maternity and child care for people who choose to have children, and therefore should underwrite that cost themselves with surcharges? Better because it demands that I, not a hype, underwrite rehab and other treatments for weak-willed fools who fill their arms with poison and then expect someone else to collect the wreckage of their lives and reassemble it for 'em? Yeah, it's a lot better. The Republicans partially fear it because their rich, mostly white buddies in the insurance industry may well suffer from a system that allows for true competition. The insurance industry wrote a lot of it. The individual mandate came from them - to drum up business. God knows, our ever-rising health care costs could benefit from it, and so, too, the nation. Nothing about Obamacare is designed to lower costs. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The way you cut costs is by making things done frequently less costly. Find ways to make an MRI or a CT cost less. R&D could do it, and without wrecking healthcare havoc as Resident Obama has. Also, it would be no small thing for the poor to stop using the ER's as their healthcare of first resort, which of course gets passed along to everyone else. Recall EMTALA. People would be begging for insurance then, no individual mandate necessary. If it works as it's supposed to, it could be a win win situation: Oh, ye of much faith. There's literally no evidence at all that anything Obama has done will work as it is supposed to. The man has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to s**t. And he clearly doesn't care, or he'd have at least demanded Sebelius fall on her sword. That is (and should be) the usual price for utter failure. Well, we'll have to see how it works, won't we? It will probably end up working, and you may or may not be able to lower your insurance rates by picking a better policy on the exchanges. Wow, you won't even concede that Obama presided over the take-down of bin Laden? I mean there are more positive things he's done, but let's just start with that and take it from there. You're not buying into the right wing bull sh$t that he didn't make it happen, are you? Really!, really, Yoda??
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 1, 2013 11:15:24 GMT -5
Why not you are trying to feed us crap by the boat load. You are a brilliant poster No I only claim to be very very good But thanks anyway
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 1, 2013 11:21:35 GMT -5
Davo He had Bin Laden killed yes. All well and good, but now he should do something else good for the country you know its been several years now so he cant claim to be able to multi task any more. He could prove that his country is more important than his legacy in the history books. Which so far is not much but a blank page or 2 except for the above
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 1, 2013 11:26:25 GMT -5
If you think the rich are paying for this, there's something you need to pay: attention. It's the middle class, and the young healthy, that are footing the bill. And since medical care is a scare resource, you can't just arbitrarily say that there's enough to go around. So, if you want to cover more people, they will get poorer care. Eventually we will get a tiered system where the best doctors opt out of Obamacare in favor of wealthy patients, perhaps creating concierge practices, who can pay them what they want to charge. Everyone else will get the doctors who are left. The CBO is required to accept initial conditions given it when making its projections. It's a garbage in, garbage out process. That doesn't make it wrong all the time, just highly directed by whoever's in charge and therefore untrustworthy. But since that's me, I'm allowed to despise Mr. Obama for it. I don't know if I'll be dropped or not, yet. They also haven't told me how much my premium will go up. I'll bet a lot. Better? Because it demands that I, a single male, underwrite maternity and child care for people who choose to have children, and therefore should underwrite that cost themselves with surcharges? Better because it demands that I, not a hype, underwrite rehab and other treatments for weak-willed fools who fill their arms with poison and then expect someone else to collect the wreckage of their lives and reassemble it for 'em? Yeah, it's a lot better. The insurance industry wrote a lot of it. The individual mandate came from them - to drum up business. Nothing about Obamacare is designed to lower costs. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The way you cut costs is by making things done frequently less costly. Find ways to make an MRI or a CT cost less. R&D could do it, and without wrecking healthcare havoc as Resident Obama has. Recall EMTALA. People would be begging for insurance then, no individual mandate necessary. Oh, ye of much faith. There's literally no evidence at all that anything Obama has done will work as it is supposed to. The man has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to s**t. And he clearly doesn't care, or he'd have at least demanded Sebelius fall on her sword. That is (and should be) the usual price for utter failure. Well, we'll have to see how it works, won't we? It will probably end up working, and you may or may not be able to lower your insurance rates by picking a better policy on the exchanges. Wow, you won't even concede that Obama presided over the take-down of bin Laden? I mean there are more positive things he's done, but let's just start with that and take it from there. You're not buying into the right wing bull sh$t that he didn't make it happen, are you? Really!, really, Yoda?? You seem to buy into the left wing bull sh$t that Obama actually made a decision, looking at his track record of not knowing anything I don't find it hard to believe that they kept him in the dark about OSBL until the last second, it has been shown that he canceled three other times, and was waffling on the last one. Yes he did give the go ahead, but being bullied because the seals were in the air and it would look bad if he cancelled at that time is not really how a good leader makes decisions. But you go ahead and believe the constant stream of lies that come from the WH.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 11:41:13 GMT -5
Well, we'll have to see how it works, won't we? It will probably end up working, and you may or may not be able to lower your insurance rates by picking a better policy on the exchanges. Wow, you won't even concede that Obama presided over the take-down of bin Laden? I mean there are more positive things he's done, but let's just start with that and take it from there. You're not buying into the right wing bull sh$t that he didn't make it happen, are you? Really!, really, Yoda?? You seem to buy into the left wing bull sh$t that Obama actually made a decision, looking at his track record of not knowing anything I don't find it hard to believe that they kept him in the dark about OSBL until the last second, it has been shown that he canceled three other times, and was waffling on the last one. Yes he did give the go ahead, but being bullied because the seals were in the air and it would look bad if he cancelled at that time is not really how a good leader makes decisions. But you go ahead and believe the constant stream of lies that come from the WH. Can you provide us with a quality link, citing your version of the events of the neutralizing of OBL?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 1, 2013 11:43:51 GMT -5
Well, we'll have to see how it works, won't we? It will probably end up working, and you may or may not be able to lower your insurance rates by picking a better policy on the exchanges. There is no reason for that level of optimism at the present time. Wow, you won't even concede that Obama presided over the take-down of bin Laden? I mean there are more positive things he's done, but let's just start with that and take it from there. You're not buying into the right wing bull sh$t that he didn't make it happen, are you? Really!, really, Yoda?? I stand corrected, and I have given him credit for that on other boards (including this board's predecessor. It's hard to remember his sole success amidst the garbage heap of his other efforts, sometimes. But now I'm curious: why did you pick that one? There are a number of possibilities and I am curious which one motivated you.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 11:44:36 GMT -5
You seem to buy into the left wing bull sh$t that Obama actually made a decision, looking at his track record of not knowing anything I don't find it hard to believe that they kept him in the dark about OSBL until the last second, it has been shown that he canceled three other times, and was waffling on the last one. Yes he did give the go ahead, but being bullied because the seals were in the air and it would look bad if he cancelled at that time is not really how a good leader makes decisions. But you go ahead and believe the constant stream of lies that come from the WH. Can you provide us with a quality link, citing your version of the events of the neutralizing of OBL? Would you ask the same of "moses" for some of his more outrageous claims?
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 1, 2013 11:46:11 GMT -5
Because its the only one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 11:50:52 GMT -5
Can you provide us with a quality link, citing your version of the events of the neutralizing of OBL? Would you ask the same of "moses" for some of his more outrageous claims? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 1, 2013 11:55:44 GMT -5
You seem to buy into the left wing bull sh$t that Obama actually made a decision, looking at his track record of not knowing anything I don't find it hard to believe that they kept him in the dark about OSBL until the last second, it has been shown that he canceled three other times, and was waffling on the last one. Yes he did give the go ahead, but being bullied because the seals were in the air and it would look bad if he cancelled at that time is not really how a good leader makes decisions. But you go ahead and believe the constant stream of lies that come from the WH. Can you provide us with a quality link, citing your version of the events of the neutralizing of OBL? It was all over the web when it occurred, I heard that the WH was busy scrubbing the web of this version. But I doubt anything that I come up with would be the "quality" that you are looking for so I am not going to bother, believe what you will.
|
|