Define "fair".

[bUU]

Originally Posted by hnsq

And thanks for making it clear that you have no clue what ACA is doing to the world of health care.

So in other words you don't want to face the reality of the moral repudiation for what you support, so you make up nonsense like this to deceive yourself into thinking that your perspective is immune from the repudiation. How convenient. Maybe someday you'll come to a point where you can face what I'm telling you, but evidently not today.

Originally Posted by hnsq

The statement I put in bold above is by far the dumbest thing I have read in a long time.

A hyperbolic statement made so because making a foundation-less comment even bigger helps steel that comment away from the rightful ridicule directed at it?

Originally Posted by hnsq

A large community imposing a minimum standard is exactly what I was arguing against.

No: You weren't arguing against it. You were complaining about it. Big difference.

Originally Posted by hnsq

You just proved my point.

You mean your point was that your perspective was explicitly antisocial? That was your intent? I doubt that. I think your point was to try to rationalize the self-serving claptrap that seeks to evade being held to the standards of the broader society.

Originally Posted by hnsq

What is a good minimum standard in NYC is NOT a good minimum standard in rural Alabama.

Wrong. There is a "good minimum standard" that covers the nation - it's called the ACA Essential Benefits provision. What is a good, in-effect implementation in NYC is not a good, in-effect implementation in rural Alabama. Which is what I said, and what you're working so hard to deceive yourself into not understanding or admitting.

Originally Posted by hnsq

Thank you for proving what I have been telling you all along.

And the self-delusion keeps rolling along.

Originally Posted by hnsq

You do realize that more money has flowed from corporations to democratic parties than republican over the last 20 years, don't you?

Third base. Ice cream has no bones. The quick red foxes jumped over the lazy dogs.

Originally Posted by hnsq

If you want to complain about one party caring only about money, complain about democrats.

So you think "care" means the actual existence of the campaign contributions, rather than what perspectives are supported by those campaign contributions? What is it you said before? "The statement I put in bold above is by far the dumbest thing I have read in a long time." You used the sentence vacuously. I used it rationally.

Originally Posted by hnsq

You do realize that ACA passed with zero republican votes, don't you?

And without a Republican filibuster in the US Senate. So much for that bit of nonsense you were trying to spew.

Originally Posted by hnsq

The democratic party could have passed literally whatever they wanted. Why didn't they? If universal health care is truly what was wanted, why wasn't it passed, given they could have passed anything they wanted?

Come on now - you've already made clear that you're smarter than that. Why make it so blatantly obvious that you are aware of political realities only to start down this inanely silly line of "reasoning" later, utterly devoid of awareness of political realities? It's beneath you.

Originally Posted by hnsq

A comment showing that what you wanted as an extreme fringe left winger is not what the majority of the people who support your party wanted.

Now you're just showing desperation. Denying the political realities doesn't add to your credibility - it detracts from it. Let me know when you decide to return to the realm of rational argument, in this matter.

Originally Posted by hnsq

Tell that to the people it hurts.

Let's see: I'm talking about people who will be sick, and perhaps even die, because of the perspective that you support, and you're talking about people who will have to keep their old television a few more years. Face it: You're in an impossible situation because you have to try to come up with a way of rationalizing placing the comfort and luxury of some over the basic needs of others. You cannot possibly prevail with such a disreputable foundation for defense of your perspective.

Originally Posted by hnsq

Typical of an arrogant left-winger to withhold from a huge group of people and drag others down just to satisfy your own bloated ego.

And there you go again, stooping to personal attack instead of addressing yourself to the issue. It is clear that you know, and find frustrating, that my perspective is intended to foster the health of those most vulnerable in society, and that I'm an anonymous blip on an online forum so there is no ego involved in my support for basic decency.

Originally Posted by hnsq

You are completely incapable of having an intelligent conversation with.

And I suppose my mother wore Army boots too? Gosh, grow up.

Originally Posted by hnsq

I have voted for a single republican in my life.

I voted for many Republicans in my life.

Originally Posted by hnsq

You are nothing but a partisan hack.

For which party? What's really interesting in all this is that you refuse to admit, even to yourself, that my perspective isn't political at all, but rather explicitly and strictly moral. If the GOP started abiding moral perspectives, I'd go back to voting for them in a New York minute. I suppose if what you support is egoistic avarice then it may be difficult to understand what morality is, much less be able to engage in a discussion about the morality of the matter.

Originally Posted by hnsq

You didn't challenge me to say anything

Denying what I posted earlier in the thread makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by hnsq

And as long as you believe this fantasy, you will never be someone anyone can take seriously.

Says the person who denies that things will change regardless. Wow, it's upside down and backwards day, here isn't it?

Originally Posted by hnsq

Once again, lowering yourself to the lowest common denominator.

Actually, that's what you did, and I demonstrated that by mirroring the ridiculous kind of rhetoric you tried to trot out. Did it sting having your ridiculously biased rhetoric ridiculed? This kind of nonsense you posted proves that you aren't really interested in an intelligent conversation, and will go to rather extreme lengths rhetorically in that regard. Just look at all the personal attack you resorted to throughout the rest of this message. Gosh, I'm really sorry that I drove you over the edge. Who knew that would result from highlighting the moral turpitude of what you support?

Originally Posted by hnsq

Realizing both sides of the isle have good ideas is a sign of maturity

Which makes is even more ridiculous that you criticize a Democratic president putting forward a Republican blueprint for healthcare reform. You just keep digging yourself in deeper.

Originally Posted by hnsq

So now asking you to answer political questions on a political board is an insult?

Deliberately misunderstanding what I was referring to in my comment (your insinuation about my age) is just another indication that you realize you have no legitimate reply. Wow, I really thought you would be able to better defend the immoral perspective you advocate.

Originally Posted by hnsq

So do you disagree that the health care in this country was working well before wage ceilings post WWII? Do you fix a cost issue with additional credit manipulation, or by streamlining processes of product creation?

Do you leave people to die on the streets while you're trying to straighten out the paperwork? You answer my question first. My question has higher priority, because my question is a matter of life and death. And that's what you refuse to allow yourself to understand: That fixing the underlying problem is the second order of business - the first is addressing the basic needs of people's health in the interim. I'll restate the challenge I directed at you and your cohort earlier in the thread: Show some indication that you understand and abide by standards of morality by showing how your perspective integrates the higher priority of the basic needs of those most vulnerable in society.

Originally Posted by carterstamp

"We" as in all of us. The inclusive "we".

I think you'll find that many right-wingers don't understand the meaning of the word "we".

[jambo101]

An example of Fair? is a system of governance whereby the citizens get a say in who governs them by having the right to vote for the political representatives of their choice, majority rules.
An example of Whats not fair is the loser then having a perpetual hissy fit and Obstructing in every way possible the duly elected Government and the wishes of the majority of the voters.

[workingclasshero]

whats fair....

being born

everything else....is on the individual

you dont try..you wont do

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by jambo101

An example of Fair? is a system of governance whereby the citizens get a say in who governs them by having the right to vote for the political representatives of their choice, majority rules.
An example of Whats not fair is the loser then having a perpetual hissy fit and Obstructing in every way possible the duly elected Government and the wishes of the majority of the voters.

Just because the Dem's won the presidency doesn't mean they have Carte Blanche to pass anything they want unopposed.

Obama was not the only one to win his election.
The majority of House republicans won theirs too.
In our system of government, the "hissy fit" you're referring to is called "checks and balances".

But if the Left insists on continuing with their "elections have consequences" attitude, they will do well to remember that when the tables inevitably turn.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by Dooleys1300

Just because the Dem's won the presidency doesn't mean they have Carte Blanche to pass anything they want unopposed.

Obama was not the only one to win his election.
The majority of House republicans won theirs too.
In our system of government, the "hissy fit" you're referring to is called "checks and balances".

But if the Left insists on continuing with their "elections have consequences" attitude, they will do well to remember that when the tables inevitably turn.

Maybe that is a specific problem in countries with a de facto 2-party system. In other countries, the party with the most votes often needs one or more coalition partners, which requires them discussing goals and arriving at a compromise, which in itself is already a kind of check and balance. Not to mention there is still the official opposition, which however is not as obstructive as in the US.

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by Neuling

Maybe that is a specific problem in countries with a de facto 2-party system. In other countries, the party with the most votes often needs one or more coalition partners, which requires them discussing goals and arriving at a compromise, which in itself is already a kind of check and balance. Not to mention there is still the official opposition, which however is not as obstructive as in the US.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
Simple majority does not rule here for historically good reasons.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by Dooleys1300

We are not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
Simple majority does not rule here for historically good reasons.

A constitutional republic is also a democracy, just one form of many.

You do have a simple majority system in the US:
Plurality voting system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by Dooleys1300

Just because the Dem's won the presidency doesn't mean they have Carte Blanche to pass anything they want unopposed.

Obama was not the only one to win his election.
The majority of House republicans won theirs too.
In our system of government, the "hissy fit" you're referring to is called "checks and balances".

But if the Left insists on continuing with their "elections have consequences" attitude, they will do well to remember that when the tables inevitably turn.

Normally I'd agree with your premise but in the case we have now we have the opposition Voting No ,Filibustering And obstructing the government on every issue gleefully hoping the government will fail in all respects,they are basically denying the government to run at all and have no problem voting to shut the whole thing down if they dont get their way, coupled with all the unrelenting hate for the President his staff and his party even his family, its not a normal situation going on here,its the repubs having an 8 year hissy fit because they didnt win the majority and their guy didnt get the white house.
Dooley you cant look at todays political situation and think its any where near normal.