(10-30-2017 05:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well, if you can't justify your vote based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent to justify it.

The irony here is so thick I am cutting it and serving it with a nice Chianti.

What have I done that's ironic?

You say this:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Trump) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Clinton) to justify it."

What's ironic is that half the country feels opposite:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Clinton) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Trump) to justify it."

Where have I created an unrealistic caricature of Trump?

lmao.....TigerBlue....ask, and ye shall receive....

(10-30-2017 05:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The ACA doesn't provide healthcare, it expands healthcare coverage and subsidies for already existing healthcare programs, nor does it make it healthcare an inalienable right.

Semantics. Forgot that's all you ever have. No wonder we haven't really missed your non-contributing ass around here.

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide funding for healthcare to anybody. Healthcare is a personal responsibility that everyone has to determine if it is a priority of theirs or not. I shouldn't have to work to pay for anybody's healthcare but my own and my family if I determine it's a priority, and if I personally choose not to purchase health insurance I shouldn't be fined by the government for doing so.

Dismissing a discussion revolving around the constitutionality of something being 'semantics' shows you don't have a good grasp of what the word actually means.

But as for your stance regarding healthcare, what about emergency medicine? Should that be covered?

There is no semantics regarding the Constitution. Everything is right there in black and white. The fact that you think there is shows you are the one who doesn't have a grasp.

As for emergency medicine to my knowledge the only emergency medical facilities and/or capabilities that the federal government has are specifically for the treatment of federal employees (military hospitals, federal fire departments at military bases and large facilities) or veterans (VA hospitals). The Constitution does not spell out the responsibilities of state and local governments except in the 10th Amendment where it specifies that all duties not described within the previous text of the documents are reserved for the states. Healthcare would obviously fall within this realm as a responsibility of the individual states rather than federal government as it does not fall either prior to or after the 10th Amendment.

I'm truly not trying to belabor the point, but would you mind stating what you think 'semantics' means? I don't think you have good handle on the meaning of the word itself.

As for the healthcare question, so you just want it to be the purview of the states and not the federal government? Ok, any other rulings you're really set on overturning?

There's semantics and then there's lexical semantics. You're arguing that the ACA doesn't provide healthcare when indirectly it does so by subsidizing the costs of health insurance which is used to pay for healthcare so...

(10-30-2017 05:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Nah, 08 isn't anywhere near as useful as Fit. At least Fit contributes something to this board. '08's next solid contribution will be his first. He's as vapid as Mpls.

Do you guys really just want an echo chamber, or would you rather have dissenting voices asking for proof of your claims?

since you asked and NOT ONE SINGLE DIPPO has ever responded to this posit.......

name one economic policy the dems have a leg to stand on en macro???

that ought to twizzle your shtick.....

once the dippos wake up, then we get to have fair debates......until then, enter at your own risk.....

disclaimer: and I'm pro-choice, smoke weed, and an atheist......git ya some o' dat

(10-30-2017 05:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Nah, 08 isn't anywhere near as useful as Fit. At least Fit contributes something to this board. '08's next solid contribution will be his first. He's as vapid as Mpls.

Do you guys really just want an echo chamber, or would you rather have dissenting voices asking for proof of your claims?

I'd rather have a dialogue with someone who doesn't start every sentence off in the form of a question. It's condescending and arrogant not to mention leading. It appears it's you who wishes to frame every narrative in terms you're comfortable with.

(10-30-2017 05:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well, if you can't justify your vote based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent to justify it.

The irony here is so thick I am cutting it and serving it with a nice Chianti.

What have I done that's ironic?

You say this:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Trump) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Clinton) to justify it."

What's ironic is that half the country feels opposite:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Clinton) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Trump) to justify it."

Where have I created an unrealistic caricature of Trump?

What does unrealistic mean specifically

(10-30-2017 05:55 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Semantics. Forgot that's all you ever have. No wonder we haven't really missed your non-contributing ass around here.

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide funding for healthcare to anybody. Healthcare is a personal responsibility that everyone has to determine if it is a priority of theirs or not. I shouldn't have to work to pay for anybody's healthcare but my own and my family if I determine it's a priority, and if I personally choose not to purchase health insurance I shouldn't be fined by the government for doing so.

Dismissing a discussion revolving around the constitutionality of something being 'semantics' shows you don't have a good grasp of what the word actually means.

But as for your stance regarding healthcare, what about emergency medicine? Should that be covered?

There is no semantics regarding the Constitution. Everything is right there in black and white. The fact that you think there is shows you are the one who doesn't have a grasp.

As for emergency medicine to my knowledge the only emergency medical facilities and/or capabilities that the federal government has are specifically for the treatment of federal employees (military hospitals, federal fire departments at military bases and large facilities) or veterans (VA hospitals). The Constitution does not spell out the responsibilities of state and local governments except in the 10th Amendment where it specifies that all duties not described within the previous text of the documents are reserved for the states. Healthcare would obviously fall within this realm as a responsibility of the individual states rather than federal government as it does not fall either prior to or after the 10th Amendment.

I'm truly not trying to belabor the point, but would you mind stating what you think 'semantics' means? I don't think you have good handle on the meaning of the word itself.

As for the healthcare question, so you just want it to be the purview of the states and not the federal government? Ok, any other rulings you're really set on overturning?

There's semantics and then there's lexical semantics. You're arguing that the ACA doesn't provide healthcare when indirectly it does so by subsidizing the costs of health insurance which is used to pay for healthcare so...

not only is it the number of boomers, but that's XACLY why healthcare stocks have paralleled the energy stock boon post Katrina....

(10-30-2017 05:57 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Nah, 08 isn't anywhere near as useful as Fit. At least Fit contributes something to this board. '08's next solid contribution will be his first. He's as vapid as Mpls.

Do you guys really just want an echo chamber, or would you rather have dissenting voices asking for proof of your claims?

I'd rather have a dialogue with someone who doesn't start every sentence off in the form of a question. It's condescending and arrogant not to mention leading. It appears it's you who wishes to frame every narrative in terms you're comfortable with.

That's just objectively not true. If I were only wishing to frame a narrative in terms I'm comfortable with, why would I be posting here?

(10-30-2017 06:00 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:55 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Dismissing a discussion revolving around the constitutionality of something being 'semantics' shows you don't have a good grasp of what the word actually means.

But as for your stance regarding healthcare, what about emergency medicine? Should that be covered?

There is no semantics regarding the Constitution. Everything is right there in black and white. The fact that you think there is shows you are the one who doesn't have a grasp.

As for emergency medicine to my knowledge the only emergency medical facilities and/or capabilities that the federal government has are specifically for the treatment of federal employees (military hospitals, federal fire departments at military bases and large facilities) or veterans (VA hospitals). The Constitution does not spell out the responsibilities of state and local governments except in the 10th Amendment where it specifies that all duties not described within the previous text of the documents are reserved for the states. Healthcare would obviously fall within this realm as a responsibility of the individual states rather than federal government as it does not fall either prior to or after the 10th Amendment.

I'm truly not trying to belabor the point, but would you mind stating what you think 'semantics' means? I don't think you have good handle on the meaning of the word itself.

As for the healthcare question, so you just want it to be the purview of the states and not the federal government? Ok, any other rulings you're really set on overturning?

There's semantics and then there's lexical semantics. You're arguing that the ACA doesn't provide healthcare when indirectly it does so by subsidizing the costs of health insurance which is used to pay for healthcare so...

not only is it the number of boomers, but that's XACLY why healthcare stocks have paralleled the energy stock boon post Katrina....

We should all pee in protest or scream at the sky like democrats.

I've often thought about saving my urine in hopes that some wealthy person would buy it and place it in a prominent place as well. smh.

Why does our country glorify mental illness? It would take someone who is totally deranged to do this.

Who's glorifying this?

(10-30-2017 05:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  The irony here is so thick I am cutting it and serving it with a nice Chianti.

What have I done that's ironic?

You say this:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Trump) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Clinton) to justify it."

What's ironic is that half the country feels opposite:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Clinton) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Trump) to justify it."

Where have I created an unrealistic caricature of Trump?

lmao.....TigerBlue....ask, and ye shall receive....

Who is this mystery man??

But I got a crystal ball!

(10-30-2017 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:57 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Nah, 08 isn't anywhere near as useful as Fit. At least Fit contributes something to this board. '08's next solid contribution will be his first. He's as vapid as Mpls.

Do you guys really just want an echo chamber, or would you rather have dissenting voices asking for proof of your claims?

I'd rather have a dialogue with someone who doesn't start every sentence off in the form of a question. It's condescending and arrogant not to mention leading. It appears it's you who wishes to frame every narrative in terms you're comfortable with.

That's just objectively not true. If I were only wishing to frame a narrative in terms I'm comfortable with, why would I be posting here?

lol, at least you waited until the second sentence that time.

(10-30-2017 06:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Who's glorifying this?

The people who did the story must be glorifying it. Who would do a story on something this stupid?

The people at the the art gallery in NYC seem in awe as they watch him/her take a whizz in the orange juice bottle. Maybe this person should have just saved all the dumps they took over a several week period and put that in a cube.

(10-30-2017 06:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Who's glorifying this?

he/she/it.

I disagree that any story on a subject matter inherently means they're glorifying it. The fact is, the only place any of you or I will run into this story is here or in right-wing circles where it's used to justify their feelings towards those on the left. It's not different than the Westboro Baptists being trotted out at every chance by the left.

If you're looking for reasons to be outraged, you can find them, but it's not exactly a good way to form opinions about national policy.

(10-30-2017 06:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I disagree that any story on a subject matter inherently means they're glorifying it. The fact is, the only place any of you or I will run into this story is here or in right-wing circles where it's used to justify their feelings towards those on the left. It's not different than the Westboro Baptists being trotted out at every chance by the left.

If you're looking for reasons to be outraged, you can find them, but it's not exactly a good way to form opinions about national policy.

Who is outraged?

You can insert whatever feeling you want to ascribe to this quote I guess, the question still stands.

Quote: Why does our country glorify mental illness? It would take someone who is totally deranged to do this.

(10-30-2017 06:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I disagree that any story on a subject matter inherently means they're glorifying it. The fact is, the only place any of you or I will run into this story is here or in right-wing circles where it's used to justify their feelings towards those on the left. It's not different than the Westboro Baptists being trotted out at every chance by the left.

If you're looking for reasons to be outraged, you can find them, but it's not exactly a good way to form opinions about national policy.

So now Vice News is right wing?





I see why you only ask questions. Whenever you try to make statements your pseudo-intellectual "above the fray" facade slips away and exposes you for the partisan hack that you are.

Eh, fair enough, I worded that poorly. I never would have seen it there, and I stand by the overall point that I find it weird that there are literally people looking for content they don't like, but I definitely could have worded it more clearly.

Who's looking for any of that? I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing something as disturbing as that garbage.