[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

You *almost* had it for a minute there, champ! Almost!

See, I asked you a question and you actually answered it! Then you
asked me a question and I answered you back!

But then you dropped the discussion ball, 2pid, and turned it back
into one of your 'discussions'.

Let's see what happened here!

On Sep 8, 9:46 pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:32 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:11 pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:03 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:40 pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 6:05 pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:44 pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:24 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:42 am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:55 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:32 am, ScottW2 wrote:


It's too degrading of military service to acknowledge there
was a time when someone as ideologically unstable as the likes
of you could be considered.

How exactly can somebody be "ideologically unstable"?

When they are politically bipolar, like you.

Define what you mean.

I mean your having claimed to once be a republican and now in just a
few years becoming an ardent socialist is a symptom of extreme
political bipolarism.
No one will ever accuse you of being stable.

Many conservatives are dsillusioned by the Republican Party and the
latter's shift away from core principles. The fact that you pretend
this isn't true

LoL. It's barfs of nonsense like tis which reveal the depth of your
fruadulence.
While many conservatives, myself included, oppose many republican
initiatives, particularly under bush, virtually none of them
became socialist sheep.
Is it really so hard or simply too depressing to just be yourself?

Define "socialist".

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
of production and distribution of goods (or services)
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of
goods and pay according to work done

I added (or services).

Perfect!

Now apply those definitions to me.

You oppose the government option for Obamacare? Yes or No.

(i.e. See how you stamped your little paws here and *demanded* an
answer? Even considering that you weren't very polite, I answered.)

No.

(i.e. Now, as is wont to happen in a discussion, I asked you some
questions back. Why did you run and hide, my brave little doggy? LoL.)

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Do you 'think' we're getting our money's worth spending over 16% of
the world's largest economy on healthcare? (I already know that 2pid
will answer "yes", so I won't ask. Smart people know the correct
answer including some republicans even. LoL.)

Do you believe that our spending over 16% of our GDP on healthcare
puts us at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis those nations
spending
10% or less? Yes or no.

(i.e. I demanded an answer too, but you ran and hid like the petrified
little mutt you are. LoL.)

Do you oppose gov't ownership of GM? Yes or No.

Yes.

Uh-oh! It doesn't work! Now what?

See above.

Indeed, see above.

Words have meanings, 2pid (a concept that you'll never get). There
are, and alwys will be aspects of the US that lean socialist. Even if
one supports those aspect with their entire being they aren't
"socialists".

What a ****ing numbskull.

(i.e. Silent assent noted.)

BTW, how do you like the US gov't building a car plant in China?

Is the labor there cheaper? LoL.

(i.e. Yet another unanswered question, 2pid. LoL.)

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.


Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 10, 9:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

How would you feel about a law that denied medical treatment for those
here illegally?

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 10, 11:26*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

How would you feel about a law that denied medical treatment for those
here illegally?

we are talking about the government footing their bill
they can always go back home country where they belong, and
their own countries can take care of them.
How about a bill requiring their home countries
to foot the bill for their own citizens who came here illegally?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 10, 10:38*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:26*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

How would you feel about a law that denied medical treatment for those
here illegally?

we are talking about the government footing their bill
they can always go back home country where they belong, and
their own countries can take care of them.

That doesn't answer the question.

How about a bill requiring their home countries
to foot the bill for their own citizens who came here illegally?

Fine. How would you propose to collect if they didn't pay? I'm not
sure we can legislate fiscal policy for other nations. So should we
provide the medical care in the hope the nation the person is a
citizen of pays?

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 10, 12:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:38*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Sep 10, 11:26*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

How would you feel about a law that denied medical treatment for those
here illegally?

we are talking about the government footing their bill
they can always go back home country where they belong, and
their own countries can take care of them.

That doesn't answer the question.

How about a bill requiring their home countries
to foot the bill for their own citizens who came here illegally?

Fine. How would you propose to collect if they didn't pay? I'm not
sure we can legislate fiscal policy for other nations. So should we
provide the medical care in the hope the nation the person is a
citizen of pays?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We send them tons of foreign aid.
We can stop doing that until thay pay the bill for their citizens
as to your second pat od the question, that would be solved
through a "compact" with oither nations.
we would service their citizens, as their governements
have agreed to the terms of the compact

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 10, 10:35*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:38*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:26*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

How would you feel about a law that denied medical treatment for those
here illegally?

we are talking about the government footing their bill
they can always go back home country where they belong, and
their own countries can take care of them.

That doesn't answer the question.

How about a bill requiring their home countries
to foot the bill for their own citizens who came here illegally?

Fine. How would you propose to collect if they didn't pay? I'm not
sure we can legislate fiscal policy for other nations. So should we
provide the medical care in the hope the nation the person is a
citizen of pays?

We send them tons of foreign aid.

We probably already do.

We can stop doing that until thay pay the bill for their citizens
as to your second pat od the question, that would be solved
through a "compact" with oither nations.
we would service their citizens, as their governements
have agreed *to the terms of the compact

And if they don't agree to the compact?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 10, 1:46*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:26*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

How would you feel about a law that denied medical treatment for those
here illegally?

* *No problem. * We're all going to be denied really decent health
care in an effort to hold down costs as the gov't taxes the "cadillac"
plans.

It's always about you, isn't it 2pid.

Reread the question.

Then try to answer it. LoL.

*Does the VA deny you any coverage?
*I think you claim no.

I don't use the VA, so you're wrong.

*So the feds will declare that a cadiallac plan and penalize them for
it.

Says who? You're not bright enbough (nor unbiased enough) to pass any
judgements. LoL.

On another topic (to pull a 2pid here and veer off topic) is the guy
from SC a "hero" to you for shouting out "You lie!" to Obama?

I think yes.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

On another topic (to pull a 2pid here and veer off topic) is the guy
from SC a "hero" to you for shouting out "You lie!" to Obama?
I think yes.

On the news, one of the networks waved a microphone at some people in SC who
voted for Wilson. Turns out many of those fine citizens agree with their
esteemed redneck representative -- i.e., Obama was "lying" about health care
for illegals.

Most people realize that the entire dispute hinges on the lack of an
enforcement clause in the House's (draft) legislation. That bill was not
authored by Obama. Neither was the Senate's version, which does include a
requirement to prove citizenship. Maybe Witless can 'explain' how Obama
"lied" when he said that his proposals do not allow health care services to
be provided to illegals. Scottie, if you're not too inflamed with anger, how
about it?

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Set, 01:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:35*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Sep 10, 12:31*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:38*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:26*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Do you agree that 45 million uninsured is a problem that has to be
addressed? Yes or no.

Not for "ALL" of them.
Only for some of them.
exclusions being illegal residents/immigrants/workers
and fairly well off stupid people who wish to self insure

How would you feel about a law that denied medical treatment for those
here illegally?

we are talking about the government footing their bill
they can always go back home country where they belong, and
their own countries can take care of them.

That doesn't answer the question.

How about a bill requiring their home countries
to foot the bill for their own citizens who came here illegally?

Fine. How would you propose to collect if they didn't pay? I'm not
sure we can legislate fiscal policy for other nations. So should we
provide the medical care in the hope the nation the person is a
citizen of pays?

We send them tons of foreign aid.

We probably already do.

We can stop doing that until thay pay the bill for their citizens
as to your second pat od the question, that would be solved
through a "compact" with oither nations.
we would service their citizens, as their governements
have agreed *to the terms of the compact

And if they don't agree to the compact?- Itago ang tekstong may panipi -

-Ipakita ang tekstong may panipi-

cut foreign aid

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Set, 02:10, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

On another topic (to pull a 2pid here and veer off topic) is the guy
from SC a "hero" to you for shouting out "You lie!" to Obama?
I think yes.

On the news, one of the networks waved a microphone at some people in SC who
voted for Wilson. Turns out many of those fine citizens agree with their
esteemed redneck representative -- i.e., Obama was "lying" about health care
for illegals.

Most people realize that the entire dispute hinges on the lack of an
enforcement clause in the House's (draft) legislation. That bill was not
authored by Obama. Neither was the Senate's version, which does include a
requirement to prove citizenship. Maybe Witless can 'explain' how Obama
"lied" when he said that his proposals do not allow health care services to
be provided to illegals. Scottie, if you're not too inflamed with anger, how
about it?

It allows it, becasue it does not allow for
checking documentation of those who might be illegals
Duh!!!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

duh-Sacky shows why the ****uplican brain trust can't get anything right.

On another topic (to pull a 2pid here and veer off topic) is the guy
from SC a "hero" to you for shouting out "You lie!" to Obama?
I think yes.

On the news, one of the networks waved a microphone at some people in SC who
voted for Wilson. Turns out many of those fine citizens agree with their
esteemed redneck representative -- i.e., Obama was "lying" about health care
for illegals.

Most people realize that the entire dispute hinges on the lack of an
enforcement clause in the House's (draft) legislation. That bill was not
authored by Obama. Neither was the Senate's version, which does include a
requirement to prove citizenship. Maybe Witless can 'explain' how Obama
"lied" when he said that his proposals do not allow health care services to
be provided to illegals. Scottie, if you're not too inflamed with anger, how
about it?

It allows it, becasue it does not allow for
checking documentation of those who might be illegals
Duh!!!

I agree with the last sentiment, but only as regards your "answer" to my
question. Your "answer" is wholly irrelevant and nonresponsive. I think
you've spent too much time hanging around Witlessmongrel.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

duh-Sacky shows why the ****uplican brain trust can't get anything right.

On another topic (to pull a 2pid here and veer off topic) is the guy
from SC a "hero" to you for shouting out "You lie!" to Obama?
I think yes.

On the news, one of the networks waved a microphone at some people in SC
who
voted for Wilson. Turns out many of those fine citizens agree with their
esteemed redneck representative -- i.e., Obama was "lying" about health
care
for illegals.

Most people realize that the entire dispute hinges on the lack of an
enforcement clause in the House's (draft) legislation. That bill was not
authored by Obama. Neither was the Senate's version, which does include a
requirement to prove citizenship. Maybe Witless can 'explain' how Obama
"lied" when he said that his proposals do not allow health care services
to
be provided to illegals. Scottie, if you're not too inflamed with anger,
how
about it?

It allows it, becasue it does not allow for
checking documentation of those who might be illegals
Duh!!!

I agree with the last sentiment, but only as regards your "answer" to my
question. Your "answer" is wholly irrelevant and nonresponsive. I think
you've spent too much time hanging around Witlessmongrel.

Why should illegals be forbidden to buy health insurance or health
services?

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Set, 10:50, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:





duh-Sacky shows why the ****uplican brain trust can't get anything right.