Liberal Forum

RichClem » 31 Dec 2013 8:57 am » wrote:
Insurance was meant to be for emergencies.

Only during the mid to late 1800's. I suspect you'd like everything to revert back to the 1800's, wouldn't you Clem? It must be difficult for you to compete with the intelligence and superiority of modern men.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:08 am » wrote:
Only during the mid to late 1800's. I suspect you'd like everything to revert back to the 1800's, wouldn't you Clem? It must be difficult for you to compete with the intelligence and superiority of modern men.

Their is nothing wrong with modern man. It is modern,socialist and redistributive government that is the problem. It seems the philosophy of freedom, self determination and self responsibility is something that US got right a long time ago. If you need government to dictate and mandate your choices and needs I suppose you move to England.

Like you,

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 8:37 am » wrote: Start a thread with that as the topic. You don't see, on this thread, railing against Paul Ryan's budget deal either but that is because it is not the topic of discussion. If you want it to be start a thread. You tactics never change misty. You change to a completely disparate topic and accuse the other person of not addressing it.

Are you saying that we should change topics on a whim?

This thread of Misty's was started for the purpose of having ongoing discussions on a variety of different topics and introducing new topics along the way. Is anyone still discussing the topic posted on page 1? Of course not.

If you can't keep up or don't like the format, maybe you should stick to threads that only deal with one topic.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:15 am » wrote:
This thread of Misty's was started for the purpose of having ongoing discussions on a variety of different topics and introducing new topics along the way. Is anyone still discussing the topic posted on page 1? Of course not.

If you can't keep up or don't like the format, maybe you should stick to threads that only deal with one topic.

So introduce a topic and then accuse me of not discussing it. Duh,

Dumbaśs. I don't see you railing against the terrorists in Russia, I guess I should assume you support them.

See how that works dumbaśs?

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:15 am » wrote:
Their is nothing wrong with modern man. It is modern,socialist and redistributive government that is the problem. It seems the philosophy of freedom, self determination and self responsibility is something that US got right a long time ago. If you need government to dictate and mandate your choices and needs I suppose you move to England.

Like you,

A jolly good attempt at grandstanding, but what does that have to do with dinosaur Clem believing that medical insurance should only cover emergencies?

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:15 am » wrote:

It is modern,socialist and redistributive government that is the problem.

Like you,

here we go again with this ****. there is no such thing as "redistributive" It is really tax, dressed up to make it sound evil. It is deliberately deceitful. This deceitful person is trying to make you believe that you didn't agree to be part of this union with the understanding of the costs involved. We are all free to leave if we do not agree with cost of belonging. It is a choice. Dishonest people try to fool you into believing that it was not a choice.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:20 am » wrote:
A jolly good attempt at grandstanding, but what does that have to do with dinosaur Clem believing that medical insurance should only cover emergencies?

It has to do with what you posted. Exactly what problem do you have with it? Honey, you are the poster who stated discussing the intelligence of modern man, aren't you?

Apparently you have some serious issue with the inferior men that, dating back to John Locke and Montesquieu not to mention people like Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and even Hamilton.

They were oh so inferior, right Ozzie? That why you fled the country?

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:20 am » wrote:A jolly good attempt at grandstanding, but what does that have to do with dinosaur Clem believing that medical insurance should only cover emergencies?

Someone with knowledge, understanding and common sense is a "dinosaur?"

Regrettably, possibly that's true.

Sure is in your case.

Brattle Street » 01 Jan 2014 9:26 am » wrote:
here we go again with this ****. there is no such thing as "redistributive" It is really tax, dressed up to make it sound evil. It is deliberately deceitful. This deceitful person is trying to make you believe that you didn't agree to be part of this union with the understanding of the costs involved. We are all free to leave if we do not agree with cost of belonging. It is a choice. Dishonest people try to fool you into believing that it was not a choice.

So when you see a group on with side with a lot of money and a group on the other side with not so much and your "tax" is only those with more, that is not redistributive? Particularly when it is used to fund financial programs to fund the other group?

Yes, we are free to leave when idiots support and elect progressive politicians who support these huge redistributive policies. I give you Illinois, California, ny, nj, and Maryland.

We are also free to work to elect politicians that will undue the damage your ideology has wrought.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:17 am » wrote: So introduce a topic and then accuse me of not discussing it. Duh,

Dumbaśs. I don't see you railing against the terrorists in Russia, I guess I should assume you support them.

See how that works dumbaśs?

Neither Misty or cannonpointer introduced a new topic. Their rhetorical response was aimed directly at your claim that the Constitution doesn't mandate that the government should be paying for condoms. Their point had nothing to do whether or not you support nationbuilding in ****, idiot.Y ou missed their point entirely and instead of admitting it, you play the poor little victim.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:15 am » wrote:
This thread of Misty's was started for the purpose of having ongoing discussions on a variety of different topics and introducing new topics along the way. Is anyone still discussing the topic posted on page 1? Of course not.

If you can't keep up or don't like the format, maybe you should stick to threads that only deal with one topic.

Signature threads such as this one, could have some small graphic indicator as part of their title. It would help distinguish that the nature of their vehicle/medium is different from the average, regular thread.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:38 am » wrote:
Neither Misty or cannonpointer introduced a new topic. Their rhetorical response was aimed directly at your claim that the Constitution doesn't mandate that the government should be paying for condoms. Their point had nothing to do whether or not you support nationbuilding in ****, idiot.Y ou missed their point entirely and instead of admitting it, you play the poor little victim.

So we are talking about who pays for contraceptives and your criticism is that I am not talking about nation building.

No, honey, I did not miss their point. Their point was to back out out of one topic by applying another.

I never play the victim Ozzie. None of you are good enough to put me into that situation.

Definitely not you.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:28 am » wrote:
It has to do with what you posted. Exactly what problem do you have with it? Honey, you are the poster who stated discussing the intelligence of modern man, aren't you?

Apparently you have some serious issue with the inferior men that, dating back to John Locke and Montesquieu not to mention people like Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and even Hamilton.

They were oh so inferior, right Ozzie? That why you fled the country?

My point was simple. Clem wants to go back in history to a time when medical insurance only covered emergencies.

You're a dimwit who doesn't recognize sarcasm and so will try to make my entire point appear as if its about the difference between modern man and men of the 1800's.

My post was not about the intelligence of modern man. It's was a bout the stupidity of Clem. Do you want to discuss the stupidity of Clem?

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:45 am » wrote:
My point was simple. Clem wants to go back in history to a time when medical insurance only covered emergencies.

You're a dimwit who doesn't recognize sarcasm and so will try to make my entire point appear as if its about the difference between modern man and men of the 1800's.

My post was not about the intelligence of modern man. It's was a bout the stupidity of Clem. Do you want to discuss the stupidity of Clem?

Waaah. Somebody got their little feelings hurt.

Nah, I would rather discuss your stupidity which is boundless.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:45 am » wrote:My point was simple. Clem wants to go back in history to a time when medical insurance only covered emergencies. ....
My post was not about the intelligence of modern man. It's was a bout the stupidity of Clem. Do you want to discuss the stupidity of Clem?

No, I want people to have the freedom to buy whatever health insurance they choose. However, I did point out the common sense observation that the best insurance is for emergencies, not for elective health care, and most people would choose that if simple Free Market reforms were implemented.

As was the case for many decades during which health costs didn't rise by large percentages annually.

Having a middle man destroys the market, i.e. the ability of individuals to perceive prices, and raises health care costs, a point that has been made by countless conservatives and libertarians.

As usual, you label common sense "stupidity."

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:33 am » wrote:

So when you see a group on with side with a lot of money and a group on the other side with not so much and your "tax" is only those with more, that is not redistributive? Particularly when it is used to fund financial programs to fund the other group?

Yes, we are free to leave when idiots support and elect progressive politicians who support these huge redistributive policies. I give you Illinois, California, ny, nj, and Maryland.

We are also free to work to elect politicians that will undue the damage your ideology has wrought.

correct, it is dishonestly called "redistribution".... meanwhile trying to mislead people intentionally, will only serve the opposite of your intention. many people have all ready caught on to this ****, and many more are learning about the thuggery that the words you champion represent. intentional willful dishonesty.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:49 am » wrote:
Waaah. Somebody got their little feelings hurt.

Nah, I would rather discuss your stupidity which is boundless.

**** off troll scum boy.worm

Misty » 31 Dec 2013 11:18 am » wrote: What you can't seem to get into your pointy little head is that routine or preventative care is cost effective in the long run.
If you prevent someone from developing an illness, or diagnose an illness early on, it costs far less than treating the illness later on.

And riddle me this Kitten, which is cheaper.......paying for contraception, or paying for pre-natal care, labor and delivery?

What you can't get through your empty head is that handing out contraceptives to every woman in the country 1) is massive overkill at the expense of our freedom and 2) will have almost no effect on accidental pregnancies.

As well as being a violation of the Constitution.

It's been tried at the state and local level to no effect at considerable cost. A typical liberal program, in other words.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:42 am » wrote:
So we are talking about who pays for contraceptives and your criticism is that I am not talking about nation building.

No dimwit, my criticism is that you fail to recognize that no one is talking about nation building. Cannonpointer posed an analogy to your condom claim. That's all. That you didn't recognize it for what is was is on you.

No, honey, I did not miss their point. Their point was to back out out of one topic by applying another.

You entirely missed their point. Look up "analogy"

I never play the victim Ozzie. None of you are good enough to put me into that situation.

Definitely not you.

You have quickly gained the reputation of being one of the more ignorant and ill-informed participants here. Any claim to the contrary is you singing to the choir of your ignorant and ill-informed comrades.

Brattle Street » 01 Jan 2014 9:52 am » wrote:

correct, it is dishonestly called "redistribution".... meanwhile trying to mislead people intentionally, will only serve the opposite of your intention. many people have all ready caught on to this ****, and many more are learning about the thuggery that the words you champion represent. intentional willful dishonesty.

It is far from dishonest. When you take from one group to give to another that is redistribution.

What do you call it? Something out of the newspeak dictionary? Are you next going to try and convince us that revenue enhancers are not tax increases and fees? Or that investment by government is not spending?