DC Tom Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 I disagree to me there are many worse parts of socialism. I think government should stay out of most industry but healthcare is not one of them. I stand by my assertion that they charge what they do because there is no reason not to. Medical responsibility being in the hands of bean counters even lends itself to that idea. Good plan. Stand by your ignorant, unsupported statement. That goes far here.
section122 Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Good plan. Stand by your ignorant, unsupported statement. That goes far here. I'm curious as to why you would cut off the rest of the quote. The part where I asked for help understanding.
Rob's House Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 That is because the GOP is so out of touch. They can't continue to sell the idea that the poor people are these evil scammers trying to separate everyone from their dollar's when none of us have any dollar's to be separated from. People that used to be middle class now require assistance just to make ends meet. Very few rich old white guys can relate to anyone under 40. Add in the idea that so much of the GOP is hate based and fear mongering even many conservatives are embarrassed with that their party has become much the same as myself as a democrat and many others I know. There are blind supporters of each party and then the rest of us in the middle wondering what the f*ck is going on. I agree that the GOP is out of touch, but I don't think they're selling the message you attribute to them. From a marketing standpoint their torn between serving an old-school conservative Christian base and a generally younger more libertarian base. I'm the meantime they're trying to sell free market capitalism to a hyper-sensitive, politically correct generation that is too offended by the acknowledgement of reality to face said reality. That's where we end up with mischaracterizations like the one you posted. I can't point out the millions of irresponsible people living off the government without being accused of claiming that all poor people are evil. Because there are some legitimately poor people who can't help it and might be offended. Or more accurately, people can feel good about themselves by getting offended on their behalf. The current GOP isn't the problem, and quite frankly neither are the Democrats. The real problem is the culture. They're just the natural outgrowth of it.
IDBillzFan Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 . What's more condescending? Someone who likely never achieved academic distinction or performed any of the acts you cite Questioning the credentials of someone that actually has or the converse situation? Oh and being in the top 15percent of an already elite little pool is a pretty heft achievement. I ask again, is it something you've accomplished? Not surprisingly, you miss the point completely. Who says the pool is elite? That's right. The elite "top 15 percenters" who decide who gets to be in their pool. If you were near as smart as you're told you are, you'd be able to figure that out. And unlike people like yourself who need people and numbers to feel "elite," the people who DO perform the acts I cite would be the first in line to help you, feed you, heel you, comfort you if you were in trouble, while you, undoubtedly, would be bleeding out of every hole in in your body and STILL ask to see their university credentials before you would allow such lowly people to help an elitist prick like yourself. And they'd STILL help you. Because no matter how smart your "top 15 percenters" tells you you are, you're nothing more than a soulless midget with a library card next to these people.
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 . What's more condescending? Someone who likely never achieved academic distinction or performed any of the acts you cite Questioning the credentials of someone that actually has or the converse situation? But he's read the classics...
Dante Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Do you really believe this? Nobody is dumb enough to think like this are they? I'm not dumb. I'm not the smartest guy on this board. I am observant and open minded. That's all it takes. It's easy to toss around insults to cover up a lack of perspective. You are a person guided and manipulated by a professor or parents. You are not a free thinking individual. I am.
birdog1960 Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Not surprisingly, you miss the point completely. Who says the pool is elite? That's right. The elite "top 15 percenters" who decide who gets to be in their pool. If you were near as smart as you're told you are, you'd be able to figure that out. And unlike people like yourself who need people and numbers to feel "elite," the people who DO perform the acts I cite would be the first in line to help you, feed you, heel you, comfort you if you were in trouble, while you, undoubtedly, would be bleeding out of every hole in in your body and STILL ask to see their university credentials before you would allow such lowly people to help an elitist prick like yourself. And they'd STILL help you. Because no matter how smart your "top 15 percenters" tells you you are, you're nothing more than a soulless midget with a library card next to these people. who says? society as a whole says. the people that make those high achievers feel elite constitute society. that's why they are valued by multiple factors over the pack when it comes to pay for their work. does this happen solely because they are part of an elite, incestuous group? no, that occasionally happens (see Bush, g.w.). but mostly it's because they make money for their employers or their own businesses. and why is that? because they're smarter than the average bear. much smarter and better equipped intellectually. to your other point, the majority of charitable giving comes from the wealthy. as an absolute number, they give the most. and there are plenty among the academically elite that actually choose relatively lower paying careers, the primary purpose of which is to help people. what of romney's point in the last election about the vast group of "takers" in american society? it's a common meme among conservatives and like most things there's a grain of truth to it. how many in that group do you suppose hold outstanding academic credentials? there are good and bad and indifferent in every socioeconomic group. no single group has a monopoly on kindness, compassion or cruelty. finally, if i was bleeding out, was destitute and had a choice of who was nearby to help, it would most likely be a group of trained medical professionals that support and work under the ideals of a universal health care system.
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 what? and you criticize me for syntax? now if I was a narcissist, i'd attack you to make myself look inferior and me even more relatively superior. oh, wait... but i'm not running for president. Confused much? How do you continue to survive each day?
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 I did own it, I said I was wrong. What else do you want you complete idiot? Was I joking that Europeans have never owned guns? Yes I was. Hell, I've shot a Mauser before. You need to admit you were wrong about the Fed. Heck, you were wrong on many levels What does killing a dog have to do with this thread? Why would you brag about it?
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 What does killing a dog have to do with this thread? Why would you brag about it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser I was either joking, being sarcastic or wrong. I guess Mausers were only manufactured for export, eh?
IDBillzFan Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 who says? society as a whole says. the people that make those high achievers feel elite constitute society. that's why they are valued by multiple factors over the pack when it comes to pay for their work. does this happen solely because they are part of an elite, incestuous group? no, that occasionally happens (see Bush, g.w.). but mostly it's because they make money for their employers or their own businesses. and why is that? because they're smarter than the average bear. much smarter and better equipped intellectually. to your other point, the majority of charitable giving comes from the wealthy. as an absolute number, they give the most. and there are plenty among the academically elite that actually choose relatively lower paying careers, the primary purpose of which is to help people. what of romney's point in the last election about the vast group of "takers" in american society? it's a common meme among conservatives and like most things there's a grain of truth to it. how many in that group do you suppose hold outstanding academic credentials? there are good and bad and indifferent in every socioeconomic group. no single group has a monopoly on kindness, compassion or cruelty. finally, if i was bleeding out, was destitute and had a choice of who was nearby to help, it would most likely be a group of trained medical professionals that support and work under the ideals of a universal health care system. Again...missing the point. You're so stuck on trying to be right, you can't even grasp what a simple 85-percenter like myself is spoon-feeding your elitist little mind. You assign value to degrees and self-affirmed intelligence over all else, and have absolutely no sense, respect or appreciation of those who live their lives selflessly. If those people are not fully educated with plaques and certificates and diplomas and bookshelves, they are nothing but lesser people to you. Elitists are like that. At least you own up to it.
unbillievable Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 I have a friend who is uber liberal, and another who is a tea party conservative. Interestingly, they both want a Hilary vs Trump election because they think the other is too crazy to win. I agreed with them because it would be entertaining to watch.
Dante Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 I have a friend who is uber liberal, and another who is a tea party conservative. Interestingly, they both want a Hilary vs Trump election because they think the other is too crazy to win. I agreed with them because it would be entertaining to watch. I'm interested where the crazy comes in with Trump. What is it exactly that is crazy? That he doesn't want to commit national/cultural suicide by opening up the border to resource sucking 3rd world dregs? Jeopardize the safety and security of the citizenry by allowing thousands upon thousands of military aged "migrants" from the heart of the true crazy town middle east?
meazza Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 I'm interested where the crazy comes in with Trump. What is it exactly that is crazy? That he doesn't want to commit national/cultural suicide by opening up the border to resource sucking 3rd world dregs? Jeopardize the safety and security of the citizenry by allowing thousands upon thousands of military aged "migrants" from the heart of the true crazy town middle east? Or how he mocks people that are disabled.
Justice Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 To those that support Trump, why do you think he's qualified to be President? I mean you obviously feel like Obama was inexperienced and not qualified then how is Trump any better? Personally I'd like to see Sanders win the election.
IDBillzFan Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 To those that support Trump, why do you think he's qualified to be President? I mean you obviously feel like Obama was inexperienced and not qualified then how is Trump any better? Personally I'd like to see Sanders win the election. Hell, I DON'T support Trump and you'd have go full gatorman to not see he's more qualified to be president than Barry ever was, if for no other reason than because Trump understands enough basic math to spend money with an eye on value and profit. Barry built a no-leadership resume of accomplishments almost exclusively on the fact the he is black. If Barry was white, you wouldn't know him from the countless other whites you pass every day. Which is too bad. There are a lot of brilliant black people. The left, unfortunately, passed on the sharpest knives in the drawer so they could elect the shiniest.
LA Grant Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Hell, I DON'T support Trump and you'd have go full gatorman to not see he's more qualified to be president than Barry ever was, if for no other reason than because Trump understands enough basic math to spend money with an eye on value and profit. Barry built a no-leadership resume of accomplishments almost exclusively on the fact the he is black. If Barry was white, you wouldn't know him from the countless other whites you pass every day. Which is too bad. There are a lot of brilliant black people. The left, unfortunately, passed on the sharpest knives in the drawer so they could elect the shiniest. Such a dumb and racist statement, and no, the "there are a lot of brilliant black people" qualifier doesn't shield it. Taking the fact that "first black president" was a positive to his campaign supporters and somehow extrapolating that into he won "almost exclusively" on that is a leap you can only really make with the lens of racism. White people have never won the White House with similar campaign messages except for, well, all the times they did. Trump is almost exactly as qualified for leadership as Paris Hilton. Congrats to the GOP, looks like you'll be nominating the male Paris Hilton for president of our country. My favorite Trump fact is that he would've actually been richer if he had simply invested his inheritance and never attempted to be a businessman: http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/09/02/1-easy-way-donald-trump-could-have-been-even-richer-doing-nothing
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Such a dumb and racist statement, It's neither dumb nor racist to observe that pretty much his only qualification is the ability he grants others to cry "Racism!" Even his other meager qualifications were always qualified by race, e.g. not "head of Harvard Law Review," but "first black head of Harvard Law Review."
Azalin Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Such a dumb and racist statement, and no, the "there are a lot of brilliant black people" qualifier doesn't shield it. Taking the fact that "first black president" was a positive to his campaign supporters and somehow extrapolating that into he won "almost exclusively" on that is a leap you can only really make with the lens of racism. White people have never won the White House with similar campaign messages except for, well, all the times they did. Trump is almost exactly as qualified for leadership as Paris Hilton. Congrats to the GOP, looks like you'll be nominating the male Paris Hilton for president of our country. My favorite Trump fact is that he would've actually been richer if he had simply invested his inheritance and never attempted to be a businessman: http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/09/02/1-easy-way-donald-trump-could-have-been-even-richer-doing-nothing What a load of crap. So what if he criticizes Obama? That doesn't make his statement racist. He even went out of his way to specifically address his feelings that many black Americans, like all Americans, are brilliant, and literally everyone else on this board feels the same way, both right and left. Somehow, you feel that's racist. That's because you're a complete tool. You are doing a great job of showing everyone that you are the most ignorant person posting here. That's saying something. Gatorman has actually risen one level from the bottom of the barrel thanks to you. Once again, bravo. You're a jerk.
Recommended Posts