This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 111213 1415 ... 251
361
« on: February 17, 2016, 03:46:16 PM »
But Charlie, don't you know that raising wages makes prices go up? That's a basic economic principle!
362
« on: February 17, 2016, 03:06:59 PM »
I feel like this would be a better post if your links actually linked to the post that contained the copypasta
363
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:52:16 PM »
Loretta Lynch
The end of the second amendment is in sight, my brothers.
It's treason, then.
We should have let the South secede when they wanted to.
What's this we shit
California isn't America
Don't you mean KOMMIEfornia?
Nah.
The communists at least had some sense of masculinity.
Awwww shit son.
364
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:45:11 PM »
Loretta Lynch
The end of the second amendment is in sight, my brothers.
It's treason, then.
We should have let the South secede when they wanted to.
What's this we shit
California isn't America
Don't you mean KOMMIEfornia?
365
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:44:25 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
I disagree.
Why?
Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.
And the better option is?
I think single-payer is out best option.
Yes, but why?
Um, because I like it and it would meet everyone's needs?
How?
I'd gladly pay a couple percent more in taxes if it meant we get rid of this stupid shit.
Yes, but it isn't a "couple percent more" for everyone - hardly.
How doesn't it meet everyone's needs? If you need medical care, you can get it. End.
There are ways to get that without resorting to a single-payer system.
And how would Clinton achieve that? Are there other universal healthcare options out there? Perhaps. I'm open to ideas. But the fact remains that Hillary is not interested in moving toward that, which leaves me with Sanders to support.
366
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:40:21 PM »
Loretta Lynch
The end of the second amendment is in sight, my brothers.
It's treason, then.
We should have let the South secede when they wanted to.
367
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:37:06 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
I disagree.
Why?
Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.
And the better option is?
I think single-payer is out best option.
Yes, but why?
Um, because I like it and it would meet everyone's needs?
How?
I'd gladly pay a couple percent more in taxes if it meant we get rid of this stupid shit.
Yes, but it isn't a "couple percent more" for everyone - hardly.
How doesn't it meet everyone's needs? If you need medical care, you can get it. End.
368
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:25:21 PM »
Is Deci leaving a running joke around here, like me and PSU being the same person? I feel like he's left a thousand times now.
369
« on: February 17, 2016, 02:09:48 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
I disagree.
Why?
Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.
And the better option is?
I think single-payer is out best option.
Yes, but why?
Um, because I like it and it would meet everyone's needs? The whole idea of deductibles and what is/isn't covered under your insurance is fucking stupid. In the US, the theory is basically "well, don't get sick." I'd gladly pay a couple percent more in taxes if it meant we get rid of this stupid shit.
370
« on: February 17, 2016, 01:57:18 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
I disagree.
Why?
Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.
And the better option is?
I think single-payer is out best option.
371
« on: February 17, 2016, 01:53:04 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
I disagree.
Why?
Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.
372
« on: February 17, 2016, 12:49:39 PM »
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.
I disagree.
373
« on: February 17, 2016, 12:21:05 PM »
>Why aren't people being normal on the internet
Are you seriously asking this question?
why can't you fucking idiots just have regular normal person avatars
why do people even have to attempt to toe any sort of line of acceptability I seriously don't understand why people are weird on the internet. Internet-me isn't much different than IRL-me.
374
« on: February 17, 2016, 12:12:26 PM »
yet gets tons of money from the people she would be cracking down on. I simply don't believe her.
Cracking down on who? The banks?
So I guess we live in a world where Dodd-Frank didn't happen and breaking up the banks is a swell idea. Oh wait, we don't.
I mean, she keeps talking about 'cracking down on Wall Street' at the same time as getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. Same for healthcare/pharma companies.
She has some good policies. I just don't trust her to implement them.
So are you going to provide any proof that the money will influence her, or are you just going to post some more talking points?
You don't think giving someone hundreds of thousands of dollars will influence them? Do you think these companies give her money just for funzies? They don't expect something in return?
LOL.
Clinton has received those donations for years - even as a Senator.
If the money impacted her vote, show me some evidence.
I think the fact that Clinton supported universal healthcare in the 90s, but doesn't now, is a pretty good indicator that she's been influenced by the drug and healthcare companies that donate to her. They have a lot to lose if we move away from our current system.
Like Meta said, universal healthcare =/= single payer healthcare system.
Just because Clinton does not support Sander's plan does not mean she is against universal healthcare. She's widely come out for further reform to the industry
No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
375
« on: February 17, 2016, 12:06:48 PM »
yet gets tons of money from the people she would be cracking down on. I simply don't believe her.
Cracking down on who? The banks?
So I guess we live in a world where Dodd-Frank didn't happen and breaking up the banks is a swell idea. Oh wait, we don't.
I mean, she keeps talking about 'cracking down on Wall Street' at the same time as getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. Same for healthcare/pharma companies.
She has some good policies. I just don't trust her to implement them.
So are you going to provide any proof that the money will influence her, or are you just going to post some more talking points?
You don't think giving someone hundreds of thousands of dollars will influence them? Do you think these companies give her money just for funzies? They don't expect something in return?
LOL.
Clinton has received those donations for years - even as a Senator.
If the money impacted her vote, show me some evidence.
I think the fact that Clinton supported universal healthcare in the 90s, but doesn't now, is a pretty good indicator that she's been influenced by the drug and healthcare companies that donate to her. They have a lot to lose if we move away from our current system.
376
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:53:43 AM »
Daily reminder that the Sanders campaign tried to list six single-payer systems to prove they had inherent savings over the current US system, and three of them were multi-payer.
And this is the kind of bungling incompetence people vote for. The man is literally the Ron Paul of the Left.
Ron Paul would have made a great president.
I would have been on board with Ron if he was a little less crackpotty. DISMANTLE NEARLY GODDAMN EVERYTHING just doesn't really resonate with me.
377
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:50:51 AM »
yet gets tons of money from the people she would be cracking down on. I simply don't believe her.
Cracking down on who? The banks?
So I guess we live in a world where Dodd-Frank didn't happen and breaking up the banks is a swell idea. Oh wait, we don't.
I mean, she keeps talking about 'cracking down on Wall Street' at the same time as getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. Same for healthcare/pharma companies.
She has some good policies. I just don't trust her to implement them.
So are you going to provide any proof that the money will influence her, or are you just going to post some more talking points?
You don't think giving someone hundreds of thousands of dollars will influence them? Do you think these companies give her money just for funzies? They don't expect something in return? LOL.
378
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:45:27 AM »
yet gets tons of money from the people she would be cracking down on. I simply don't believe her.
Cracking down on who? The banks?
So I guess we live in a world where Dodd-Frank didn't happen and breaking up the banks is a swell idea. Oh wait, we don't.
I mean, she keeps talking about 'cracking down on Wall Street' at the same time as getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. Same for healthcare/pharma companies. She has some good policies. I just don't trust her to implement them.
379
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:32:37 AM »
Fuck off
Do not come back
Leave again
u_mad.jpg
380
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:16:18 AM »
Daily reminder that the Sanders campaign tried to list six single-payer systems to prove they had inherent savings over the current US system, and three of them were multi-payer.
And this is the kind of bungling incompetence people vote for. The man is literally the Ron Paul of the Left.
I'm certainly not voting for Hillary.
Going to regret this...
Why?
Because I'm not interested in supporting a person who claims to want reform, yet gets tons of money from the people she would be cracking down on. I simply don't believe her.
381
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:07:39 AM »
Daily reminder that the Sanders campaign tried to list six single-payer systems to prove they had inherent savings over the current US system, and three of them were multi-payer.
And this is the kind of bungling incompetence people vote for. The man is literally the Ron Paul of the Left.
What other option do we on the left have, though? I'm certainly not voting for Hillary, and a third party vote is a wasted vote.
382
« on: February 17, 2016, 11:04:38 AM »
Regarding healthcare, what's our other option than universal healthcare?
Incremental reform.
This whole concept that politicians have that we, somehow, can reform a multi-trillion dollar system that impacts almost every American in one 10,000 page bill is beyond moronic - especially when systems in the bill each require different levels of fixing.
I think the problem is that we've neglected the issue for so long, and pretended the system was working, that incremental reform is no longer an option. Incremental reform is a policy to be used *before* you have reached catastrophic failure.
Your options are incremental reform that both sides can somewhat find common ground in.
An admirable position, but you and I both know that neither side is able to compromise because a fundamental disagreement in the role of government.
And yet, we've managed to get compromise in the past several years (Ryan-Murray Funding Bill in 2013, the Senate Education Reform Bill last year, etc). It's not like compromise in Washington doesn't exist, so enough with your rhetoric to push the debate further to the fringes than it needs to be.
It makes you no better than the Republican far-right.
But government in healthcare is something that Republicans simply disagree about. There is no compromise to be made.
383
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:54:47 AM »
Regarding healthcare, what's our other option than universal healthcare?
Incremental reform.
This whole concept that politicians have that we, somehow, can reform a multi-trillion dollar system that impacts almost every American in one 10,000 page bill is beyond moronic - especially when systems in the bill each require different levels of fixing.
I think the problem is that we've neglected the issue for so long, and pretended the system was working, that incremental reform is no longer an option. Incremental reform is a policy to be used *before* you have reached catastrophic failure.
Your options are incremental reform that both sides can somewhat find common ground in.
An admirable position, but you and I both know that neither side is able to compromise because a fundamental disagreement in the role of government. Or a partisan political fight that leads to year long court delays and potential governmental shutdowns because you want to get it done quick and your way.
Which is, unfortunately, business as usual for our political system.
384
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:50:35 AM »
Regarding healthcare, what's our other option than universal healthcare?
Incremental reform.
This whole concept that politicians have that we, somehow, can reform a multi-trillion dollar system that impacts almost every American in one 10,000 page bill is beyond moronic - especially when systems in the bill each require different levels of fixing.
I think the problem is that we've neglected the issue for so long, and pretended the system was working, that incremental reform is no longer an option. Incremental reform is a policy to be used *before* you have reached catastrophic failure.
385
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:49:08 AM »
You missed sep7agon version of porch day.
Oh man, what happened?
386
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:44:49 AM »
Regarding healthcare, what's our other option than universal healthcare?
What we were doing before the ACA fucked people.
The neutered ACA that was signed into law helped a little, but it's still fucked.
What else can we do so that the average American isn't one doctor's visit away from financial ruin?
387
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:36:16 AM »
Policy Five: Incentivise marriage. Are there not already incentives for marrying?
I know the tax code is pretty friendly towards marriage at least in Britain, and I'm pretty sure some kind of incentives exist in the U.S. one as well, but I have to question their efficacy given how family structure has been changing over the past three decades or so.
Are there really any fewer people marrying, though? Genuine question; I don't know. I know the age at which people get married is going up, but I'd say that is because of other factors.
388
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:19:11 AM »
Policy Five: Incentivise marriage. Are there not already incentives for marrying?
389
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:15:50 AM »
Obama should nominate himself because fuck it, his pick will never be confirmed even if it was Jesus himself.
It will easily make Republicans trying to get re-elected in the senate though much much harder.
It's a clever play by Obama, especially if Sri Srinivasan is the nominee. Basically "you voted for him 97-0 in 2013, and now you're not doing your job simply because you're playing into the election."
It's a catch 22 for Republicans. Get a liberal in the Supreme Court, or risk losing their seats even more than they already are in danger of.
But Republicans voters love that shit. What I see as obstructionism they see as "fighting the good fight." It would fire up their voters, not discourage them. That's why they've fought to repeal Obamacare...how many times?
390
« on: February 17, 2016, 01:23:35 AM »
Yeah. I successfully turned this place in to Sep7afront.org/
Is that related to the Battlefront games?
You could say that... storm troopers and what-not...
Oh shit...does that make Darth Vader...HITLER?!
Pages: 1 ... 111213 1415 ... 251
|
Show Posts
