I said it before, and I'll say it again:

Yes, those are the sounds campaign promises, but results show otherwise.

 

~ Another pissing contest has ensued — just like Capitola Hill .

 

Oh ... come on! The OP said "I could go on", and then did ... and did ... and did ... on, and on ... and on ... .

 

Now all you need to do is simply convince most people that's what they really want , and not Patricio's list

 

A simple glance around the world renders this post incorrect. Head in the sand?

 

You offered as a response to my post, and I drew the inference that you were implying it was a democrat thing.
If that was incorrect inference drawn, fine, but to believe you implied it is reasonable, given the number of accusations about that inflation is entirely Biden's fault. ( evidence provided on request, but I feel that determination is evident).

Dodging a point by mockery is not a merit worthy argument/counter argument.

If you are referring to 'academic subjects', then give a hint as what institution and what subject you are critical of as not 'academic'.

Abortion is guaranteed , within parameters, by Roe V Wade.
Your attempt to trivialize a woman's right to an abortion and the high court's ruling is an insult to women and to the court.

The elections, comparatively speaking, were secure. No election is without irregularities. When we are talking about an election consisting of 155 million ballots, an election without irregularities is well nigh impossible, it's never been achieved in the annals of election history. The 2020 election is an anomaly given the pandemic, so your concern is moot given that the pandemic will fade..

Then you are critical of your republican friends, given 'interstate crosscheck', which was so biased against blacks a federal judge killed it.

A background check for it on an application for a gun would require accessing a database of prior occupants of mental institutions, who made the determination by doctors. Anything beyond a code 5150, I'd say, let's play it safe and require a certification from a doctor that the person is capable of owning a firearm.

That's insane, period. Any tool can be used to kill effectively if misused, but do we want firearms whose sole purpose is to kill people, as many as possible in short of a time as possible into civilian hands? It makes no sense. Currently, one has to go through a number of difficult hurdles to legally own one, and then they are expensive, made expensive by the scarcity of them the result of the hurdles required to get them. As a result, very few crimes are done with machine guns. Get rid of the regs, etc, and do a libertarian number on machine guns and they will probably be used much more often in the committing of crimes. They should be only allowed by military for combat purposes ( or whatever is appropriate)

Dodging a point by mockery is not a merit worthy argument/counter argument.
You referred to 'not wanting to lose freedoms', which is vague. It's fair to ask you what you meant by it.

Not according to this Newsweek article, the data of which was garnered from the FBI
https://www.newsweek.com/hate-crimes-under-trump-surged-nearly-20-percent-says-fbi-report-1547870
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019

The government has given them a special status, so, apparently so.

Not an opinion, and by that fact, not weasel words according to Homeland Security:

https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election

"There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."
[...]
“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double-checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result,” the coordinating bodies on election infrastructure and security said in a joint statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

 

Simple fact? Yours is a SIMPLISTIC characterization and a failure to grasp the reality of it.

"someone else" is not paying for it. ALL taxpayers are paying for it, collectively, and those who are more able, pay more.

You make it sound anecdotal, which it isn't. It's a collective effort, not a singular anecdotal one person is paying for it. Your framing the argument in a simplistic fashion, and, as such, avoids reality.

Health care is paid for anyway you slice it, no matter the 'system', ALL OF US pay for it, one way or the other.

One way or the other, health care dollars are being spent. The issue is, what is the most efficient distribution of those dollars?

If persons do not have an affordable health care policy of some kind, the ACA, company plan, etc, and their health care is managed by occasional visits to an ER, that ultimately costs society more than a health care managed plan, even ones by the ACA. Long before I signed up for the ACA, when it came available, I visited the ER. A month later, I was sent a bill for $4000.
I wasn't able to pay it, so no doubt the taxpayers foot the bill. A doctor visit would have cost me $400 or so, which I could have afforded, but not many doctors, without insurance, want to take someone on credit. The point is, policy would have covered it via a clinic, and cost society a lot less.

Democrats want UHC to to greatly limit the insurance layer. A tax would be higher, true, but it will be, collectively speaking, less than your typical premium, noting the tax structure would be according to ability to pay. All in all, it would cost society less and everyone would be covered. Evidence is that in the 50 or so western democracy, all of whom but USA have some variant of UHC, the cost per capita is roughly half of that of the United States. Now, granted, other countries are more stingier with their health care dollars, but 50% less gives a lot of headroom, goes a long way to assure that UHC will cost America less, per capita, than the current system.

 

I read you whole extremely pretentious, biased, self important nonsense through once. If you can't target any one, any group or anything in particular is this a scatter gun shot at way over half of all your country men? If so, that's indefensible.

No, I don't think I will. What I'd like to say is best left unsaid.

 

You said make it affordable. In order to make it affordable, it must have been unaffordable. If it is going from unaffordable to affordable for someone, then someone else is paying for it. Unless, of course, they figured out some magic way to make the overall cost to go down. So far, no one has figured out how to do that.

 

Your inferences are partisan. Mine are not.

I agree but I answered anyway.

All of those that parents say should not be taught to their children in school. Plenty of into on the internet. Basically parents want themselves to be parents, not the schools.

I attempted nothing and trivialized nothing. I said that abortion is not a freedom. It is an indulgence. Despite the fact that it denies someone of a life, the government tolerates it. That is an indulgence.

It was far more than irregular so we disagree. Also it had nothing to do with the pandemic. Almost nothing the government did in the past 2 years was about the pandemic. It was about power and control.

I don't know what an "interstate crosscheck" is. I'll guess that it means police stop black people at the state border to inquire it they are entering the state to vote illegally. If so then I certainly oppose that. If it is something else then I am at a loss.

It makes no sense to apply to a doctor for permission to own something guarenteed by the bill of rights. If a doctor wants to offer up an opinion of why someone should not own a gun, then that would suffice.

Oddly it is legal for a anyone to own an automatic weapon. It requires a background check and the payment of a hefty fee. I have a friend who can afford to and does collect auto weapons. Apparently it isn't insane. It is the law.

 

I'll get right on it.

 

So he did.

 

Didn't say that. Remedial reading classes to improve comprehension skills are available.

 

You implied that. Remedial writing classes are also available.

 

To boil it down, we need federal government to do 4 things and nothing else.

1. defend the nation
2. deal and treat with other nations
3. maintain a stable currency
4. resolve interstate disputes

If it contained itself to that it might have a chance of doing something well.

 

Thank you. Very well said. However, I'm one notch below you because I am all those things (including a cisvestite, whatever that is) and smoke cigarettes, too.

 

+1.... I also drink beer.
I smoke 305 non filters what do you smoke ?

305 are made in Miami but I don't think they sell them outside of Florida. I pay about $4.50 a pack

 

I drink beer, too. Who makes 305s? Are they king sized? I smoke Pall Mall 100s and miss the old original Pall Malls

 

The Docel tobacco corporation, of Miami Florida.

They make shorts and 100s as well as the non filter

They also make DTC cigarettes.

I don't think they ship them outside of Florida but I could be mistaken.

I do enjoy a Pall Mall non filter from time to time but they are a little bit over $10 after tax at the store where I work.

We also have the original Lucky strike non filters but they are also the same price. I will splurge and get one of the other upon occasion.

I do prefer Bush beer very much!

 

I can see how someone from the olden days might have thought that, bless 'em.

 

You're right! They give them free food, in the form of EBT cards, even for people who are perfectly capable of feeding themselves, subsidized or zero cost housing, cash benefits for illegals (who they actively encourage to come, and who can EASILY register to vote, because proving Citizenship is based on "the honor system", which means all they have to do is answer the question yes, with no proof required), free phones, highly subsidized healthcare, straight up cash, free schools, free meals AT school, Social Security disability for a frickin hang nail (meanwhile I can't even feed, clothe, or bathe myself anymore and I've been denied time and time again), and if it wasn't almost 4AM my time, I could probably come up with a list that would take an hour to read.

And they wanted to add another $1.9 TRILLION in more freebies in Build Back Bankrupt. And I'm sure next year, they'll have yet another wishlist for ever more and more.

They've been promising to lift blacks out of poverty for 50+ years, and black folk vote for them on that promise alone, but nothing's changed during that time.

They want criminals to be coddled, and to be able to vote, and get as short of a sentence as possible.

And I'm getting a bit off track, so I'll stop.

In short, the People (at least half of us) have realized they can vote themselves money from the treasury, and they vote for dems who promise to do just that. Does that sound even a tidbit familiar?

Yes. Free and open markets in which supply and demand determine the price. Not "let's screw landlords because the market value of their rental units has gone up, so we're going to force them to subsidize folks".

Indeed you are. And it's measured in TRILLIONS of dollars we do not have, but, hey, we can just print new money 24x7, eh? You get upset when you buy gas or groceries recently due to the almost Carter-esque levels of bidenflation? Just remember those $1,200 checks they printed up for us last year as the primary causal factor.

Defined as wanting complete strangers to pay their healthcare bills.

Mortgages are just math. How much is the property, what's the interest rate, and let's add property taxes and insurance on top of the P&I. Most people don't even know what they pay in property taxes because they're hidden in the mortgage, and the few who pay it off eventually are shocked to learn that part NEVER goes away. Ending that is mortgage relief I can get behind, wholeheartedly.

But the rest is just math.

Real predators are generally dealt with, and confiscatory interest is illegal pretty much everywhere. But if you sign on the dotted line to get a loan, then it's on you to repay it.

You could probably make cars that are almost 100% safe. But they would cost 5x what they do now. There's a business idea for you, go for it! PS... Fatality rates due to MVAs are an order of magnitude less than they were just a few decades ago.

Not based on their shopping habits. Some may talk the talk, but few walk the walk, and they'll drive right past those places to park their asses at Wal-Mart or other mega-corp stores.

Given the way our Constitution works, I'm not even remotely sure our government has the authority to do anything about most of your list, at least not without Amendments granting them that.

They want as much as they can get for free, by cost shifting it to evil, but more affluent people. And dems are more than happy to give it to them.

You guys didn't earn a thing. You simply steal and create money from scratch to give free stuff to "the poor and working class" to buy their votes. And unfortunately, it works.

People should get their money the old fashioned way... They should earn it.

 

i've watched it happening for 70 years.

 

I take note.

My dad smoked Luckies since he was 7. "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so free and easy on the draw." I prefer Pall Malls, "Light 'em on both ends; give one to your buddy; sheeit, my horse smokes Pall Malls." I used to drink Budweiser/Busch/Michelob when I lived around St. Louis (and you could be ridden out of town if you didn't) but now prefer 9% Voodoo Ranger Imperial by New Belgium.

 

Dem believe the government should help the needy, especially when there is a national event beyond anyone's control.

Republicans don't and they love to trivialize dems helping the needy. Oh, sometimes Repubs help, but too often.

But Republicans love to help the rich, especially when they don't need it.

We'll see what the voters say about it.

 

Do you honestly believe that 'the government' would be in charge of the healthcare system - the day to day of running it administratively? If you do, then I can see your concern.