Electors (R) TX, NOT Voting for Trump - Fox News

[koshergrl]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is is a hack. But I makes sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

Poopoo is a lying hack. Hence he is on my ignore list. We need to block/ignore all these worthless hacks because their strength is always in the CLICKS THEY RECEIVE. Every time you respond to a post of his, you increase his click tally, and that lends relevance and increases the audience.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is is a hack. But I makes sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

Poopoo is a lying hack. Hence he is on my ignore list. We need to block/ignore all these worthless hacks because their strength is always in the CLICKS THEY RECEIVE. Every time you respond to a post of his, you increase his click tally, and that lends relevance and increases the audience.

I don't agree. I think they need to be refuted and shown to be either ignorant or dishonest, as the case may be.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is is a hack. But I makes sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

Poopoo is a lying hack. Hence he is on my ignore list. We need to block/ignore all these worthless hacks because their strength is always in the CLICKS THEY RECEIVE. Every time you respond to a post of his, you increase his click tally, and that lends relevance and increases the audience.

Well koshergrl

I'm NOT going to call the ONE progressive sympathizer I have found
actively and vocally opposing the ACA mandates
"a hack"

Most of the liberals are lying or taking the fifth and letting this ride.

So if Pogo has AT LEAST the integrity discernment and willingness to call out the ACA,
that says a lot. I have asked and asked and can't find any others.

there ISN'T A WORD STRONG ENOUGH to use for people
who CLAIM TO BE PROCHOICE but BETRAY that and promote govt intrusion and penalty
over something as benign as choosing whether or not to buy insurance as part of health care costs!

So whatever you are saying about hacks applies to a whole lot.

koshergrl and Uncensored2008
If you can show me any other liberal or progressive sympathizers
AT LEAST AS HONEST THAT ACA VIOLATES FREE CHOICE
I'd be HAPPY it isn't just me and Pogo at this point

If liberals can't see they are ESPOUSING and ESTABLISHING
a national faith-based agenda, that's what makes them the most dangerous hacks.

Maybe your standards are so high that all progressives are Constitutional hacks
and only use it for their convenience. Largely and sadly I agree most are!

I am going to be happy I found one honest ally in Pogo.
Any criticism you want to express can be done without
personally attacking Pogo who is above that, and well
capable of arguing on points and principles. Wish there were more who could!

Dear Pogo:
It was commonly reported that Electoral College members were
also bombarded with threats including death threats:
Thousands send letters, death threats, to pressure Electoral College to avert outcome of presidential election

If you want other people to hear what you and I are saying
(and not just what they THINK you are saying or doing),
you need to see everything that is going on around us also
which contributes to the mutual negative perceptions back and forth.

We can't ignore the context, and then wonder where people are getting these assumptions.

I'm glad you and I can hear each other. Let's start there.

I will continue to invite other Progressives here, but we have to listen to others
if we want to be heard and understood too. Communication is a two way street,
or three or four way with cross traffic. In the process, we can change the context that
is otherwise pitting people against each other as adversarial groups, and start focusing
point by point if we are going to solve problems in practical ways IRL.

We can't get anywhere in a constant traffic jam that gridlocks.
Have to consider the whole roadmap to see where the holdups are coming from.
Just honking and blaming the person in front of you isn't going to work.
We need a better paradigm.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is is a hack. But I makes sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

Poopoo is a lying hack. Hence he is on my ignore list. We need to block/ignore all these worthless hacks because their strength is always in the CLICKS THEY RECEIVE. Every time you respond to a post of his, you increase his click tally, and that lends relevance and increases the audience.

I don't agree. I think they need to be refuted and shown to be either ignorant or dishonest, as the case may be.

Thanks Uncensored2008: I find effective corrections are better made by mutual respect,
without personally slamming or judging people's intent. Do you agree that works better?

Don't you respond better if someone is respectful to you and your intelligence and sincerity?
Doesn't it detract and distract if they accompany their remarks with negative smacks at you personally?
How does that help anything?

 

[francoHFW]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

 

[koshergrl]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is is a hack. But I makes sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

Poopoo is a lying hack. Hence he is on my ignore list. We need to block/ignore all these worthless hacks because their strength is always in the CLICKS THEY RECEIVE. Every time you respond to a post of his, you increase his click tally, and that lends relevance and increases the audience.

I don't agree. I think they need to be refuted and shown to be either ignorant or dishonest, as the case may be.

Thanks Uncensored2008: I find effective corrections are better made by mutual respect,
without personally slamming or judging people's intent. Do you agree that works better?

Don't you respond better if someone is respectful to you and your intelligence and sincerity?
Doesn't it detract and distract if they accompany their remarks with negative smacks at you personally?
How does that help anything?

Ok I will try that again.

We live in an internet world.

We live in a world with fake media and propagandists who are desperately working to control the narrative for the express purpose of removing your freedom.

On this site, a poster's audience and how they are dealt with by the admin are determined by their CLICK TOTAL. When you click on pogo a thousand times a day, not only are you sharing his false narrative and giving it relevance...you are leading the admin and the advertisers to believe that he is a valuable poster. So they allow or are more likely to overlook his violations of site rules...and they will not ban him or move his threads to the appropriate private forums (like the flame zone and the rubber room) where the audience is limited to members only.

We are fighting a propaganda war, it is very real. And by lending them credence, you help them win. They count on your decency and your earnest belief that you might some day be able to steer them to reality and they use that against all of us.
Moreover, these trolls have multiple accounts across the web. If we shut them down whenever we come across them, you restrict their audience at the very least by everybody who watches YOUR interactions online.

I don't know why people just can't get it through their heads that these are propagandists. You aren't dealing with decent humans. You aren't even dealing with real humans. They are hack accounts, they are made up personas, they are liars, and they are often paid to engage good meaning but naive individuals for the express purpose of increasing their relevance and their audience.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Actually the "will of the state" --- in this case Texas --- was, to be exact:

3,877,868 Clinton (43.2%)

4,685,047 Rump (52.2%)

406,311 Others (4.5%)

Texas has a total of 38 EVs. If they were apportioned per the "will of the state" the Electrical Vote would be:

Rump 20 EVs (rounded off)
Clinton 16 EVs
others 2 EVs

Seems to me "faithless" would more aptly describe a body that goes to Congress and says, "everybody in Texas done voted for the Orange Rumpy" when in fact they did no such thing.

But there's your "will of the state". Thank you for agreeing with what we critics of the EC have been saying all along.

I see a key word.....IF

Now come back to reality, its winner take all.

Even if done by congressional vote, who won, the pubs.....still a winner for Trump!

Hey I'm just running with Tinydancer's point --- "the will of the state". Thought I'd demonstrate what that will was, to the last vote. And what that will looks like translated into EVs.

She just demonstrated the glaring flaw in the EC that I've been pointing out since time began. And with this post ---- you did too.

Thanks for that.

The EC is great, when is the election in the House?

 

[FJO]

Looks like even faithless cocksucker electors have some dignity..

More refused to support Clinton than Trump..

 

[Dschrute3]

More Electors actually ended up turning on Hitlery than Trump. This is a non-issue. Movin on...

 

[jc456]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Then why didn't that end up being the program?

 

[emilynghiem]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. then write the law where it says that. but give people a choice NOT to go through the govt program at all in order NOT to be under the terms you dictate. and NOT risk freeloading at all!

When President and First Lady requires terms of membership,
nobody is FORCED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
GUESS WHAT: THEY DON'T HAVE FREE LOADERS EITHER!
IF YOU DON'T PAY, YOU DON'T USE THE SERVICES. DUH!!!

2. Who says you are the only one paying taxes and has the right to dictate the rules?
Why can't ALL taxpayers pay into a separate system where they dictate their own terms
if they don't agree with YOUR conditions? Don't other taxpayers have a say in how their
tax dollars cover health care also? Why can't we separate if we don't agree on terms!

Nothing wrong with setting conditions, but allow people to opt out all together
and pay for their own way without "free loading" on anyone who doesn't agree to their terms either!

2. apply the SAME standards to stop
A. freeloading off taxpayers for costs of incarcerating and paying for inmates
B. freeloading off taxpayers for corporate profits we didn't approve terms for either!

Where is the same effort to stop freeloaders who have
been CAUGHT and/or CONVICTED of crimes or corruption costing taxpayers?

I see you going after CITIZENS NOT CONVICTED OR PROVEN TO COMMIT ANY
ACT OF FREELOADING OR CRIME.

What gives you the right to go after citizens,
deprive US of liberties BEFORE we commit any such act,
and subject us to TERMS WE DIDN'T CONSENT TO,
when YOU haven't done a THING to go after
FREELOADERS PROVEN TO HAVE COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.

^ WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER CONVICTED FREE LOADERS ^
WHY ARE YOU ONLY GOING AFTER CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T
COMMITTED CRIMES, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN TAP OUR INCOME TAX RETURNS?

SO YOU ARE PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR PAYING OUR TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT QUALIFIES US TO BE SUBJECT TO THESE MANDATES?
WE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES OR COST ANY FREELOADING
BUT BECAUSE WE FILE TAX RETURNS THEN WE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES?

IS THAT WHY YOU TARGET US?
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO PROVE WHO
HAS COMMITTED FREELOADING OR NOT?

 

[francoHFW]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. then write the law where it says that. but give people a choice NOT to go through the govt program at all
in order NOT to be under the terms you dictate.
When President and First Lady requires terms of membership,
nobody is FORCED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nothing wrong with setting conditions, but allow people to opt out all together
and pay for their own way without "free loading" on anyone who doesn't agree to their terms either!

2. apply the SAME standards to stop
A. freeloading off taxpayers for costs of incarcerating and paying for inmates
B. freeloading off taxpayers for corporate profits we didn't approve terms for either!

Where is the same effort to stop freeloaders who have
been CAUGHT and/or CONVICTED of crimes or corruption costing taxpayers?

I see you going after CITIZENS NOT CONVICTED OR PROVEN TO COMMIT ANY
ACT OF FREELOADING OR CRIME.

What gives you the right to go after citizens,
deprive US of liberties BEFORE we commit any such act,
and subject us to TERMS WE DIDN'T CONSENT TO,
when YOU haven't done a THING to go after
FREELOADERS PROVEN TO HAVE COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.

^ WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER CONVICTED FREE LOADERS ^
WHY ARE YOU ONLY GOING AFTER CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T
COMMITTED CRIMES, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN TAP OUR INCOME TAX RETURNS?

SO YOU ARE PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR PAYING OUR TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT QUALIFIES US TO BE SUBJECT TO THESE MANDATES?
WE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES OR COST ANY FREELOADING
BUT BECAUSE WE FILE TAX RETURNS THEN WE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES?

IS THAT WHY YOU TARGET US?
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO PROVE WHO
HAS COMMITTED FREELOADING OR NOT?

Um, no. No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

 

[francoHFW]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. then write the law where it says that. but give people a choice NOT to go through the govt program at all
in order NOT to be under the terms you dictate.
When President and First Lady requires terms of membership,
nobody is FORCED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nothing wrong with setting conditions, but allow people to opt out all together
and pay for their own way without "free loading" on anyone who doesn't agree to their terms either!

2. apply the SAME standards to stop
A. freeloading off taxpayers for costs of incarcerating and paying for inmates
B. freeloading off taxpayers for corporate profits we didn't approve terms for either!

Where is the same effort to stop freeloaders who have
been CAUGHT and/or CONVICTED of crimes or corruption costing taxpayers?

I see you going after CITIZENS NOT CONVICTED OR PROVEN TO COMMIT ANY
ACT OF FREELOADING OR CRIME.

What gives you the right to go after citizens,
deprive US of liberties BEFORE we commit any such act,
and subject us to TERMS WE DIDN'T CONSENT TO,
when YOU haven't done a THING to go after
FREELOADERS PROVEN TO HAVE COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.

^ WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER CONVICTED FREE LOADERS ^
WHY ARE YOU ONLY GOING AFTER CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T
COMMITTED CRIMES, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN TAP OUR INCOME TAX RETURNS?

SO YOU ARE PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR PAYING OUR TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT QUALIFIES US TO BE SUBJECT TO THESE MANDATES?
WE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES OR COST ANY FREELOADING
BUT BECAUSE WE FILE TAX RETURNS THEN WE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES?

IS THAT WHY YOU TARGET US?
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO PROVE WHO
HAS COMMITTED FREELOADING OR NOT?

Um, no. No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

It took us a hundred years to FINALLY pass a framework for transparent competition, covering the poor and pre-existing. Pass your ideas to your rep and perhaps we can fix your supposed problems. It will be tinkered with forever.

 

[Pogo]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is is a hack. But I makes sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

Poopoo is a lying hack. Hence he is on my ignore list. We need to block/ignore all these worthless hacks because their strength is always in the CLICKS THEY RECEIVE. Every time you respond to a post of his, you increase his click tally, and that lends relevance and increases the audience.

Well koshergrl

I'm NOT going to call the ONE progressive sympathizer I have found
actively and vocally opposing the ACA mandates
"a hack"

Most of the liberals are lying or taking the fifth and letting this ride.

So if Pogo has AT LEAST the integrity discernment and willingness to call out the ACA,
that says a lot. I have asked and asked and can't find any others.

there ISN'T A WORD STRONG ENOUGH to use for people
who CLAIM TO BE PROCHOICE but BETRAY that and promote govt intrusion and penalty
over something as benign as choosing whether or not to buy insurance as part of health care costs!

So whatever you are saying about hacks applies to a whole lot.

koshergrl and Uncensored2008
If you can show me any other liberal or progressive sympathizers
AT LEAST AS HONEST THAT ACA VIOLATES FREE CHOICE
I'd be HAPPY it isn't just me and Pogo at this point

If liberals can't see they are ESPOUSING and ESTABLISHING
a national faith-based agenda, that's what makes them the most dangerous hacks.

Maybe your standards are so high that all progressives are Constitutional hacks
and only use it for their convenience. Largely and sadly I agree most are!

I am going to be happy I found one honest ally in Pogo.
Any criticism you want to express can be done without
personally attacking Pogo who is above that, and well
capable of arguing on points and principles. Wish there were more who could!

Dear Pogo:
It was commonly reported that Electoral College members were
also bombarded with threats including death threats:
Thousands send letters, death threats, to pressure Electoral College to avert outcome of presidential election

If you want other people to hear what you and I are saying
(and not just what they THINK you are saying or doing),
you need to see everything that is going on around us also
which contributes to the mutual negative perceptions back and forth.

We can't ignore the context, and then wonder where people are getting these assumptions.

I'm glad you and I can hear each other. Let's start there.

I will continue to invite other Progressives here, but we have to listen to others
if we want to be heard and understood too. Communication is a two way street,
or three or four way with cross traffic. In the process, we can change the context that
is otherwise pitting people against each other as adversarial groups, and start focusing
point by point if we are going to solve problems in practical ways IRL.

We can't get anywhere in a constant traffic jam that gridlocks.
Have to consider the whole roadmap to see where the holdups are coming from.
Just honking and blaming the person in front of you isn't going to work.
We need a better paradigm.

Thank you for the kind words Em
You have absolutely the most generous spirit on this board.

Again, yes I noticed the story lies about death threats but it simply went into the noise category and I never took it seriously or got into a thread about it. I've been concentrating on the Electoral College and how it works. Getting mired in noise and fake news is never very productive. As a courtesy to you I read the link but did not find a whole lot about death threats, certainly not "thousands" of them as the sensationalist headline implies. I've heard there were myriad pleas, TV ads and lobbying to convince Electors to vote conscientiously rather than traditionally but haven't really followed it. I suppose all this angst can be cited as one more indication of how deeply the electorate despises the Electoral College system.

In the end it looks like half a dozen or so Electors did in fact defy their state's inane winner-take-all rules, and that's a good thing. If it had been a dozen that would have been a better thing. If there had been three hundred putting in votes for three hundred different candidates, that would have been glorious as a thumb-in-the-eye to the various states steamrolling the People's vote into a perversion. I consider every Conscientious Elector (I refuse to call them "faithless") a Patriot engaging in civil disobedience in the name of Liberty. It is those patriots, certainly not the arcane state laws, who truly understand the spirit of the Constitution. More power to them.

 

[Pogo]

Okay another point:
Pogo I understand Jefferson was more anti-federalist
and most historical sources peg Madison as a Federalist.

Where are you getting that Madison was not a Federalist?
Is it that Madison was a plantation slave owner? So did he use State Rights
type politics to justify slave ownership? Was he more balanced
in his Federalist advocacy? Did he promote both
Federal centralism AND state sovereignty equally or closer to equal?

"Federalist" was a political party. The first one this country had.

Madison was not a Federalist; he was a Democratic-Republican. That's the second political party we had, founded by him and Jefferson. Madison ran against and defeated Federalist candidates (Pinckney 1808, Clinton 1812) to become the fourth President and stay on for a second term.

Pothead's apparently confused by the "Federalist Papers". We prolly should not even venture to explain to him that "Democratic-Republican" is related to neither of today's parties. It would make his head explode. And who wants to clean that up.

 

[emilynghiem]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. then write the law where it says that. but give people a choice NOT to go through the govt program at all
in order NOT to be under the terms you dictate.
When President and First Lady requires terms of membership,
nobody is FORCED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nothing wrong with setting conditions, but allow people to opt out all together
and pay for their own way without "free loading" on anyone who doesn't agree to their terms either!

2. apply the SAME standards to stop
A. freeloading off taxpayers for costs of incarcerating and paying for inmates
B. freeloading off taxpayers for corporate profits we didn't approve terms for either!

Where is the same effort to stop freeloaders who have
been CAUGHT and/or CONVICTED of crimes or corruption costing taxpayers?

I see you going after CITIZENS NOT CONVICTED OR PROVEN TO COMMIT ANY
ACT OF FREELOADING OR CRIME.

What gives you the right to go after citizens,
deprive US of liberties BEFORE we commit any such act,
and subject us to TERMS WE DIDN'T CONSENT TO,
when YOU haven't done a THING to go after
FREELOADERS PROVEN TO HAVE COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.

^ WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER CONVICTED FREE LOADERS ^
WHY ARE YOU ONLY GOING AFTER CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T
COMMITTED CRIMES, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN TAP OUR INCOME TAX RETURNS?

SO YOU ARE PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR PAYING OUR TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT QUALIFIES US TO BE SUBJECT TO THESE MANDATES?
WE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES OR COST ANY FREELOADING
BUT BECAUSE WE FILE TAX RETURNS THEN WE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES?

IS THAT WHY YOU TARGET US?
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO PROVE WHO
HAS COMMITTED FREELOADING OR NOT?

Um, no. No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. Why can't the common parts the public agrees on such as the medical facilities be covered by govt. Also research and development where taxpayers agree
2. But then separate the programs WITHIN the system where
A. People like you who want to manage your taxes and decisions through govt can opt in to that
B. People who want to cover costs including helping others can choose to fund medical education service programs and charitable nonprofits such as St Judes Children's hospital and Doctors without borders, and choose what insurance to use instead of these things being forced and decisions regulated by govt.

You cannot prove that the "only way" to make your health care plans work is to force insurance on everyone against their will and beliefs. and even if you believe this, then PROVE it first, so people have a CHOICE and it isn't forced on anyone against their beliefs!

In fact given that we already need and will continue to rely on NONPROFITS outside govt SHOWS your govt system will never cover all the demands.

So what fuc.king business do you have mandating govt health care when we already need charity programs and to expand the BEST run charities like Doctors without borders and St. JUDES that already do a SUPERIOR job and 1. Don't require anyone to pay in order to work and 2.work just fine with people choosing freely to buy insurance or choosing to donate to cover costs

Are you looking at NONPROFITS that already do a better job than govt?

Why not make THOSE the model to replicate instead of insurance that doesn't build medical programs or clinics to meet longterm demands?

As for your preference for option A.
Why can't this model work for the populations who support it.

If a model works, it should work proportionally for larger groups, with larger budgets but more members to serve, or smaller groups who have fewer people paying in but also only have to cover those members.

So you can screen out freeloaders that way. Create a health insurance coop like a Credit Union where the benefits to be covered are proportional to the membership.

Why can't that be done where members like you pay under your terms you agree represent you democratically.
And let other members of other collective groups select THEIR terms of payment and coverage.

Why can't you respect how other people want to manage their own health care costs and decisions.

If you have 100 households in a district, do all 100 have to plan how they want to budget their kids college education? And force all to pay under one plan that penalizes them for noncompliance, and won't let them opt out into any other way to pay?

If your fear is they will freeload and won't pay back govt loans, then put collateral on the loans OR DON'T LEND the money. But you DON'T require all parents to pay into a college fund in advance and DICTATE the choices for them. You give people free choice how to pay. What happened to respect for free choice?

If TOP NONPROFITS as I listed can earn respect so people donate and participate VOLUNTARILY,
Why can't govt programs be set up to run as well as nonprofits where people WANT to pay to get the benefits! Or Want to donate because of the proven records the money is effectively invested to help the maximum and most urgent needs.

What proof have you shown?
And if it's so good, why wouldn't people want to invest as with stellar nonprofit groups. Why can't people choose to pay for choices that are PROVEN to deserve our funding.

What makes you think you have the right to make people fund faith based programs they don't believe in and face penalties and fines because of wanting to invest dollars into Building Medical Schools and Service Programs, for example, instead of paying for corporate insurance.

francoHFW if paying for insurance is the only way, how is that going to cover the need for
* charity hospitals
* medical training to produce enough doctors to serve the public
* clinics and facilities in each district

And if you will Please Admit we still need to pay for these other costs of health care development, then WHY penalize people for paying for these other programs we also need IN ADDITION to govt.

When we cover public transportation do we REQUIRE people to buy those services and FINE them if they choose otherwise? ???

Why not PUSH for a system that's SO effective people WANT to pay for it because it works best! Again see examples of Nonprofits. Not just the medical programs, but look at University programs people WANT to pay to participate in.

Why not set up health care to be so effective people AGREE to pay in and there's no need for mandates to force it

 

[francoHFW]

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.



As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. then write the law where it says that. but give people a choice NOT to go through the govt program at all
in order NOT to be under the terms you dictate.
When President and First Lady requires terms of membership,
nobody is FORCED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nothing wrong with setting conditions, but allow people to opt out all together
and pay for their own way without "free loading" on anyone who doesn't agree to their terms either!

2. apply the SAME standards to stop
A. freeloading off taxpayers for costs of incarcerating and paying for inmates
B. freeloading off taxpayers for corporate profits we didn't approve terms for either!

Where is the same effort to stop freeloaders who have
been CAUGHT and/or CONVICTED of crimes or corruption costing taxpayers?

I see you going after CITIZENS NOT CONVICTED OR PROVEN TO COMMIT ANY
ACT OF FREELOADING OR CRIME.

What gives you the right to go after citizens,
deprive US of liberties BEFORE we commit any such act,
and subject us to TERMS WE DIDN'T CONSENT TO,
when YOU haven't done a THING to go after
FREELOADERS PROVEN TO HAVE COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.

^ WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER CONVICTED FREE LOADERS ^
WHY ARE YOU ONLY GOING AFTER CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T
COMMITTED CRIMES, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN TAP OUR INCOME TAX RETURNS?

SO YOU ARE PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR PAYING OUR TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT QUALIFIES US TO BE SUBJECT TO THESE MANDATES?
WE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES OR COST ANY FREELOADING
BUT BECAUSE WE FILE TAX RETURNS THEN WE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES?

IS THAT WHY YOU TARGET US?
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO PROVE WHO
HAS COMMITTED FREELOADING OR NOT?

Um, no. No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. Why can't the common parts the public agrees on such as the medical facilities be covered by govt. Also research and development where taxpayers agree
2. But then separate the programs WITHIN the system where
A. People like you who want to manage your taxes and decisions through govt can opt in to that
B. People who want to cover costs including helping others can choose to fund medical education service programs and charitable nonprofits such as St Judes Children's hospital and Doctors without borders, and choose what insurance to use instead of these things being forced and decisions regulated by govt.

You cannot prove that the "only way" to make your health care plans work is to force insurance on everyone against their will and beliefs. and even if you believe this, then PROVE it first, so people have a CHOICE and it isn't forced on anyone against their beliefs!

In fact given that we already need and will continue to rely on NONPROFITS outside govt SHOWS your govt system will never cover all the demands.

So what fuc.king business do you have mandating govt health care when we already need charity programs and to expand the BEST run charities like Doctors without borders and St. JUDES that already do a SUPERIOR job and 1. Don't require anyone to pay in order to work and 2.work just fine with people choosing freely to buy insurance or choosing to donate to cover costs

Are you looking at NONPROFITS that already do a better job than govt?

Why not make THOSE the model to replicate instead of insurance that doesn't build medical programs or clinics to meet longterm demands?

As for your preference for option A.
Why can't this model work for the populations who support it.

If a model works, it should work proportionally for larger groups, with larger budgets but more members to serve, or smaller groups who have fewer people paying in but also only have to cover those members.

So you can screen out freeloaders that way. Create a health insurance coop like a Credit Union where the benefits to be covered are proportional to the membership.

Why can't that be done where members like you pay under your terms you agree represent you democratically.
And let other members of other collective groups select THEIR terms of payment and coverage.

Why can't you respect how other people want to manage their own health care costs and decisions.

If you have 100 households in a district, do all 100 have to plan how they want to budget their kids college education? And force all to pay under one plan that penalizes them for noncompliance, and won't let them opt out into any other way to pay?

If your fear is they will freeload and won't pay back govt loans, then put collateral on the loans OR DON'T LEND the money. But you DON'T require all parents to pay into a college fund in advance and DICTATE the choices for them. You give people free choice how to pay. What happened to respect for free choice?

If TOP NONPROFITS as I listed can earn respect so people donate and participate VOLUNTARILY,
Why can't govt programs be set up to run as well as nonprofits where people WANT to pay to get the benefits! Or Want to donate because of the proven records the money is effectively invested to help the maximum and most urgent needs.

What proof have you shown?
And if it's so good, why wouldn't people want to invest as with stellar nonprofit groups. Why can't people choose to pay for choices that are PROVEN to deserve our funding.

What makes you think you have the right to make people fund faith based programs they don't believe in and face penalties and fines because of wanting to invest dollars into Building Medical Schools and Service Programs, for example, instead of paying for corporate insurance.

francoHFW if paying for insurance is the only way, how is that going to cover the need for
* charity hospitals
* medical training to produce enough doctors to serve the public
* clinics and facilities in each district

And if you will Please Admit we still need to pay for these other costs of health care development, then WHY penalize people for paying for these other programs we also need IN ADDITION to govt.

When we cover public transportation do we REQUIRE people to buy those services and FINE them if they choose otherwise? ???

Why not PUSH for a system that's SO effective people WANT to pay for it because it works best! Again see examples of Nonprofits. Not just the medical programs, but look at University programs people WANT to pay to participate in.

Why not set up health care to be so effective people AGREE to pay in and there's no need for mandates to force it

It will get effective as time passes. The old GOP scam system gives us these prices. Competition and regulation take time.

 

[Pogo]

If a model works, it should work proportionally for larger groups, with larger budgets but more members to serve, or smaller groups who have fewer people paying in but also only have to cover those members.

So you can screen out freeloaders that way. Create a health insurance coop like a Credit Union where the benefits to be covered are proportional to the membership.

There you go making sense again. The reason something like that continually gets shot down is that it's heresy to the American national religion, the Almighty Dollar. To take away some fat cat's ability to profit off the suffering of others, why that's UnAmerican. That'll get you called a communist / socialist / terrorist / ebola carrier right quick.

Member the "public option"? There was this Senator, Joe LIe-berman (ASSSHOLE-CT) who got it squashed because his wife, who's knee-deep in insurance kickbacks, could see blood money coming out of her wherever if that went through. And that was the end of that.

No ma'am, you've got to treat accident victims, assault victims, disease victims, etc as golden opportunities to milk them to their last dime --- it's the American way. Because there's gold in them thar ills. And we are the United States of Ferengi.


/way offtopic

 

[emilynghiem]

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.



As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. then write the law where it says that. but give people a choice NOT to go through the govt program at all
in order NOT to be under the terms you dictate.
When President and First Lady requires terms of membership,
nobody is FORCED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nothing wrong with setting conditions, but allow people to opt out all together
and pay for their own way without "free loading" on anyone who doesn't agree to their terms either!

2. apply the SAME standards to stop
A. freeloading off taxpayers for costs of incarcerating and paying for inmates
B. freeloading off taxpayers for corporate profits we didn't approve terms for either!

Where is the same effort to stop freeloaders who have
been CAUGHT and/or CONVICTED of crimes or corruption costing taxpayers?

I see you going after CITIZENS NOT CONVICTED OR PROVEN TO COMMIT ANY
ACT OF FREELOADING OR CRIME.

What gives you the right to go after citizens,
deprive US of liberties BEFORE we commit any such act,
and subject us to TERMS WE DIDN'T CONSENT TO,
when YOU haven't done a THING to go after
FREELOADERS PROVEN TO HAVE COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.

^ WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER CONVICTED FREE LOADERS ^
WHY ARE YOU ONLY GOING AFTER CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T
COMMITTED CRIMES, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN TAP OUR INCOME TAX RETURNS?

SO YOU ARE PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR PAYING OUR TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT QUALIFIES US TO BE SUBJECT TO THESE MANDATES?
WE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES OR COST ANY FREELOADING
BUT BECAUSE WE FILE TAX RETURNS THEN WE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES?

IS THAT WHY YOU TARGET US?
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO PROVE WHO
HAS COMMITTED FREELOADING OR NOT?

Um, no. No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

It took us a hundred years to FINALLY pass a framework for transparent competition, covering the poor and pre-existing. Pass your ideas to your rep and perhaps we can fix your supposed problems. It will be tinkered with forever.

Dear francoHFW
If you are going to make me and other taxpayers pay for an unproven system while you tinker with it -- at least let us choose the terms by which we agree to pay for while testing it. Do you agree to pay for a car while it's still being repaired and tinkered with?
What kind of cruel joke is this?

I find it insulting that you pass the buck to reps to decide for you but you expect taxpayers to pay. If members of Congress were affected, that's one thing. But taxpayers are being forced to fund a contract we have no direct say in.

Just because you agree to this model of bypassing taxpayers and overriding our personal free choice by handing it over to federal government, without passing a Constitutional Amendment first, doesn't mean other people consented who are directly affected.

I find this very disturbing.
You are basically supporting depriving people of rights and liberties, then FORCING the victims of this abuse to jump through hoops to restore rights the government has no authority over to begin with.

This is like raping and robbing someone, then requiring them to go through a complex justice system to prove a wrong was done while you as the rape team continue to rape because it isn't proven yet that any consent was violated. You are waiting for "reps" and are completely ignoring the victims screaming we are being violated. That doesn't matter to you, only if the "reps" do something.

This must be bad karmic kickback from when liberals were screaming in protest about Bush using govt process and powers to take action against Iraq which the public did not fully consent to either. But in that case, with national defense, once the decision is made to go to war it has to be fought until finished or causes worse endangerment.

@francHFW in this case, both parties that both have different approaches -- the left wanting a govt option and the right wanting free market options -- can BOTH "tinker" with their own models to perfect these WITHOUT forcing others under that system!

That's the part you keep skirting.

That's fine if people on the left want to develop a govt run single layer universal plan, but
(A) "tinker" with it on your OWN time and dollars, from people who WANT to opt in and make it work (NOT corporate insurance just wanting to get their share of profits paid without producing any service providers or facilities to sustain universal care)
(B) Before expecting other people to pay in, which more and more would as the working model develops to serve greater demand

That's how ALL effective service models work francoHFW. The service starts with a smaller customer base in one location, develops and proves a record of reliable cost-effective service and then attracts more clientele so more revenue comes in to expand the services to multiple locations!

Again francoHFW both the left could be investing in making a govt nonprofit system work, by enrolling inmates immigrants and other citizens who CAN legally be required to be under mandates if they are under a status or condition that already requires them to report to govt; AND the right can remain free to set up and pay into a free market plan for LAW ABIDING citizens who have done nothing to warrant Losing Liberty, and thus should be able to do so voluntarily where it doesn't involve imposing costs or conditions on people who don't consent to those terms!

We can have BOTH going on at the same time, to cover all bases, and NOT impose on each other's plans and preferences

 

[emilynghiem]

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.



As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

Dear francoHFW
1. then write the law where it says that. but give people a choice NOT to go through the govt program at all
in order NOT to be under the terms you dictate.
When President and First Lady requires terms of membership,
nobody is FORCED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nothing wrong with setting conditions, but allow people to opt out all together
and pay for their own way without "free loading" on anyone who doesn't agree to their terms either!

2. apply the SAME standards to stop
A. freeloading off taxpayers for costs of incarcerating and paying for inmates
B. freeloading off taxpayers for corporate profits we didn't approve terms for either!

Where is the same effort to stop freeloaders who have
been CAUGHT and/or CONVICTED of crimes or corruption costing taxpayers?

I see you going after CITIZENS NOT CONVICTED OR PROVEN TO COMMIT ANY
ACT OF FREELOADING OR CRIME.

What gives you the right to go after citizens,
deprive US of liberties BEFORE we commit any such act,
and subject us to TERMS WE DIDN'T CONSENT TO,
when YOU haven't done a THING to go after
FREELOADERS PROVEN TO HAVE COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.

^ WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER CONVICTED FREE LOADERS ^
WHY ARE YOU ONLY GOING AFTER CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T
COMMITTED CRIMES, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN TAP OUR INCOME TAX RETURNS?

SO YOU ARE PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR PAYING OUR TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT QUALIFIES US TO BE SUBJECT TO THESE MANDATES?
WE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES OR COST ANY FREELOADING
BUT BECAUSE WE FILE TAX RETURNS THEN WE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES?

IS THAT WHY YOU TARGET US?
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO PROVE WHO
HAS COMMITTED FREELOADING OR NOT?

Um, no. No more freeloaders. There has to be a mandate or pre-existing conditions people can't be covered. End of story. A gov't organized system is the only way to cover everyone and cut costs...

It took us a hundred years to FINALLY pass a framework for transparent competition, covering the poor and pre-existing. Pass your ideas to your rep and perhaps we can fix your supposed problems. It will be tinkered with forever.

Dear francoHFW
If you are going to make me and other taxpayers pay for an unproven system while you tinker with it -- at least let us choose the terms by which we agree to pay for while testing it. Do you agree to pay for a car while it's still being repaired and tinkered with?
What kind of cruel joke is this?

I find it insulting that you pass the buck to reps to decide for you but you expect taxpayers to pay. If members of Congress were affected, that's one thing. But taxpayers are being forced to fund a contract we have no direct say in.

Just because you agree to this model of bypassing taxpayers and overriding our personal free choice by handing it over to federal government, without passing a Constitutional Amendment first, doesn't mean other people consented who are directly affected.

I find this very disturbing.
You are basically supporting depriving people of rights and liberties, then FORCING the victims of this abuse to jump through hoops to restore rights the government has no authority over to begin with.

This is like raping and robbing someone, then requiring them to go through a complex justice system to prove a wrong was done while you as the rape team continue to rape because it isn't proven yet that any consent was violated. You are waiting for "reps" and are completely ignoring the victims screaming we are being violated. That doesn't matter to you, only if the "reps" do something.

This must be bad karmic kickback from when liberals were screaming in protest about Bush using govt process and powers to take action against Iraq which the public did not fully consent to either. But in that case, with national defense, once the decision is made to go to war it has to be fought until finished or causes worse endangerment.

@francHFW in this case, both parties that both have different approaches -- the left wanting a govt option and the right wanting free market options -- can BOTH "tinker" with their own models to perfect these WITHOUT forcing others under that system!

That's the part you keep skirting.

That's fine if people on the left want to develop a govt run single payer universal plan, but
(A) "tinker" with it on your OWN time and dollars, from people who WANT to opt in and make it work (NOT corporate insurance just wanting to get their share of profits paid without producing any service providers or facilities to sustain universal care)
(B) Before expecting other people to pay in, which more and more would as the working model develops to serve greater demand

That's how ALL effective service models work francoHFW. The service starts with a smaller customer base in one location, develops and proves a record of reliable cost-effective service and then attracts more clientele so more revenue comes in to expand the services to multiple locations!

Again francoHFW both the left could be investing in making a govt nonprofit system work, by enrolling inmates immigrants and other citizens who CAN legally be required to be under mandates if they are under a status or condition that already requires them to report to govt; AND the right can remain free to set up and pay into a free market plan for LAW ABIDING citizens who have done nothing to warrant Losing Liberty, and thus should be able to do so voluntarily where it doesn't involve imposing costs or conditions on people who don't consent to those terms!

We can have BOTH going on at the same time, to cover all bases, and NOT impose on each other's plans and preferences