I feel sorry for you.
I'm a Republican, but I don't know why.
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
I feel sorry for you.
I am asking questions in an attempt to learn what specific type of oversight you would like to see implemented rather than just vague "oversight". Please, if you don't have the answer just state so. We can then move on. So far you have said "oversight", I asked for what form it would take, you have said "dishonest".
There is nothing dishonest in my question.
Actually I asked Oncelor, and you decided that he needed protection from my sarcasm.
I have stopped using it henceforth so that you can either answer the question for him, or move on yourself.
Why? Again, I have not given an opinion in this thread other than the one mention that I too support oversight, followed by a question of what type of oversight Oncelor would like.
You decided I was being "mean" and had to jump in on the "a-hole", all without even listening to anything I have posted since.
I already answered it several times, but you are so stuck in dishonest mode in this thread that you don't reconize it. It's sad.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Come on man.... you know that they KNOW your opinion better than you do. Just admit it and move on. How dare you ask questions for them to clarify their position!
Just yell consensus... that usually works.
I read your post. If it works then there is no need to implement any other type of oversight, if there is a need to implement other type of oversight, as implied by how many times you called me an uncaring jerk after I said this very same thing, then what form should it take? Who will be in charge of it? Who will ensure that the inherent laziness of government will not rear its ugly head and create something monstrous from what we all agreed was a good idea?
These are the questions I have asked that you have not answered at all. You keep posting an anecdote and stating you have answered my questions. You have not.
No, I did answer them, idiot.
Insurance companies cannot deny coverage, any longer, when you switch insurance companies, for that reason. They can still deny coverage, for, as Onceler termed it "arbitrary" reasons. The same type of legislation, could just as easily solve that, as it solved the previous loophole I wrote about. Which I have already said three times. I suggest you get someone to read them to you.
Then, again, there is no need to suggest anything new. Thank you for your answer. Simple legislation will fix it and there is no need for an oversight bureaucracy.
Now, will you let the person I asked the question to give his answer or do you believe that he thinks exactly as you do? Since I've dropped the sarcasm he no longer needs your special protection or insistence that "stuff like this" will fix it and can probably give his own opinion without getting his feelings hurt, or you being hurt for him.
This thread had diverged into an exercise on basic philosophy, conservative vs. liberal. I came out for "centrist," and spoke in broad philisophical terms on what I meant by that, particularly with regard to healthcare & the environment.
Then, the thought police came on here, missed the point of one of my posts entirely, and asked to see the entire 1,110 page plan that I had in mind for oversight of the healthcare industry.
I did my best, and threw out a few thoughts off the top of my head, which the thought police completely ignored in favor of continuing to attack Darla.
Fuck you, Damo. I know you think you're clever, but I just tried to present in a fairly reasonable way a broad philosophy on where I think the gov't belongs, and where it doesn't. You sound like a 12-year-old who just joined the debate club. Again, I gave you a few examples of what I had in mind, which you ignored. I'll get to work on the 1,100 page plan for you, and try to post it as soon as I can.
Then, the thought police came on here, missed the point of one of my posts entirely, and asked to see the entire 1,110 page plan that I had in mind for oversight of the healthcare industry.
I did my best, and threw out a few thoughts off the top of my head, which the thought police completely ignored in favor of continuing to attack Darla.
Fuck you, Damo. I know you think you're clever, but I just tried to present in a fairly reasonable way a broad philosophy on where I think the gov't belongs, and where it doesn't. You sound like a 12-year-old who just joined the debate club. Again, I gave you a few examples of what I had in mind, which you ignored. I'll get to work on the 1,100 page plan for you, and try to post it as soon as I can.
Damo, I don't give a crap about any conservative who complained about twenty billion dollars for No child left behind. Not when they cheered on a three trillion dollar war. Those conservatives can go fuck themselves, in the words of dick cheney.
Conservative Republican leaders did exactly what they promised to do. They spent money on war, and they allowed their rich friends on wall street and the insurance industry to have access to the federal treasury and federal tax dollars. They gutted public oversight and regulation. I'm sorry if you got fooled by it. I'm not. This is what they've promised to do for decades.
Please, I simply defended myself and asked questions and in no way attacked Darla. Other than stating that you didn't need her protection from my sarcasm.
It really doesn't need to be 1,110 pages. But just saying "oversight" isn't quite enough. I asked for a simple elaboration, then asked more questions. I am sorry that you feel uncomfortable expressing a more detailed opinion and in the future will try very hard to not be sarcastic so I won't hurt your feelings. But I really was wondering what forms of oversight you would like to see.
It took you this long to come up with this?
People went along because they knew that the other party would get absolutely nothing done that they wanted, while even though this guy sucked they at least had a shot at something that they liked even if they had to wade through all that mud to get there.
I wasn't protecting anybody, health care has always been my number one moral issue, until your war came along.
Far more people, that's human beings, die in this country every single year, than died on 9/11. If they were killed by terrorists, we would bankrupt this country, and use every single child of the poor as cannon fodder in response. But it is conservative ideology killing them, so that's ok.
And now that they have nearly destroyed this country (or in fact, outright destroyed it, we really don't know yet), they claim that they were tricked and Bush is actually a "liberal".
I mean, they are shameless fucks, you have to give them that.
Again, Long ago in a world far far away I expressed a need to correct this, even an ideology that I thought I liked that would get us there. Later I found out that I liked France's program better if we were going to emulate one, but you can certainly ask LadyT about it, or even some time ask me a question rather than throw ad hominem attacks at the wrong target.
WTF are you talking about?
Are you back to the "at least Bush was better than Gore or Kerry" bullshit?
What did bush give you, that you liked? Because whatever shit he gave you that you liked, I can guaran-damn-tee you, it is not fucking close to being worth a three trillion dollar war, and upwards of a million dead human beings.
Nobody claims they were tricked, well other than D Senators who really didn't mean to vote for war...
They knew he had policies that they didn't like, but they knew that the other side had even more of them they didn't like.
And that would be why I didn't vote for him that second time.
Disingenuousness runs strong in this one.
The reality is people really do often vote for what they believe to be the lesser of two evils. Even if the name of that is Bush.