Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:01 pm

If that is indeed true, post the rule and your stipulation.

Mimi » 12 Feb 2024, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 10:35 am

... continued from my previous post because of character limit (second and final part)...

Speaking of a single-payer healthcare system, I urge you to watch this video and you'll see for yourselves that the US would have it far better and would lose far less people to curable diseases and conditions if they had a single-payer health care system like the one we have in my country of Canada:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3HJWVuJ0Ww

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTUo-Z86Z3U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJwWHnvMt5c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxtGepwXaes

See more here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... GOkE7cbeuw

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... u8cQxSH6KH

The United-States has become so evil that they would put a black mother in jail for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS for the so-called "crime" of getting her kids basic/life-saving healthcare and they would condemn innocent little children to suffering and death just because their mom is poor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG84Uiql3M

Does that surprise you that poor poeple and people of color and of course mostly poor people of color are treated this way in the United-States of America? Because in the US, it's a crime to want a better life/better living conditions for your beloved children.

Also, we hear everyday on FoX News that there's a "war on the rich" and that "rich people are victims" and "poor people are lazy, parasites, and useless eaters who should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps", there's a lot of poverty-shaming and disability-shaming in the US against poor and disabled people who need government assistance because of disabilities or chronic health issues or the working poor who need government assistance until they find employment, there's even school lunch shaming against children in poverty in the US, and Conservatives refuse to admit that because of them and their Conservative ideology and their greed and selfishness the system is rigged against the poor in favor of the rich, gives everything to the rich while the rest of the population struggles to feed themselves and their children or struggle because they've gone into medical debts for life for getting life-saving treatment...

...,that the rich are born into wealth and get giant subsidies and a ton of private jets and yachts and never have to work to earn anything they have and apparently oppose the rich paying higher taxes, and that the poor guy born in the ghetto who has to work all his life for peanuts and pay a lot of money in taxes doesn't get the same opportunity as the rich guy born into wealth who was a billionaire from birth and never had to work to earn anything he has and paid very little tax. They want people to go back to their **** job in their **** cubicules for a **** salary that's not even a living wage and anyone who unionize and try to fight for their basic civil rights are called "scum" and "thugs" by the Conservative party and the Conservatives say they should be fired from their jobs for protesting for their rights. It has got to stop.

As you can see here, there isn't a real meritocracy in the western world, especially in the United-States.


 
Mimi.

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:03 pm

Once I have a complete quote and link, I will answer.

R.Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:22 pm

Once I have the rule and your stipulation.

cause it can't be about context...

Do you recall your rule on context?

 

 

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:25 pm

You have been given the rule and the stipulation.  It appears your recall is not that great.  And be careful how you frame it.  I see where you are going with it.

R.Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:26 pm

Where?

Link me to it.

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:28 pm

SMH.  Not linking to posts that you replied to in the past 40 minutes or so.

We are doe until you post that quote with a link.

R.Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:36 pm

I'm not accepting vague descriptions.

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:36 pm

See ya.  I know those words and the context they were posted.   And what I was replying to.

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:03 pm

Once I have a complete quote and link, I will answer.  

 

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:36 pm

See ya.  I know those words and the context they were posted.   And what I was replying to.  

 

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:43 pm

THere is the rule and the stipulation.  You are busted lying again, @R. Suave  

Here is the link to your lie.  You lose

R.Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:44 pm

That's not a rule, Verbal.

That is a condition.


**** idiot.
 

 

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:45 pm

We are done and once again you are shown to be a liar.

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 12:44 pm

PS.

@R. Suave   right there I acknowledged they were my rules.  We are not it a court of law.  There is no rule on how one must answer.  Don't lie again and say I didn't answer.

R.Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 1:18 pm

Stupid little ****,

A rule and stipulation would look as follows.

"When relating the words of others, these conditions must be met. (Followed by conditions)"

"I pledge to follow the rule I have just articulated."
 

 

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 1:20 pm

You can stop with the word games anytime.  I'm done with you until you post the quote properly, as a man would.

until you post the quote properly, as a man would

R.Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm

you words were quoted properly.

Verbatim and in context.

You can stop going around in circles now, Sheilagh.

 

Huey » 12 Feb 2024, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 1:49 pm

Without a link to show what I was replying to.  In the future I won't even respond to you if you fail to provide the link.  But it is neither here nor there.  I already acknowledge they were my words.  So you can shut up now.

R. Suave » 12 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm

you words were quoted properly.

Verbatim and in context.

You can stop going around in circles now, Sheilagh.