Liberal Forum

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 4:16 pm » wrote:Oh, no. Not this Jackhole again.

Yup, that Jackhole again.

Dear Misty, you are like flypaper for freaks. They just can't help but get stuck on you.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 4:16 pm » wrote:Oh, no. Not this Jackhole again.

Now, when you civilly responded to my post did I say "on no, not this whacky bitch again"? No I did not. I civilly offered a counterpoint to clarify what I was talking about.

Misty, you start too much shît and then bitch too much about the **** you create.

Now honey, we can continue to post civilly, letting your post slide, or we can enter the land of gutter trash which is obviously where you want this discussion.

It is YOUR choice. I will have fun either way, just let me know if you want civil discussion or the circle jerk flame wars you so obviously love.

Remember, I let you ate the tone and will respond in kind.

Phelix_Dacat » 02 Jan 2014 4:23 pm » wrote: Yup, that Jackhole again.
Dear Misty, you are like flypaper for freaks. They just can't help but get stuck on you.

That's been the story of my life Phelix, with one lucky exception.
The man I married 22 years ago is a decent man with a good heart.
He's only a freak where it counts.

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 12:58 pm » wrote:
There were people not like you who carried major medical, catestrophic and long term care with but paid out of pocket for routine check ups and tests. They CHOSE to do so and used the money saved on premiums for their retirement, their business or whatever they wanted to use it for. A good many of those people no longer have that choice and are paying hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars more in premium costs.

So if they did show up at the emergency room they were covered.

Here's what's actually so, in the adult world, where rocks are just hard and water is just wet, and all the posing and partisanship and crybabying are for naught:

This nation faces an EXISTENTIAL THREAT from its current medical care/medical insurance/medical payment paradigm. The system is so incredibly rife with ineffeicencies and especially with parasticial gorging by the wall street machine that it is literally a threat to the nation's survival.

Medical care is closing in on one fifth of our economy, and will CERTAINLY grow in coming years with the agin of the baby boomers unless costs are brought into the real world and out of the wall street world.

The only way this nation is going to get costs under control is to get wall street out of it. The very notion of people speculating on wellness is the oppositie of ANY brand of true conservatism. No conservative - especially no fiscal conservative - would ever defend the status quo, but would urgently and adamantly object to it.

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 4:25 pm » wrote: Now honey, we can continue to post civilly.....

When exactly did you START posting civilly Huey, because I must have missed it.
You have more times than I can count called me ignorant, mentioned me having sex with a variety of barnyard animals, and spoken to me in a very misogynistic and condescending tone, HONEY.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 4:32 pm » wrote: When exactly did you START posting civilly Huey, because I must have missed it.
You have more times than I can count called me ignorant, mentioned me having sex with a variety of barnyard animals, and spoken to me in a very misogynistic and condescending tone, HONEY.

Well. Someone got Misty's little lady feathers ruffled...

Cannonpointer » 02 Jan 2014 4:31 pm » wrote:
Here's what's actually so, in the adult world, where rocks are just hard and water is just wet, and all the posing and partisanship and crybabying are for naught:

This nation faces an EXISTENTIAL THREAT from its current medical care/medical insurance/medical payment paradigm. The system is so incredibly rife with ineffeicencies and especially with parasticial gorging by the wall street machine that it is literally a threat to the nation's survival.

Medical care is closing in on one fifth of our economy, and will CERTAINLY grow in coming years with the agin of the baby boomers unless costs are brought into the real world and out of the wall street world.

The only way this nation is going to get costs under control is to get wall street out of it. The very notion of people speculating on wellness is the oppositie of ANY brand of true conservatism. No conservative - especially no fiscal conservative - would ever defend the status quo, but would urgently and adamantly object to it.

Nice generalities. So I suppose you too feel that is ok to remove the freedom of choice from those who barely make above the subsidy level and force them pay to thousands annually for services they do not need or want?

THAT is what is happening in real, adult world. People are losing thousands of dollars in income. People are losing jobs in the real world.

People who support this are not for choice.

Cannonpointer » 02 Jan 2014 4:34 pm » wrote: Well. Someone got Misty's little lady feathers ruffled...

I don't have 'little lady feathers' CP.
I have bigger balls than most of the right wing pinheads on this forum.
Metaphorically speaking of course.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 4:32 pm » wrote: When exactly did you START posting civilly Huey, because I must have missed it.
You have more times than I can count called me ignorant, mentioned me having sex with a variety of barnyard animals, and spoken to me in a very misogynistic and condescending tone, HONEY.

Missed? You fücking replied to it honey.

Since you want to play Sybil and go from civil poster to a bitchy poster I will use any fücking tone I chose with you.

PS. Now you are a lying sack of ****. I did not mention you having sex with barn yard animals, hoodie momma. I will go dig up the thread and post it here

They are right. This chick is a bitch.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 4:37 pm » wrote:I don't have 'little lady feathers' CP.
I have bigger balls than most of the right wing pinheads on this forum.
Metaphorically speaking of course.

Pffft, you don't have the balls even to answer hugely important questions.


Or the balls to tell the truth about huge issues.

So where are your supposed balls expressed?

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 4:36 pm » wrote: People who support this are not for choice.

I'm not for people having to choose not to see a doctor when they are sick and having to wait until they are forced to go to the ER half dead.
I'm also against people having to choose whether to fill their prescription that week, or eat.

Do you ever think about the people who have to make those choices?

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 4:36 pm » wrote:
Nice generalities. So I suppose you too feel that is ok to remove the freedom of choice from those who barely make above the subsidy level and force them pay to thousands annually for services they do not need or want?

THAT is what is happening in real, adult world. People are losing thousands of dollars in income. People are losing jobs in the real world.

People who support this are not for choice.

No, I believe we got played. I voted for single payer, myself - the French model. What I got, I am not competent to describe without profanity, and even then I will fail to do it justice.

But the pretense that the dems could have done this without the bathroomers is jut silliness. The entire affair was a puppet show, cooked up behind closed doors and agreed to by all concerned (the leadership of both parties, and their mutual controllers).

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 4:39 pm » wrote: Pffft, you don't have the balls even to answer hugely important questions.

That's pretty rich coming from you considering how you've been dodging my questions in the last few pages of this thread, and for years before that.

So where are your supposed balls expressed?

Grab a mirror and open your mouth, Kitten.
I'll show you.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 4:42 pm » wrote: I'm not for people having to choose not to see a doctor when they are sick and having to wait until they are forced to go to the ER half dead.
I'm also against people having to choose whether to fill their prescription that week, or eat.

Do you ever think about the people who have to make those choices?

I wasn't talking about those people.

And you know it. Shall I quote the post you responded to earlier?

I mean of you keep avoiding my point and reframing I guess I will have to conclude that you are for increasing the health insurance premiums for middle incomes by thousands of dollars annually by making them pay for services they do not need or want?

Is that a correct conclusion?

Cannonpointer » 02 Jan 2014 4:44 pm » wrote:
No, I believe we got played. I voted for single payer, myself - the French model. What I got, I am not competent to describe without profanity, and even then I will fail to do it justice.

But the pretense that the dems could have done this without the bathroomers is jut silliness. The entire affair was a puppet show, cooked up behind closed doors and agreed to by all concerned (the leadership of both parties, and their mutual controllers).

I usually appreciate your honesty and I do in this case. I believe the entire nation got played on this.

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 4:50 pm » wrote:
I usually appreciate your honesty and I do in this case. I believe the entire nation got played on this.

By whom?

You are easily able to devine, I will wager, that tthe dems were "in on" the patriot act. Adter all, we have their votes. But THIS scam was foisted on us without a single republican vote. Their participation - their culpability - is harder to make a case for (though I am happy to do so, here and now).

Can you see that the repub leadership was "in on it?"

Cannonpointer » 02 Jan 2014 4:56 pm » wrote:
By whom?

You are easily able to devine, I will wager, that tthe dems were "in on" the patriot act. Adter all, we have their votes. But THIS scam was foisted on us without a single republican vote. Their participation - their culpability - is harder to make a case for (though I am happy to do so, here and now).

Can you see that the repub leadership was "in on it?"

I will be able to answer that later after I see what the republicans do about it. And that won't be until after the next election. It was an easy thing not to for vote if they were in on it because their votes were not needed.

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 4:49 pm » wrote: I wasn't talking about those people.
And you know it.

That was my point exactly.
You never talk about those people, because you obviously don't care about them.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 5:03 pm » wrote: That was my point exactly.
You never talk about those people, because you obviously don't care about them.

One post is civil, the next post she is well, you decide....

I do talk about them. But I wasn't here.

Why are you afraid to quote Simeon's entire post misty? Easier to pretend you didn't see it?

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 4:42 pm wrote:
I'm not for people having to choose not to see a doctor when they are sick and having to wait until they are forced to go to the ER half dead.
I'm also against people having to choose whether to fill their prescription that week, or eat.

Do you ever think about the people who have to make those choices?


I wasn't talking about those people.

And you know it. Shall I quote the post you responded to earlier?

I mean of you keep avoiding my point and reframing I guess I will have to conclude that you are for increasing the health insurance premiums for middle incomes by thousands of dollars annually by making them pay for services they do not need or want?

Is that a correct conclusion?

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 4:59 pm » wrote:
I will be able to answer that later after I see what the republicans do about it. And that won't be until after the next election. It was an easy thing not to for vote if they were in on it because their votes were not needed.

Good observation - they left plausible deniability in their puppet show - unlike the ******* dems, who voted for the patriot act and for war funding and lost their nominee over it.

But the real proof of their culpability is their institution of a new entitlement as their ONLY foray into fixing a broke system.

1. They had absolute hegemony for six years,
2. and had a clear duty to act on an existential threat to our sovereignty.
3. They did nothing, and set the stage for what followed.

Under our current criminal system aand under our current tort system, they are culpable unless one of those 3 points can be refuted.