The Gaming Den

This thread merely validates my opinion that political parties are cancerous. People should be voting on individual issues, not party platforms.

'I should have the right to refuse service to a black man'

Imokaywiththis.jpg

So I'll add in a brief conversation I've had with a Reagan Republican--I could probably just say "Republican" at this point, but I want to maintain the distinction between those of us who are actually small government and the pseudoconservatives sucking Reagan's decaying penis--about Medicare. And I decided that I would post it in this thread because, hey, what the hell.

I wholeheartedly agree. I lost an aunt this past October thanks to the new ObamaCare rules affecting Medicare and hospitalization. The thing is, NOBODY knew about these rules. Her son, my cousin, is a Hospital Administrator, and didn't know the rule stating that an elderly person living in a nursing home, or temporarily living in a rehab facitlity, can only be admitted in a hospital for 3 days, and must be sent back to the facility. She was sent to the hospital 3 times in 13 days, and the hospital TOLD Medicare that they had found a cardiac problem, and needed further hospitalization and tests to repair it. Medicare refused, and she was sent back to the facility, where she went into cardiac arrest just 2 hours after she returned to the facility, who also told Medicare that they were NOT equiped with cardiac monitoring, and died.

Obama may not have actual "DEATH PANELS", that we know of, but the rules change that the Medicare told my cousin, were a result of the $33 billion cut of Obamas, and a way to save money.

Yeah, he really doesn't care whether or not they live or die. I wonder if his granny would have lived very long after he "fixed" healthcare.....

Watching an angry Reagan Republican rant about Obamacare defunding Medicare is mildly amusing, so I told him that his aunt deserved to die for leeching off society.

I can see that the LIBERAL community college that you attended, forgot to teach you anything about compassion for other peoples loss. Now I had a nice Sunday School lesson today, and it dealt with handling anger, and though I have some very choice words for you, I'm going to be nice.

NOBODY DESERVES TO DIE, unless they are murderers.

People pay into Medicare, just like Social Security. Why shouldn't they be able to reap the rewards of what they paid into?

I replied:

Listen, Scott.

Medicare is socialized medicine. It's everything you have been railing against: a big government program eating up the federal budget. It's the "socialism" you fear in its entirety. Why couldn't your aunt make it on the rugged individualism that Reagan triumphed? Why did she need Big Government programs to assist her? Why didn't she make enough money that she didn't need a welfare program?

You whine and flail about SOCIALISM and GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE, and then you complain that Medicare--which is socialized medicine--is being changed. Guess what, Scotty? You want small government, and I hope you get it. No more Medicare--no more government health care for the elderly, no more single-payer system, no more "socialism."

He responded:

So what do you call a 401K? Stock markets? You keep beating your mouth against the wind, and your poor understanding of things is crashing back into you.

I'vr been on this earth 20 years longer than you have, and NOBODY until OBAMA railed against it like you fools do. But because he was a community organizer, and listened to these dregs who won't do for themselves, complain that "the man" was holding them down.

You tell a kid he's stupid for so many years, and he'll believe it. Obama listened to this crap for YEARS both at ACORN and at Brotha Jeremiah Wrights "church", and believes it like a 4 year old believes in Santa Claus.

I don't even know how to respond to this. PERHAPS THE SAGA WILL CONTINUE TOMORROW.

I have found that most people fight very hard to keep from thinking that they might be wrong.

The only upside that being on the planet for 20 more years means that he's going to die soon.

Psychic Robot wrote: Watching an angry Reagan Republican rant about Obamacare defunding Medicare is mildly amusing, so I told him that his aunt deserved to die for leeching off society.

That's a quality troll right there . The rest of your post is correct, it is hypocritical for a small government conservative to support medicare, but do you actually expect a reasoned discussion after that?

The saga doth continue. In case you're wondering, yes, I am a cashier right now (looking for a real job), and yes, it is terrible.

Social Security is a deduction that you will find on your paycheck usually labeled SSLI.

Medicare is also a deduction taken from your paycheck.

Maybe if Mr. Super Cashier would look a little closer at his paycheck, beyond the net earnings part, he might see that.

Mr. Super Cashier, I didn't say that I totally supported it, but as long as it is taken from my paycheck for me to be able to use when I retire (as if that will ever happen with YOUR president, Barak "Spendaholic" Obama, in office) in case I might need it.

Do you realize that the elderly live on FIXED INCOMES? Do you realize that many of them have medicare, and social security, and can't afford to heat their homes, properly feed themselves at this time of the year, and / or improperly medicate themselves? Why? Because they have TAXES that they HAVE to pay, and that puts them in a predicament of;

"I have to pay by taxes, so do I...;

A) ...pay the taxes, buy very little gorceries, heat my house, and get my medications?"
B) ...pay the taxes, buy food, turn my thermostat way down and wear extra clothes, and get my medications?"
C) ...pay my taxes, buy food, heat my home, and take my pills every couple of days and stretch them out until I can afford more?"

(Taxes include utility payments, like gas, electric, and water / sewer)

I've been on many ambulance runs where any of these combinations exist, but that third one is the most dangerous one, because if they are heart patients, and they spread out their pills like Obama is spreading out our wealth (to other nations), it CAN kill them. That is why Medicare is so important to them. The elderly are ENTITLED to it through their years of hard work, and it usually is the ONLY thing that keeps them alive when it gets really cold (and they need heat AND medications), or really hot (when they need A/C AND medications).

I suggest that you STOP looking at the here and now, and your paltry $8.15 / hour (which is ABOVE the federal minimum wage BTW), and look to your future and if you MIGHT need help like that, and what you'll do without it. Or do you plan to become one of the rich people that you seem to hate, and pay for it all yourself?

So, I replied:

So, Scott, here's a question:

What if the government were to fund a public option for health care and take it out of your paycheck as part of your taxes? Would that be okay, then? Or is it only because your aunt NEEDED socialized medicine that it was okay? What if I told you that millions of Americans are in desperate need of affordable health insurance that socialized medicine could provide them with? What if they needed a public option like your aunt needed Medicare? Would it be okay to take some of your taxes to fund it?

Or would that be gosh-darned socialism? Why is it not socialism when your aunt needs government-funded health care? Because as far as I can tell, the government was taking from MY paycheck to fund your late aunt's health care. That's the "socialism" that you fear right there. They're taking from everyone to provide for a few.

Answer me, Scott: why is socialism okay when it benefits your family but not okay when it benefits others?

What if the elderly are poor in their old age because they didn't work hard when they were young? Why didn't they save enough money through that old Reagan work ethic? Why didn't they make enough to sustain their later years? Why didn't your aunt get a job to pay for her own health care? Huh? Why did she steal MY tax dollars to get health care?

Why is that "socialism" okay? Why is it not okay to provide for the rest of society?

WHAT REVELATIONS WILL WE HAVE NEXT TIME?

The rest of your post is correct, it is hypocritical for a small government conservative to support medicare, but do you actually expect a reasoned discussion after that?

I attempted reasoned discussion with this fellow before. He's completely off-the-wall batshit insane. He wants to defund social programs and push the money toward the military to ensure America's military strength ("the backbone of a strong country"), he wants the government to murder Julian Assange, he believes in trickle-down economics, he thinks that Eisenhower was a socialist, he thinks I'm a far-left liberal who hates America, he hates unions and supports government deregulation of the market, and he believes that anything not FOX news-approved (such as Wikipedia) is tarnished with liberal bias.

In short, he's one of the maggots feeding on Reagan's rotting corpse. God only knows how long we'll wait until they are dead and not ruining the country anymore.

I had an arch-conservative roommate once, I want to see if I can call Scott's response. My guess is he'll say something like: 'My aunt was a hard worker and a patriot, she paid into [Program X] for decades before ever needing it. Obama wants to give my aunt's coverage to lazy bums who've never worked a day in their life, that's the difference!'

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Sounds better than the truth, the "Tea Party" are the exact same people that have had a stranglehold on Virginia politics since before I was born.

Really? I find this odd, but then again there really isn't one "tea party" and the tea partiers of Long Island may well be in some cases vastly different from those in Virginia. In New York, they have never had a stranglehold on anything. On the local level, many in the Republican party hate them (becasuse they put principle over party line). One 912 blogger was forced to quit the town Republican committee because of his blogging comments.

Then again, Virginia is the state of Washington and Jefferson; the former avoided politics like the plague, the latter was definitely a states right Democratic Republican. (A party that is no longer reflected in the Democratic party of today.)

A couple of points:

1) Social Security is nothing but a ponzi scheme. If you are under 50 you can kiss any chance of getting your investment back goodbye. It was never meant to be the sole supplier of a senior's wages, but the collapse of jobs for life and long term pension systems caused that to occur. You are not your father, and your conditions are not like theirs. You need to plan accordingly. (Note my parents are only living as well as they are because my Father worked for Brookhaven National Laboratory, under Associated Universities Incorporated at the time and was able to get into the teacher's TIAA/CREF and even then it was better then than now.

2) Socialized Medicine is a bad thing. Medicare, ironically, is a great thing. (Seriously, I know co-workers who have to deal with Medicare and it's the best thing we have; even the web page is so nice and user friendly it's shocking. Compared to the lawyer driven private market, it's paradise.) The problem is that the system works by short-changing the stystem from doctors to hospitals. They only get away with it becuse hospitals can shift the costs to others. If we can adopt universal medicare while at the same time improving service we can shift the costs to ... foreign rich nationals. (Like that's ever going to pass threough congress?)

Why is Socialized Medicine a bad thing and Medicare not? The former would be tied down by accountants, just as private insurance is tied down by trial lawyers. Their ideal model is that of the UK which tries to limit access, resuting in early deaths and a decrease of the surpluss population. (As opposed to Canada where procrastination does the same thing.) Medicare is kind of like the Bocca Raton Boys of insurance, left to their own they started looking at ways to actually "help" their customers as opposed to some bottom line goal, and they can cut payouts without excessive complaints.

But since we don't have that (we have Obama Llama Care) why worry about it? OLC adds 200% more complexity, and 100% more cost.

I was told by my friends in the medical industry that Obama technically didn't do anything to change the medical process or add additional cost. They would say that the 200% more complexity is a bit of an understatement.

I think making pointless adjustments that don't do anything is worse than not changing anything at all. I still stand by my decision that McCain would have been a far worse president than Obama, but he has disapointed me.

Any socialized medicine that relies on medical insurance as opposed to a simple direct relation between the government and citizen is inherently inefficient.

Things have gotten interesting. It turns out his big fear is that the government will completely take over the medical industry and run our lives. A strange expression from someone who wants a large, overbearing military presence around the world.

Bill, did you go to Barnyard College, and major in Slinging Bull? I seriously DOUBT you went to college at all, except to crash a frat party, because you are as dumb as they come.

"Answer me, Scott: why is socialism okay when it benefits your family but not okay when it benefits others?"

Socialism is NOT okay for me, and if you were as smart as you think you are, you'd realize that people APPLY for medicare, and we would ALL be under the SAME policy. That would mean that the GOVERNMENT will be in TOTAL control of our insurance AND healthcare. THAT is not what we want!

Have you ever heard of medicaid? They can get that, and it's not as bad as they make it out to be. If these people are that embarrassed about having medicaid, then maybe they should go out and better themselves, and their situations.

Don't tell me that it can't be done, because there are THOUSANDS of people who are doing it right now.

Note: My name is not Bill; that is the name of my troll account on Facebook. Yes, I have a separate account I use for trolling. No, I am not ashamed of this.

I replied:

What if the government offered a public option? In that case, insurance companies would still be privatized but the government would offer a basic plan for people who couldn't afford private insurance. So the government wouldn't be completely in charge of health care at all.

He responded:

And then the government would do what, Bill? They would begin cutting their prices so low, the insurance companies would all go out of business, allowing the GOVERNMENT to control our lives.

Why can't you think for yourself, instead of allowing the Obamunists to SPOON FEED you?

I said:

Actually, there are plenty of countries with a mixed private-and-public insurance system. What if we could ensure that the poor got access to basic level health insurance while allowing those without enough money to have access to private health care?

And that's where we're at now.

Do note that I'm playing the devil's advocate here to some degree, as my "ideal America" would have universal health care on the state level (rather than a UHC system managed by the federal government).

Any socialized medicine that relies on medical insurance as opposed to a simple direct relation between the government and citizen is inherently inefficient.

Be that as it may, one must take baby steps when dealing with these things.

Psychic Robot wrote:Note: My name is not Bill; that is the name of my troll account on Facebook. Yes, I have a separate account I use for trolling. No, I am not ashamed of this.

Why does this not surprise me?



In related news, I'm really glad that pretty much all of my immediate family, most of my extended family, and my in-laws all have very similar political beliefs to me. That makes get-togethers so much more enjoyable.

Psychic Robot wrote:Actually, there are plenty of countries with a mixed private-and-public insurance system. What if we could ensure that the poor got access to basic level health insurance while allowing those without enough money to have access to private health care?

If I recall correctly, the countries that have suh systems either use a two teir system or a summplemental system (health insurance pays for the basic stuff and supplemental for the extras). I think this could work if implemented well, but it doesn't solve the basic problem of how do you balance patient needs and medical resources as well as cost and revenue balances. Who runs the public part is criticial to the entire system, since that is the singular point in the system, it's effectively a monopoly and suffers from all the problems therein.

And here's the finish. In response to my support for a public option for the poor (as well as everyone else, but shh, don't tell anyone that)...

Reagantard wrote: When will you ever answer why they can't go out and better themselves, so we DON'T have to pay for them? Is that as difficult to answer as what you do for a living, which I am beginning to question more and more.

Psychic Robot wrote: Scott, some people are meant to be lower class. That's just the way they are--they aren't going to advance up the corporate ladder and become wealthy middle-to-upper class businessmen. Some people are going to be stuck at Walmart all their lives. And despite their low standing, those people create wealth for the rest of us (by contributing to businesses and fueling the economy). The least we can do is help support them on their low-wage jobs. Isn't that our Christian duty?

Scott, I would like you to take 10 minutes and read this excerpt from Wendell Potter's book.

http://www.alternet.org/books/149204/de ... _americans_/

The link is to an excerpt from the book Deadly Spin: How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans. It's written by a former insurance exec, Wendell Potter.

Tell me your thoughts.

Reagantard wrote: So what you're saying is, we're NOT ceated equal after all! What happened to all of that EQUALITY crap that you've been preaching? Note that I have not been "preaching equality." He's characterizing me as such because I don't fit into his conservative mindset and therefore I must be a hippie.

Why do we have to have LAWS to FORCE us to give to them? That's NOT Christian duty, that's GOVERNMENT CONTROL. The Almighty disdains using tax dollars for anything other than funding the military-industrial complex.

Your link is the typical liberal lie. Reality apparently has a liberal bias. He's about to start quoting excerpts from the article I linked.

"I explained how insurance companies make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they make it nearly impossible to understand—or even obtain—information needed by consumers. I described how for-profit insurance companies, in their constant quest to meet Wall Street’s profit expectations, routinely cancel the coverage of policy-holders who get sick, and how they “purge” small businesses when their employees’ medical claims exceed what underwriters expected."

Which companies? My insurance is very cut and dry, and I'm NOT confused as to what they will or will not cover. Not ALL insurance companies are like the crooked ones.

"I had quit my job as head of public relations at CIGNA—a job that had paid me deep into six figures—because I could no longer serve in good conscience as a spokesman for an industry whose routine practices amount to a death sentence for thousands of Americans every year."

Oh, like ObamaCare has already begun doing. Cutting $33 billion from elderly people who worked hard to have it if they needed it, now have to REALLY cut back, because they will probably lose it.

"I had left my job at CIGNA in May 2008, but it wasn’t until 10 months later that I realized I couldn’t stay on the sidelines. As it turned out, it would be a fellow Tennessean who gave me one of the final shoves off the sidelines and into the spotlight and the new role of whistle-blower, as many people have called me."

I smell 7 figures behind his "LEAVING THE SIDELINES".

The rest of his story smells of treason in a different way. You know he made money off of it.Those Dumbocrats probably paid him to write that book.

PR wrote: "So what you're saying is, we're NOT ceated equal after all! What happened to all of that EQUALITY crap that you've been preaching?"

You're right, not everyone is equal. (Everyone is treated as equal under the law, but not everyone is created equally. Someone with Down's syndrome, for instance, has less opportunities than I have.) I just want everyone to have access to affordable health care.

"Your link is the typical liberal lie."

What reason does he have to lie?

Reagantard wrote: Well, I would like for the ones screaming the loudest for it, to go out and get a job and work for their own, without US paying for it.

Look, I have NO PROBLEM with widows, disabled, or handicapped people drawing welfare (Not now, you don't, as the programs are already in place, but if it were 50 years ago, you would have been screaming about "fukken socialism" when Medicare was introduced.), because they are mainly the ones it's designed for. But I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with 20 - 50 somethings (who are able bodied, CAN work, but WON'T), (Because there are so many jobs right now, amirite? And it's not like 80% of poor people are classified as "working poor" or anything like that) and women getting pregnant just to keep drawing their welfare checks (and getting more besides) drawing a welfare check just so they don't have to work. All that they are doing is taking food out of the mouths of the ones who REALLY NEED IT. They also take away additional resources from them too. Yes, because we all know that people are constantly wasting government money on things like open heart surgery and chemotherapy. Fucking looters gaming the system.

I know what you're thinking; "He's just going by what other people have told him." WRONG! I've seen it with my own eyes, especially one "black sheep" cousin who's been milking the system for years.

All we're saying is, people need to do for themselves, and get their OWN healthcare. If that means working 2 minimum wage jobs to do it, so be it. You do what you have to do. That's what this country was founded on.

PR wrote: That's a fair statement, Scott. However, what if the majority of people who are uninsured or underinsured AREN'T looking to milk the system? What if they just can't make it by on their low wages?

Here's another question, Scott. Earlier, you said, "When will you ever answer why they can't go out and better themselves, so we DON'T have to pay for them?"

Why couldn't your aunt go out and better herself so I didn't have to pay for her health insurance?

Reagantard wrote: "Why couldn't your aunt go out and better herself so I didn't have to pay for her health insurance?"

Here's the part where I tell you to go fuck yourself, Bill. He mad.

My aunt DID better herself years ago. You DIDN'T, and DON'T, pay for anyone, let alone her.

She was born in 1934.
She put her kids through college. ALL 3 OF THEM, and di without while they finished school.
She worked for the US Army Finance Center in Indianapolis.
She was 76 years old when she died.

Now if you have no more respect for the dead than what you have shown (You mean like the 45,000 dying each year in America because they can't get access to affordable health care?), go fuck yourself. I don't need, nor want your liberal, union loving bullshit.

PR wrote: "My aunt DID better herself years ago. You DIDN'T, and DON'T, pay for anyone, let alone her."

Apparently not, since she was on Medicare, taking government dollars with a Big Government Socialism program.

Reagantard wrote: Bill, you are disrespectful, arrogant, and a pain in the ass. You speak against the dead, and treat their families like crap. Kiss my ass.

PR wrote: Your aunt was a societal leech, stealing from MY taxes to fund HER lifestyle. If she had worked a little harder in life, maybe she wouldn't have need socialism to save her ass. She should have purchased privatized insurance, not relying on Big Government handouts.

Imagine for a moment if Ronald Reagan has used his powers for good. We could basically be living in a paradise right now. What if he had fought against greed, struggled to help the poor, and demanded that workers be paid their fair share? What if he had condemned war profiteering and corporate gluttony?

Just imagine what life would be like. And now imagine an extremely fat, sweaty man taking a shit on America while he snorts a line of cocaine off of a teenage stripper's ass. Because that's what we got instead.

Tomorrow will be my final post in the Reagantroll Chronicles, as we're going around in circles now. Tune in for a thrilling conclusion.

Most people (regardless of political affiliation) really only know how to quote rules and don't have ability to even recognize situations they don't have rules for.

I've seen them on all sides of the political spectrum and of all faiths (or lack thereof). There isn't anything that can be done with them.

Being hidebound to rules is better than the morality system humans are born with (i.e., things that work in my favor are morally right and things that don't are morally wrong), but it's not as good as being able to apply rules to situations that aren't specified precisely.

PR, what you are saying literally doesn't exist to this person. I suggest treating him as if he was retarded, because it's not far from the truth.

I don't think America has had a good president since maybe Kennedy or Eisenhower, it's really quite remarkable how much mismanagement the USA can absorb.

Nixon was pretty good. Corrupt and mildly insane, but still effective.

Clinton was also not that bad. Fairly effective even, I'd say.

Blicero wrote:Clinton was also not that bad. Fairly effective even, I'd say.

He was a good guy, America just got their panties in a bunch because he got a blow job in the oval office from someone other than his wife, and lied about it. I honestly think the last one is what made it such a huge deal. Had he been honest, maybe people would have been more willing to let him and the harpyHillary sort it out themselves. Honestly I'm sure he wasn't the first, nor will he be the last, president to get a blow job in the oval office, he was just the first to get caught.

PR, I really do like your arguments that you are making. I disagree with a number of them, but they are well rounded arguments. The biggest mistake is that you are inferring a black and white situation. The problem is that the status quo is not quite what you imagine it is. It is not capitalism run amok; it is capitalism chained. The current system is basically an oligarchic monopoly in which (in many states) one or a few companies have control of most of the customers of the state. It is also an “insurance” system in a land where actuaries do not dare to tread. (This results in it being run by accountants who try to maximize revenues and minimize expenses.) Here lies the biggest problem with the public option; it replaces one near monopoly with another monopoly. (Medicare is the one exception because it is not run by accountants. Politicians hate Medicare; that’s why they are always trying to cut it to fund their own pet medical ideas.)

I know that the last thing I want is the status quo. The only question is how do we get the best system we can get? You believe in the public option, but I do not have any faith in politicians and I don’t’ want to see one monopoly replaced with another, on the hopes that second monopoly would be better.

The first problem is the 800# gorilla in the room. Good health care is expensive. (We can argue that it’s actually less expensive than half way good health care, but it is still expensive.) Good health care is worth it. Now while we can argue what good health care is, (I believe health care should be divided into parts and each part treated differently as needed) clearly there is an argument that it is clearly in everyone’s interest to see that a basic level should be available to everyone. (The darn Constitution would insist that this belongs to the states, unless you really open the floodgates of competition and allow an insurance company from any state to sell a policy to someone from any other state; making it clearly an interstate commerce situation.)

So let’s look at my suggestions for insurance, and then I can see how a “public option” can be implemented. Insurance should be personal; “once you buy a prize, it’s yours to keep,” as the old Wheel of Fortune game went. (They dropped the buying part of the game decades ago.) We need to have the costs of health out in the open; the real costs, not the costs we fake up for the insurance companies. (This is important because the idea of competition implies that if you knew the cost of hospital A and the cost of hospital B and the quality of both A & B you can better make a better choice and the hospital that can’t keep up with the times goes the way of the dinosaur.) We also need to have as many providers as possible, so that if you don’t like your current provider, you can change. (Remember you own your policy; it’s yours to keep or to change.)

There is an important need for government, especially if we open up the system across state lines. That is for standards; right now each company has its own set of rules for how they work, how they bill, how they do anything. This is massive unnecessary complexity; standards and reporting so that one can compare companies are necessary.

Once you have this, how do you solve the problem for the poor? While the “public option” sounds good, the poor need good insurance. That could be run by the government, or it could be run by one of the many companies that are in head to head competition with each other. Let’s consider food stamps; the government doesn’t run the “public option” for supermarkets. They supplement the cost of grocery food for the poor. Likewise the government can supplement the cost of private insurance companies to take care of the needs of the poor. (Hey, this is a really large demographic, how many companies wouldn’t grovel a bit to get their fingers at that money supply?)

I'm aware of all the conservative solutions to the cost of health care. I also believe that they should be implemented (except for the ones where "don't get sick" is the main suggestion). I am, however, skeptical of their ability to reduce the cost of health care, especially when government-run health care has had success in other countries. I like the "health stamps" idea, but, again, I am leery of its potential for dismal failure.

But, now I shall finish the Reagantroll Chronicles. If you'll recall, I reiterated that the Reagantard's aunt was a leech.

Reagantard wrote: Now you are officially a troll!

Maybe your grandma, if she hasn't croaked yet, should do likewise, so I don't have to pay for her sorry ass. Your parents should do the same thing before they croak. As a matter of fact, they should die soon, and decrease the surplus population. Why don't you join them?

Doublepost wrote: Bill, I'm making YOU the poster boy for "I should've been a blowjob, because I'm too worthless to be a human being."

Congratulations!

PR wrote: "Maybe your grandma, if she hasn't croaked yet, should do likewise, so I don't have to pay for her sorry ass. Your parents should do the same thing before they croak."

No, you dumbfuck. I support universal health care. You do not. Therefore, it is not hypocritical of me to support programs like Medicare to aid the elderly and impoverished. Since you're constantly ranting about SOCIALISM, you need to be first in line to stop BIG GUBBERMENT programs like Medicare.

But you won't do that because you are a hypocrite.

Reagantard wrote: You don't see me blasting the dead, asshole. Go fuck yourself until you figure out how to show at least SOME people respect.

PR wrote: Maybe I'll show respect for the dead when you show respect for the working poor and those in desperate need of affordable health care.

Reagantard wrote: Difference is, [EDITED], they are alive to DEFEND THEMSELVES, and the dead aren't.

There's NO WAY you went to college and STILL be THAT stupid!

And we've officially hit the troll of no return. (This is when the target has been so thoroughly enraged that any attempt at logical discourse has a roughly 0% chance of proceeding.)

I'm going to add in a few other choice quotes of his just for my amusement.

Just wait until the sexual harrassment cases against the queers [in the military] start rolling in. Now that they can freely tell people they're gay, they'll be grabbing every ass they see. They'll be no different than heterosexuals in that regard. But will Obama invoke the Hate Crimes Act, and have ALL of the sexual harrassment cases involving queers thrown out?

Isn't it nice that unions think they can bully businesses into becoming unionized?

There is only ONE reason they are doing it, and that's because they're losing money. I have worked in both union and non-union shops, and with both types of people. There are many people like me, who have been in the union, that are happier NOT being in a union, than they were being IN one.

There are not too many laws on the books that DON'T provide the same coverage over employees that unions don't.

Let's face it, unions are all about greed and money. Many of you supporters of unions do so because you are against minimum wage. Here's what you forget;

The minimum wage is $7.75, and you want it increased. Suppose it does get increased. What level do you increase it to? You also want equal wages, but won't say to what level you want it increased to either. We all know that the unions want CEO wages, even though they'll never admit it.

But suppose the minimum wage increases to $13.00. You already claim that people can't live on minimum wage now, what will you say about that figure when the price of food, gas, and everything else goes up with the minimum wage? He actually makes a decent point here, which is why I support strong unionization over minimum wage.

The minimum wage will then increase again.

Don't you see that your whole argument is stupid?

But what about the rights of the BUSINESS OWNER? Afterall, if it weren't for the company owners, there would be NO employees, and NO NEED for unions. Does the UNION sign your paychecks? No. Does the union provide you with your benefits? No. So why do the unions think they can just force businesses to allow their employees to unionize AGAINST the wishes of the employer?

Were it a business of mine, I would comply with the ruling, BUT I would also post my own adendum to it that says:

Though this posting is here because of the National Labor Board, this is still MY company, and if a union is considered, I will fire all employees, and hire an entire new staff.

I'm not rich, because I DON'T WANT TO BE RICH!!! He works as a security guard making $11.25 an hour. I have had chances to put money into investments that would have made me a LOT of money, and I decided that I didn't want that kind of life. I like being comfortable the way that I am, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. But I don't blame others either, nor do I claim, like the OTHER Bill, that the rich people "STOLE MY MONEY", when I bought thier products and basically GAVE them my money.

The fucking labor board CAN'T force me to keep my dorrs open either. I will just say that I'm losing money, fix a fake book, and close it. Then I'll move it overseas, and reopen.

FUCK THE UNIONS!

And then there's DADT. This is going to be fun to watch as time goes by, because there will be TONS of sexual harrassment cases popping up by the hundreds per month in the military. But will Obama, the Comrade in Thief, invoke the hate crimes bill, and allow the [EDITED] to get away with their grab assing? Wow! A double edged sword to the normal people of the world. You get TSA'd by the bull queers, and then they slap you with a hate crime if you file a sexual harrassment charge on them! Thank God I'm no longer in the military.

That was an epic bit of trolling, PR. I enjoyed it greatly.

Blicero wrote:Clinton was also not that bad. Fairly effective even, I'd say.

I like Clinton on a lot of topics, he balanced the Federal Budget, or almost did depending on the numbers you look at, which is really impressive. I think his biggest military adventure was Kosovo, which was bullshit but much cheaper than either gulf war or Afganistan.

His failings, which are pretty big include the ending of key financial regulations like Glass-Stegal and moving America towards neoliberalism, which is basically unconditional free trade, no matter how disadvantageous it is to the country. Neoliberalism and the shift from progressive to regressive taxation have resulted in the stagnation of real wages for most workers for the last 35 years. Which is bad, really bad in the long term.

Psychic Robot wrote:I'm aware of all the conservative solutions to the cost of health care. I also believe that they should be implemented (except for the ones where "don't get sick" is the main suggestion). I am, however, skeptical of their ability to reduce the cost of health care, especially when government-run health care has had success in other countries.

First of all, all current systems, including the government run systems in other countries have medium to long term problems that will eventually cause a crisis in that system. Each system will have a different crisis, and it will occur at a different point in time. I remember listening to a series of reports about the problems with health care systems, long term, in other countries. Lest you think I'm just parroting something from Fox, these reports were on NPR, a station that tended to be somewhat liberal, even before it was directly funded by Soros.

A good troll always has plenty of truth inside of it. And I haven't seen trolling that good in...years.

Jolly good show, chap.