Liberal Forum

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 9:56 am » wrote:
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.



You entirely missed their point. Look up "analogy"



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.

Huh huh. That is why I can back up everything I post with historical, governmental, and legitimate new links.

Lmao!

The thing is Ozzie unlike you I could care less what a bunch of sheeple progressives or conservative Christian posters think of me. I will debate and make you both look like fools. So by all means, honey, keep it up.

Hey, you learned about Obama's energy plans, particularly in the area of electricity and coal fired plants? ROLFLMFAO!

I noticed you ran from that thread like a heroine addict stealing a needle.

How's that for an analogy?

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

.

I point out the fact that you're not educated enough to recognize blatant sarcasm and an obvious analogy and it hurts my feelings HOW?

RichClem » 01 Jan 2014 9:51 am » wrote:
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."

Just to be clear, are you really suggesting that there is nothing between an emergency and elective health care? (i.e. not an emergency and not elective).

Also, when you talk of a middle man, are you referring to insurance companies?

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 9:58 am » wrote:

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?

assigning meanings to words as fits your feeble tactic is dishonest, without the slightest doubt

just look at how fast you started building a strawman. To me, that is a strong indicator that you are scrambling which tells me that you know that you have been busted.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 10:03 am » wrote:
I point out the fact that you're not educated enough to recognize blatant sarcasm and an obvious analogy and it hurts my feelings HOW?

Ooh, you are sooooo smart!

Like that sarcasm?


You are not smart enough to understand.

Hey, you learned about Obama's plan for energy, particularly in the are of coal plants? I figured while you are demeaning people for not being informed and all you would return to that thread and educate us.

Did you forgot? Or are you running away from it like a hooker stealing from her pimp?

Like that analogy.

Brattle Street » 01 Jan 2014 10:08 am » wrote:
assigning meanings to words as fits your feeble tactic is dishonest, without the slightest doubt

just look at how fast you started building a strawman. To me, that is a strong indicator that you are scrambling which tells me that you know that you have been busted.

redistribution
Economics. the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 10:01 am » wrote:
Huh huh. That is why I can back up everything I post with historical, governmental, and legitimate new links.

Lmao!

The thing is Ozzie unlike you I could care less what a bunch of sheeple progressives or conservative Christian posters think of me. I will debate and make you both look like fools. So by all means, honey, keep it up.

Hey, you learned about Obama's energy plans, particularly in the area of electricity and coal fired plants? ROLFLMFAO!

I noticed you ran from that thread like a heroine addict stealing a needle.

How's that for an analogy?

That's not an analogy - it's a simile.

And I never run away from threads. I walk away from idiots who can't debate beyond their master's talking points. You were apprised of Obama's commitment to clean coal, oil drilling on public and private lands and natural gas extraction (fracking) which you completely ignored in favor of repeating the same old meme that he's anti fossil fuel production.

My debate with you on this subject is over. Have it with someone else, partisan

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/23/200205/obama-position-on-fracking-leaves.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-25/obama-may-expand-oil-drilling-to-pay-for-clean-car-research.htmlhttp://grist.org/news/obama-admin-keeps-trying-to-help-coal-industry-coal-industry-keeps-whining/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/23/200205/obama-position-on-fracking-leaves.html

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 10:11 am » wrote: Ooh, you are sooooo smart!

Like that sarcasm?


You are not smart enough to understand.

Hey, you learned about Obama's plan for energy, particularly in the are of coal plants? I figured while you are demeaning people for not being informed and all you would return to that thread and educate us.

Did you forgot? Or are you running away from it like a hooker stealing from her pimp?

Like that analogy.

You certainly know how to dig yourself a fool's grave.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 10:26 am » wrote:
That's not an analogy - it's a simile.

And I never run away from threads. I walk away from idiots who can't debate beyond their master's talking points. You were apprised of Obama's commitment to clean coal, oil drilling on public and private lands and natural gas extraction (fracking) which you completely ignored it in favor of repeating the same old meme that he's anti fossil fuel production.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/23/200205/obama-position-on-fracking-leaves.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-25/obama-may-expand-oil-drilling-to-pay-for-clean-car-research.htmlhttp://grist.org/news/obama-admin-keeps-trying-to-help-coal-industry-coal-industry-keeps-whining/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/23/200205/obama-position-on-fracking-leaves.htmlMy debate with you on this subject is over. Have it with someone else, partisan

I didn't post talking points moron. You came to that thread and asked what does the fact that only so many electric cars will be on the road by 2040 have to do with Obama. You were shown the pledge by Obama that we would have 1 million by 2015. That is not a talking point. That is a fact you were unaware of. We then discussed how under his plan for eliminating coal fired plants he said that electrify costs would necessarily skyrocket and this would be passed on to the consumer. You were shown the quote, with a legitimate link. You ran, never to return.

Yet, like a fücking moron you run around here labeling others as uninformed and you are **** unaware of the man's policies spoken with own lips. You, honey, are the idiot that gets her talking points from a master.

Goddamn dumbaśs,

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 10:26 am » wrote:
That's not an analogy - it's a simile.

when one backs up and runs over a simile, it surely becomes a smile

Analogy

a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

Or hooker running from her pimp to how fast Ozzie flees threads.

Or like comparing a fetus to a baby, except one of them is dead, and missing some stem cells - yummy.

Cannonpointer » 01 Jan 2014 11:25 am » wrote:Or like comparing a fetus to a baby, except one of them is dead, and missing some stem cells - yummy.

Depends on your definition of a fetus.

Silverfox » 01 Jan 2014 10:05 am » wrote: Just to be clear, are you really suggesting that there is nothing between an emergency and elective health care? (i.e. not an emergency and not elective).

Also, when you talk of a middle man, are you referring to insurance companies?

I should have used a term other than "emergency." If someone develops cancer or some other sickness or condition that required extensive treatment, I personally would want insurance that covered it.

But I wouldn't want my plan to cover routine tests and treatment, doctor's visits, etc, and I would choose a moderately high deductible for illness or accidents.

And yes, I was referring to insurance companies as middlemen, as opposed to individuals choosing what care or tests they want.

When people have little interest on controlling costs because treatment is free or very cheap via co-pay, costs explode. Insurance companies cannot possibly keep track of what an individual patient really needs.

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 10:26 am » wrote: I never run away from threads. I walk away from idiots who can't debate beyond their master's talking points. You were apprised of Obama's commitment to clean coal, oil drilling on public and private lands and natural gas extraction (fracking) which you completely ignored in favor of repeating the same old meme that he's anti fossil fuel production.

My debate with you on this subject is over. Have it with someone else, partisan

What Obama "commitment to clean coal, oil drilling and natural gas extraction on private lands?"

He's gradually moved against all that and is significantly expanding with further restrictions.

You've fallen for his dishonest PR campaign.

RichClem » 01 Jan 2014 11:43 am » wrote:
I should have used a term other than "emergency." If someone develops cancer or some other sickness or condition that required extensive treatment, I personally would want insurance that covered it.

But I wouldn't want my plan to cover routine tests and treatment, doctor's visits, etc, and I would choose a moderately high deductible for illness or accidents.

And yes, I was referring to insurance companies as middlemen, as opposed to individuals choosing what care or tests they want.

When people have little interest on controlling costs because treatment is free or very cheap via co-pay, costs explode. Insurance companies cannot possibly keep track of what an individual patient really needs.

The problem is the insurance mandate's primary purpose is not to make sure you, and those like you, have all those preventive services included. It mandated so that the insurance companies have a pool of money available to cover someone else.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 11:47 am » wrote: The problem is the insurance mandate's primary purpose is not to make sure you, and those like you, have all those preventive services included. It mandated so that the insurance companies have a pool of money available to cover someone else.

Which only worsens the present system.

And will result in more people without insurance, not fewer.

RichClem » 01 Jan 2014 11:51 am » wrote:
Which only worsens the present system.

And will result in more people without insurance, not fewer.

Oh, I agree.

RichClem » 01 Jan 2014 9:55 am » wrote: 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.

WOW! Where to start?
How exactly does providing women with contraception as a routine part of their health care take away your freedom?
And how would making contraceptives widely available and affordable, have no effect on accidental pregnancies?
And how does any of that violate the Constitution?

I see you neglected to respond to my points about preventative care and check-ups being much more cost effective than treating someone who shows up in the ER in an advanced stage of illness.
One way or another, we're paying for it anyway, so I'd rather do it in a more cost-effective way.

You're the one who keeps whining about wanting me to debate, and when I bring up a point, you just ignore it.

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 3:45 pm » wrote: WOW! Where to start?
How exactly does providing women with contraception as a routine part of their health care take away your freedom?
And how would making contraceptives widely available and affordable, have no effect on accidental pregnancies?
And how does any of that violate the Constitution?

I see you neglected to respond to my points about preventative care and check-ups being much more cost effective than treating someone who shows up in the ER in an advanced stage of illness.
One way or another, we're paying for it anyway, so I'd rather do it in a more cost-effective way.

You're the one who keeps whining about wanting me to debate, and when I bring up a point, you just ignore it.

How did the majority of men and women get contraceptive services prior to those who don't need it paying for it?