What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[koshergrl]

I'm waiting for some of the fact that you say you provide.

I'll keep waiting.

 

[Vidi]

Does anybody else see the disconnect, even the oxymoron, in a statement in which somebody emphatically denies that he/she is a 'lefitst' even as he/she supports a program like Obamacare or some other government program of that type? Supports the politicians who think it is a great idea even?

But I have been saying at intervals on this thread that it is that kind of disconnect that makes arguing with liberals so frustrating, Not only can they not define in their own words what 'left' and 'right' or 'liberal' or 'conservative' concepts are in modern day America, but they also cannot articulate a rationale for why government run healthcare is superior to a free market healthcare system. All they can do is cut and paste somebody else's opinion and don't have a clue WHY or IF that somebody's opinion is valid. But it fits the talking points of the day, therefore it is presented as 'fact'.

No.

The disconnect is when we ( and we are ALL guilty of this ) all think that ONE side has ALL the answers.

To believe that the Democrats or the Republicans are NEVER wrong on ANY issue is the surest sign of blind partisanship.

As far as lying goes?

If someone is lying, even to themselves, they are still a liar, they just don't know they are.

Speaking of disconnects, how about people who can't differentiate between Democrat/Republican and liberal/conservative?

we call those people Independents

 

[koshergrl]

No, bfgrn isn't a rightwinger. So the obscene rants and incoherent sputterings are coming from the left, yet again.

What makes arguing with liberals so frutrating is that when one of the melts down, an asslicker will come along and proclaim victory by pretending the person who won the debate is the one melting down.

But once they are reduced to a babbling, profanity spewing bunch of pure nonsense, all the intelligent people do know who won the argument. If you have a winning argument there is no melt down

The frustration comes in finding intelligent people on the left who can actually debate a concept. Most can only cut and paste or attack someobdy and we've witnessed that in spades. But when that happens and they've exposed themselves for the empty heads that they are, we can reduce the frustration by going back to a policy of don't feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility

I provide FACTS. You emote. You claim to be a conservative with empathy. Bullshit! You want to eliminate life saving social programs and replace them with what FAILED before those programs existed. You have a warped sense of history and absolutely NO FACTS to back up your right wing 'cure' for all human problems; PUNISHMENT, and let them beg for help. You are a scum bag to the core.

He emoted.

So I'm trying to figure this one out:

"Back at ya Monica Lewinsky for the opulent" is the message bfgrn gave me with my neg rep...except...I haven't repped him.

Any clues what the hell he's talking about?

And what does "monica lewinsky for the opulent" mean?

Does it mean I give blowjobs in return for ....rich furnishings?

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm waiting for some of the fact that you say you provide.

I'll keep waiting.

Maybe you could ask an adult to read through the thread and explain it to you. I provided numerous studies and articles to back up my claims. ALL your scum bag cohort did was emote and preach.

 

[koshergrl]

You mean like you are now?

I don't remember you even posting in the thread. Of course, you aren't very memorable.

 

[ecinicola]

#1 (permalink) 02-06-2012, 12:57 PM
Baruch Menachem
'
I agree with your thinking. We need Gov't things the same as we have always had, but what Obama is doing is trying to dictate and run our lives and finances and this is not what Gov't should be doing. What Obama is doing is like implementing a communist country and telling us what we can and can't do and taking our freedoms away and our privacy in our lives. Obamacare will be the largest mistake every made, and we are all going to pay a heavy price. Just wait for the IRS to fine you for not buying into obamacare. and wait until IRS goes into your bank acct. And we are all going to pay heavy taxes next year now that Obama is giving illegals amnesty and we have to support what they need...... This is not the Gov't we need, its communism.

 

[Bfgrn]

You mean like you are now?

I don't remember you even posting in the thread. Of course, you aren't very memorable.

FACTS:

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

 

[koshergrl]

From an article "In Praise of Medicare" by the leftist rag The Oregonian.

Well done! Great *fact* finding!

 

[FactFinder]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Cuz you are opposite sides of the same damn coin? Got no coin without either of ya., but got shit with one side only.

 

[Bfgrn]

From an article "In Praise of Medicare" by the leftist rag The Oregonian.

Well done! Great *fact* finding!

If you don't like the FACTS, feel free to bring your own. Or you can continue to whine.


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[bripat9643]

Does anyone see the disconnect among the ConJbs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists who have shouted loud, long and continuous about "Not Wanting The Government To Decide Health Care". Of not "Wanting The Government In The Doctor's Office". Of how wrong it would for "The Government to Be In The Operating Room", while at the same time supporting, condoning and rallying for laws that force women to undergo an invasive vaginal ultra-sound by order the "The Government"?

I and millions of other right-wingers don't support that, so there goes your imbecile theory right out the window.

 

[Billo_Really]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

If that was the case, why didn't conservatives speak out during the last Administration when it was increasing the size of government while at the same time stripping us of our Constitutional rights with the passage of the Patriot Act and Military Commission's Act? If we want to reduce government, cut the defense budget in half. Close the almost 800 bases we have around the world. If a country wants our base there, then they can pay for it to be there.

If we want to cut government, end these two BS wars. That'll save $12 billion a month.

What I find frustrating with conservatives, many say there for limited government, except when it comes to a woman's uterus, voter ID laws and un-documented workers. Then we got legislation up the ass.

What ever happened to the old William F. Buckely conservatives? Are they afraid to stand up to the neo's and bagger nation? You need to get back control of your party from the lunatics that have been running the show for the last 8-10 years. Then we can get together and figure out how to get our government back from the corporate oligarchy that took it from us.

 

[Mac1958]

What ever happened to the old William F. Buckely conservatives? Are they afraid to stand up to the neo's and bagger nation? You need to get back control of your party from the lunatics that have been running the show for the last 8-10 years. Then we can get together and figure out how to get our government back from the corporate oligarchy that took it from us.

BINGO.



.

 

[Bfgrn]

What ever happened to the old William F. Buckely conservatives? Are they afraid to stand up to the neo's and bagger nation? You need to get back control of your party from the lunatics that have been running the show for the last 8-10 years. Then we can get together and figure out how to get our government back from the corporate oligarchy that took it from us.

BINGO.



.

They are all in prison....

The liberal era started with the New Deal in the early 1930's and ended with the Great Society in the late 1960's. Liberals created the BIGGEST middle class in the history of the world...

Then, the conservative era began with Richard Nixon. Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the prison population.

America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE! America is NUMBER ONE!

 

[bravoactual]

Speaking of disconnects, how about people who can't differentiate between Democrat/Republican and liberal/conservative?

Does anyone see the disconnect among the ConJbs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists who have shouted loud, long and continuous about "Not Wanting The Government To Decide Health Care". Of not "Wanting The Government In The Doctor's Office". Of how wrong it would for "The Government to Be In The Operating Room", while at the same time supporting, condoning and rallying for laws that force women to undergo an invasive vaginal ultra-sound by order the "The Government"?

Blah-de-blah-de "paint with a broad brush, everyone's responsible for 'supporting' a policy they know nothing about" blah blah divert blah obfuscate.

When I want to hear from a two-tooth loser who thinks "ConJbs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadist" is brilliant political discourse to be proud of, I'll go debate on the nearest elementary school playground. Even though you're clearly not ashamed of being a mouthbreathing fucktard in public, I'd be ashamed of talking to you as though you weren't.

Run along, fool. You're a joke on every level of your existence.

'''

Simply point the lies and you don't like it...T.S.

ConJobs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists talk out their ass.

How many retired Military/Government Workers at this site were all about "Keeping The Government" Out of The Doctor's Office, while at the same time receiving their U.S. Government Medical Care?

You cannot be opposed to "Obamacare" while at the same time be receiving the very U.S. Government Supported, Tax Payer Funded Health Care.




Con



Sim

 

[koshergrl]

Does anyone see the disconnect among the ConJbs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists who have shouted loud, long and continuous about "Not Wanting The Government To Decide Health Care". Of not "Wanting The Government In The Doctor's Office". Of how wrong it would for "The Government to Be In The Operating Room", while at the same time supporting, condoning and rallying for laws that force women to undergo an invasive vaginal ultra-sound by order the "The Government"?

Blah-de-blah-de "paint with a broad brush, everyone's responsible for 'supporting' a policy they know nothing about" blah blah divert blah obfuscate.

When I want to hear from a two-tooth loser who thinks "ConJbs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadist" is brilliant political discourse to be proud of, I'll go debate on the nearest elementary school playground. Even though you're clearly not ashamed of being a mouthbreathing fucktard in public, I'd be ashamed of talking to you as though you weren't.

Run along, fool. You're a joke on every level of your existence.

'''

Simply point the lies and you don't like it...T.S.

ConJobs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists talk out their ass.

How many retired Military/Government Workers at this site were all about "Keeping The Government" Out of The Doctor's Office, while at the same time receiving their U.S. Government Medical Care?

You cannot be opposed to "Obamacare" while at the same time be receiving the very U.S. Government Supported, Tax Payer Funded Health Care.




Con



Sim

There are too many to do it.

Here's the thing..adults will provide (real) supporting evidence/citations to back up their statements. When they don't, the assumption is that they are lying or too lazy to participate in the discussion like an adult.

If we spent all day long *proving* every thing you morons said was a lie, we'd never get to do anything else.

So the standard is..you support your statements, and if not, you are recognized as a hack.

bfgrn's idiotic stats that he pulled from an article...those stats are worthless. He's quoting an article that doesn't in turn say where those numbers came from. He's taking the word of a journalist, and a journalist that's working a glowing piece on medicare, at that...and he expects that to stand in as his "proof". Sorry, it doesn't. The journalist didn't make his case, so just because he quotes the article doesns't mean he's proved his case. He just sourced another biased and loon spewing the same garbage (though more eloquently) that he does.

In other words, make your damn case. It's not our job to make it for you. Prove your own shit. Because nobody is interested in tracking down every single lie you morons post, there isn't enough time in the day. The standard for debate is you SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS. When you do, if the other side doesn't agree, then they can prove why you're wrong.

But it's not our job to race around every time one of you makes an outlandish statement that you don't support and *prove* that it's wrong. We don't have to prove it wrong, since you never proved it right.

This is 6th grade stuff. It says soooo much about the left that they don't get it. Or they do get it and ignore it for the purpose of propagandizing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Blah-de-blah-de "paint with a broad brush, everyone's responsible for 'supporting' a policy they know nothing about" blah blah divert blah obfuscate.

When I want to hear from a two-tooth loser who thinks "ConJbs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadist" is brilliant political discourse to be proud of, I'll go debate on the nearest elementary school playground. Even though you're clearly not ashamed of being a mouthbreathing fucktard in public, I'd be ashamed of talking to you as though you weren't.

Run along, fool. You're a joke on every level of your existence.

'''

Simply point the lies and you don't like it...T.S.

ConJobs/NeoNuts/RePugs/TeaHadists talk out their ass.

How many retired Military/Government Workers at this site were all about "Keeping The Government" Out of The Doctor's Office, while at the same time receiving their U.S. Government Medical Care?

You cannot be opposed to "Obamacare" while at the same time be receiving the very U.S. Government Supported, Tax Payer Funded Health Care.




Con



Sim

There are too many to do it.

Here's the thing..adults will provide (real) supporting evidence/citations to back up their statements. When they don't, the assumption is that they are lying or too lazy to participate in the discussion like an adult.

If we spent all day long *proving* every thing you morons said was a lie, we'd never get to do anything else.

So the standard is..you support your statements, and if not, you are recognized as a hack.

bfgrn's idiotic stats that he pulled from an article...those stats are worthless. He's quoting an article that doesn't in turn say where those numbers came from. He's taking the word of a journalist, and a journalist that's working a glowing piece on medicare, at that...and he expects that to stand in as his "proof". Sorry, it doesn't. The journalist didn't make his case, so just because he quotes the article doesns't mean he's proved his case. He just sourced another biased and loon spewing the same garbage (though more eloquently) that he does.

In other words, make your damn case. It's not our job to make it for you. Prove your own shit. Because nobody is interested in tracking down every single lie you morons post, there isn't enough time in the day. The standard for debate is you SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS. When you do, if the other side doesn't agree, then they can prove why you're wrong.

But it's not our job to race around every time one of you makes an outlandish statement that you don't support and *prove* that it's wrong. We don't have to prove it wrong, since you never proved it right.

This is 6th grade stuff. It says soooo much about the left that they don't get it. Or they do get it and ignore it for the purpose of propagandizing.

Irony is your word for the day. Look it up.

Your second word for the day is ignorance. The 'journalist' you dismiss is:

Dr. Samuel Metz, MD
26 years of medical experience and practices in Anesthesiology.
Oregon Anesthesiology Group
120 NW 14th Ave Ste 300
Portland, OR

So far, you and your cohorts have provided NOTHING...ZERO...ZILCH in proof, statistics or evidence to DIS-prove my FACTS.

PROVE to us that senior citizens had it better before Medicare. Herein lies your problem...YOU CAN'T. ALL you offer is whining, "but, but, buts" and emotes.


Health Care in the Early 1960s

In 1962, the highest mass standard of living in the world was definitely not shared by all. There was "another America": 40 to 50 million citizens who were poor, who lacked adequate medical care, and who were "socially invisible" to the majority of the population. Within this poverty-stricken group were more than 8 million of the 18 million Americans who were 65 years of age and over, suffering from a "downward spiral" of sickness and isolation. And although there were half a million Americans in nursing homes, less than 60 percent of the homes were considered acceptable (Harrington, 1962). Medicare was formed in a society with idealistic expectations of wealth for all-at least for all of those who "deserved" it yet increasingly isolated its minorities and its poor.

There were evident rifts in American society in the early 1960s, by race, age, class, and gender. Demographic changes after World War II had created communities filled with contrasts. The flight of relatively young, affluent, middle-class families to new suburbs created inner cities with disproportionate numbers of elderly and minority Americans. The stage was set for summers of racial violence, urban decay, and declining tax revenues for city schools, hospitals, and social services. In cities such as Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, DC, African-Americans represented a majority of the population by the early 1960s. Physicians migrated to the suburbs with other white-collar workers, leaving the hospital emergency room as a primary source of care for many urban dwellers. Emergency department visits increased by 16 million, or 175 percent, between 1954 and 1964, and the quality of care was often tenuous. Among the complaints: Physicians were overworked; they were reluctant to take on weekend and evening duty; and as suburbanites beset by worsening traffic conditions, they could not respond promptly to emergency calls (Silver, 1966).

Wider social rifts permeated the structure of health care and its institutions. These too were often socially "invisible"; that is, taken for granted and commented on rarely until the late 1950s. Herbert Klarman (1962) did a study of hospital patients in 1957 that described the rigid pattern of stratification and segregation by class and race in New York City. In New York's for-profit hospitals and in the private and semi-private accommodations of not for-profit hospitals, patients designated "white" were virtually the only patients (97 percent and 96 percent, respectively). The wards of not-for-profit hospitals provided accommodations for poorer (or uninsured) members of society; here the proportion of white people was lower (66 percent). But in the municipal hospitals, the backbone of welfare medical care, the great majority of patients were Puerto Rican, African-American, and members of races other than white (Klarman, 1962). In the South, there was formal racial segregation, although this was beginning to be challenged effectively. "Disease and Death Know No Race" proclaimed the signs carried by protesters at the Grady Hospital in Atlanta in 1962, where a group of African-Americans had taken over the lounge of the "whites-only" outpatient clinic (Newsweek, 1962).

The contrast between wish and reality (the wish for a truly Great Society and the reality of conflict and division) forms an essential first theme for understanding the years before Medicare. In effect, Medicare was to be a means of transforming the elderly into paying consumers of hospital services. Medicaid, with its continuing welfare stigma, was to cover those who were "indigent." Legislative proposals from the first For and bill in 1957, through the Kennedy-Anderson proposals, to the signing of the Medicare legislation in July 1965, stressed the inability of the private market to meet the needs of older, retired Americans who could not afford medical care when they were sick, rather than the needs of all Americans who were uninsured. As a group, the elderly were significantly poorer than the working population, their medical needs were much greater, and insurance coverage, where it did exist, included only a minority of total health care costs.

 

[koshergrl]

Why would I attempt prove an argument I've never made?

 

[Bfgrn]

Why would I attempt prove an argument I've never made?

Fine...then you accept my FACTS. Medicare is a HUGE success. It has lifted million of senior citizens from a group most likely to face poverty to a group least likely...

Game, set, match to Bfgrn.

 

[koshergrl]

You're an idiot. That is the fact I accept. You should, too.