Hi -- New here.

Fentoine Lum said:
Why does Jack think we all need a small vaginaed woman, how did that concept work its way into his vision of ideal?
Click to expand...

Dude, I don't know where you're from, but in Southern California, ching girls rule the roost. They have the 'Valley Girl' accent, dress like hot surfer babes, got the blond streaked hair going on. Black and Hispanic girls just give up, white girls toss their hair and say "Hey, at least I have an ass" as they point to their butts. Asian girls, they have it hands down. And the problem is ... they know it. Like, you go into a 7 Eleven at midnight, there's a guy there buying a pint of ice cream and a box of Tampons, ... you clear your throat to get his attention, he looks over, you say "asian girlfriend?". He looks down, knowing you know he's pussy-whipped, and he meekly says "Yeah". Is it the small vagina? Hey ... maybe? I mean, it's probably a combination of things. Smart, silky hair, awesome skin tone, 30 year olds look like teenagers, light-boned and agile (you know, if you like to let them get on top and do all the work), and they seem to be attracted to white guys. So, you know, it's a trade off, like, are YOU going to be OK being at the 7 Eleven at midnight buying a pint of ice cream and a box of Tampons?
 
Jack said:
Dude, I don't know where you're from, but in Southern California, ching girls rule the roost. They have the 'Valley Girl' accent, dress like hot surfer babes, got the blond streaked hair going on. Black and Hispanic girls just give up, white girls toss their hair and say "Hey, at least I have an ass" as they point to their butts. Asian girls, they have it hands down. And the problem is ... they know it. Like, you go into a 7 Eleven at midnight, there's a guy there buying a pint of ice cream and a box of Tampons, ... you clear your throat to get his attention, he looks over, you say "asian girlfriend?". He looks down, knowing you know he's pussy-whipped, and he meekly says "Yeah". Is it the small vagina? Hey ... maybe? I mean, it's probably a combination of things. Smart, silky hair, awesome skin tone, 30 year olds look like teenagers, light-boned and agile (you know, if you like to let them get on top and do all the work), and they seem to be attracted to white guys. So, you know, it's a trade off, like, are YOU going to be OK being at the 7 Eleven at midnight buying a pint of ice cream and a box of Tampons?
Click to expand...

You might have just given a few people, a run for the most fucked up thing uttered around here. You get too messed up around Owl's. I don't understand, that if you have the issue with Owl's, and supposed girl gangs, why open yourself by saying something that will get females swarming to tell you off.
 
Last edited:
Jade Dragon said:
You might have just given a few people, a run for the most fucked up thing uttered around here. You get too messed up around Owl's. I don't understand, that if you have the issue with Owl's, and supposed girl gags, why open yourself by saying something that will get females swarming to tell you off.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Grumpy said:
I asked you a simple question. You claim we can afford universal health insurance. All I ask is give me proof using nonbiased experts in economics. The data should include projected cost over a 10 year period and future projected costs. Also data on how we will pay the bill. Raising taxes is not an answer. Raising taxes by X% on tax payers and corporations would be a answer. Cutting other programs by X%, etc. If you can come up with realistic data I will admit you are correct. But I doubt you can because if it were that easy we would have done it.
Click to expand...

So all you are asking her to do is solve America's healthcare and healthcare insurance problem...

...and you will acknowledge that she is kicking the shit out of you.

And she has to do it here in an Internet forum...using small words and posting a short comment.

C'mon, Grump. Even you can do better than that!
 
... we're doing our best to get an emotional response. So far ... I'm sticking with the 'North Korean Bot' angle. ;)

(Hey, do me a favor, if Pyongyang activates her again, and I'm not around, ask her about VAT, the 'value added tax', see what her opinion of that is)

Oh. And another thing, see if she was raised, brought up, schooled around '125th Street' or was it more like 'Westchester'.

Thanks in advance. :|
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Why does Jack think we all need a small vaginaed woman, how did that concept work its way into his vision of ideal?
Click to expand...

He's just showing off his misogyny again. In Jack's world, if a lib woman disagrees with a con woman, it's because the lib is jealous because the con is more attractive, younger, has bigger boobs, etc. If a lib woman agrees with another lib woman, it's because she's trying to get her to join her man-hating girl gang and dominate and boss her around. It's never as simple as "I like/don't like your political POV."
 
Jade Dragon said:
You might have just given a few people, a run for the most fucked up thing uttered around here. You get too messed up around Owl's. I don't understand, that if you have the issue with Owl's, and supposed girl gags, why open yourself by saying something that will get females swarming to tell you off.
Click to expand...

Because that's what he lives for.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
....most of Legion's threads ban almost everyone on the forum who might make him look bad....
Click to expand...

Personally, I like being challenged, so I don't understand the desire to censor challengers. But, even if I felt like doing so, I wouldn't, because I wouldn't want to look like a sniveling coward.

...Being emotional doesn't help. lol
Click to expand...

It's especially not helpful in online forums, since it feeds the trolls. Most of them are just looking to create signs of human misery.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
He's just showing off his misogyny again. In Jack's world, if a lib woman disagrees with a con woman, it's because the lib is jealous because the con is more attractive, younger, has bigger boobs, etc. If a lib woman agrees with another lib woman, it's because she's trying to get her to join her man-hating girl gang and dominate and boss her around. It's never as simple as "I like/don't like your political POV."
Click to expand...

Jack has a tennie weenie.
 
Oneuli said:
Funny, others have supposedly noticed that I'm too brief, and have demanded more specifics. Here's a pro-tip: there's no correct length. If I'm detailed, the excuse for not responding to the substance is that it was too lengthy, and if I'm briefer, the excuse for not responding is that I wasn't specific enough.
Click to expand...

You can be brief and still get all the salient points in. So long drawn out explanations are unnecessary and a waste of time. That is my opinion.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
You might be chained to a desk in an anonymous cubicle in some nondescript NYC high-rise office building, commuting to and from with the other worker bees, five days/week/48 weeks/year. Instead you live and work in one of the planet's most exciting and vibrant cities, sometimes with nose to the grindstone, other times free as a bird. I'm a retired nurse. Were I able to do it all over again, and was your age and unmarried, instead of working in a hospital or office building, I'd be a travel nurse. Great pay while on assignment; then whatever down time you want and can afford; then a new gig in a new location. As much freedom as you could want, while still paying the bills!
Click to expand...

I've had some offers to move to FTE positions, but they were less interesting and lucrative than what I'm doing now, so I'm putting that off. At some point I'll probably want to have kids, and then I'll be more interested in stability and benefits (better health insurance, paid maternity leave and sick time, etc.) than just raw pay. But in the meantime, what I'm doing is bringing in a pretty good income and building my resume nicely, so it works for me.
 
No, it's a fact. Ever been in a corporate meeting? If you ramble on you lose your audience as they quit listening, plus the boss will thank you and tell you to sit down. It's basically the same here.
 
Grumpy said:
I asked you a simple question. You claim we can afford universal health insurance. All I ask is give me proof using nonbiased experts in economics.
Click to expand...

You ask the impossible, for two reasons:

(1) Simply citing an economist who says we can afford it wouldn't be proof. It would be "argument from authority" which is a classic logical fallacy.

(2) If I were to cite an economist who took the position that we can afford it, that would be prima facie proof, in your mind, that the economist was biased.

Towards the second point, I could offer up the names of Jonathan Gruber, Lawrence Summers, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Paul Collier, Kenneth Arrow, etc., as prominent economists who believe universal health insurance is affordable for the US. That list includes many of the world's leading economic minds, including multiple winners of the Nobel Prize for economics. But since they all believe in universal health insurance, I suspect none of those names will work for you. If I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll happy to share examples of their writing. For example, Paul Krugman is arguably the most respected living economist among other economists, and won the Nobel Prize in the subject. If you'd accept him as an expert in economics, I can cite many examples of him arguing in favor of universal health insurance.

The data should include projected cost over a 10 year period and future projected costs.
Click to expand...

If you recall, I used your own source -- the Mercatus Center (I assume that was your source, anyway, since you cited their number and haven't denied it). Even using that source's figure for the ten-year cost (which we can assume to err on the high side for the reasons I enumerated), it would STILL be cheaper than our current system. If we can afford the current system, we can definitely afford Medicare for all, since it would be cheaper.

Also data on how we will pay the bill. Raising taxes is not an answer
Click to expand...

If we insisted on keeping our radically low taxes, while still affording universal health insurance, then the cost is much higher. The increased hit on the federal government would be as much as $1.6 trillion per year, average (using the net of the Mercatus number and the current spending it would displace), and it's hard to find $1.6 trillion in savings in our budget. The biggest area of discretionary spending is the military budget, which is around $717 billion. If we reduced that to a more reasonable $250 billion, that wouldn't even cover a third of the savings we'd need to find. Most other spending areas are already extremely lean by wealthy-nation standards, so we can't find many savings there without seriously diminishing returns. Basically, we'd be cutting already-emaciated budgets, greatly harming the people. Assuming you're not OK with breaking past promises (e.g., defaulting on debts or refusing to pay up on our promises for Social Security), we're not going to find the rest of that money in further cuts without wrecking the society. So, boosting our radically low taxes is the way to go.

As for how much we'd have to raise them, I already addressed that. Raising them from 26% of GDP to 34% of GDP would do it. That could be done by increasing all taxes by about 31% (a proportional increase of 31 percent, not adding 31 percentage points). So, if your current effective tax rate is 10%, it would go to 13.1%. Etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top