So I guess that makes it OK? Didn't we just have the double standard/hypocrisy discussion? If these folks thought it was vulgar, shouldn't they have tried to rise above that vulgarity and have a higher standard? If Trump thinks that some women are nasty and vulgar...well, I would have to say that many of them proved him right yesterday. Would it not have been better to come out and be classy, intelligent, and articulate as a response to Trump? Instead they protested vulgarity by being equally vulgar. And my questions/comments are directed at the ones who acted that way. I realize that they are not representative of all women or all of the protestors.
It's called context, they reappropriated his own words. Often times, quite sharply and wittily. They are responding to what they found insulting. How do you protest words and actions you find horrible by extracting them from your own protest? And how vulgar is "nasty" - what are you a Puritan? They peacefully protested? That is about as classy as you can get. You want them to burn Trump in effigy as many did Obama in 2008? You may not agree with what they protested, but you can't argue with how they protested.
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.
That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.
I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.
OK...let's split hairs. To be fair to Bhawk. He never called me a liar, he just drew a conclusion that I was being dishonest. So he accused me of being dishonest, but he never used the "L" word.
And he never directly called me a troll. He just said that my post was an example of "trolling-lite", which also implied that my question was not a sincere/honest one, but rather just an attempt to piss people off.
So...according to Bhawk...I am dishonest, but not a liar. And I am the author of posts motivated by trolling, but I am not a troll.
One thing is for sure, you are quite sensitive.
I get that this is how you "feel". But I'm not interested in how you feel about something. I'm only interested in how things really are.
And it's not that I just "CONSIDER" a difference in political ideology to be a problem that creates some sort of threat to me. It's that this is reality. And the "threat" isn't necessarily a loss of rights. It could be a decrease in disposable income or the loss of a good health care policy, which I have already provided as evidence of ways in which the political ideology of the Obama administration directly impacted me.
Political ideology can also have a positive impact. I'm not saying it is all bad. I favor those aspects of a political ideology that are positive, while opposing those that are negative.
But to say that political ideology has no impact on my life or yours...well, you can "feel" that way all you want to. But the reality is quite different.
So...those women protesting yesterday...their rights aren't really in jeopardy, they are just unjustifiably paranoid, and they are only protesting because they are butt-hurt over some comments Trump made? Another interesting theory...
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.
That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.
I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.
OK...let's split hairs. To be fair to Bhawk. He never called me a liar, he just drew a conclusion that I was being dishonest. So he accused me of being dishonest, but he never used the "L" word.
And he never directly called me a troll. He just said that my post was an example of "trolling-lite", which also implied that my question was not a sincere/honest one, but rather just an attempt to piss people off.
So...according to Bhawk...I am dishonest, but not a liar. And I am the author of posts motivated by trolling, but I am not a troll.
One thing is for sure, you are quite sensitive.
Yes, I know...a quite sensitive, dishonest, troll. I've learned so much about myself from you.
You are kidding, right? With the Supreme Court up for grabs you don't think Roe vs. Wade is going to come under fire?
I don't. It might be challenged, but I believe a woman will always be able to have an abortion should she choose that route. I don't see how Trump could prevent that. If he can, please do tell. I'm always eager to learn.
goldtop - I agree that those things that Trump did are disgusting.
So...those women protesting yesterday...their rights aren't really in jeopardy, they are just unjustifiably paranoid, and they are only protesting because they are butt-hurt over some comments Trump made?
You find these things "disgusting," but anyone else taking issue to them is "butt-hurt?"
And it's not that I just "CONSIDER" a difference in political ideology to be a problem that creates some sort of threat to me. It's that this is reality. And the "threat" isn't necessarily a loss of rights. It could be a decrease in disposable income or the loss of a good health care policy, which I have already provided as evidence of ways in which the political ideology of the Obama administration directly impacted me.
Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?
But to say that political ideology has no impact on my life or yours...well, you can "feel" that way all you want to. But the reality is quite different.
If you say so.
So...those women protesting yesterday...their rights aren't really in jeopardy, they are just unjustifiably paranoid, and they are only protesting because they are butt-hurt over some comments Trump made? Another interesting theory...
your words and interpretation. you can cut and past mine from above for my words and interpretation.
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.
That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.
I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.
OK...let's split hairs. To be fair to Bhawk. He never called me a liar, he just drew a conclusion that I was being dishonest. So he accused me of being dishonest, but he never used the "L" word.
And he never directly called me a troll. He just said that my post was an example of "trolling-lite", which also implied that my question was not a sincere/honest one, but rather just an attempt to piss people off.
So...according to Bhawk...I am dishonest, but not a liar. And I am the author of posts motivated by trolling, but I am not a troll.
One thing is for sure, you are quite sensitive.
Yes, I know...a quite sensitive, dishonest, troll. I've learned so much about myself from you.
You concluded that.
Consider this. This is today. This morning:
4:47 am - Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.
[url] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823150055418920960?ref_src ="twsrc%5Etfw[/url"]
Then, about an hour and a half later:
6:23am - Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views.
[url] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823174199036542980?ref_src ="twsrc%5Etfw[/url"]
All of the ridiculous and inane nitpicking done over Presidents over the last several years and all of the sudden you even breathe the slightest implication of negativity on the things like this our PRESIDENT says and you're just a butt-hurt snowflake?
Get the ---- outta here.
Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?
Oh, OK...so now I have to go find a higher paying job or work more hours just to maintain the same level of income. Great! Well, at least you are finally acknowledging that political ideologies negatively impact me and my family. We're making some progress now.
You are so lost here. What don't you get? Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare. I now pay a higher premium, have a higher deductible, etc. which means less net income in my pocket every month. That is a negative impact to me that is a result of a political ideology. Your suggestion...work harder...so now we have another negative impact to me and my family.
Before Obamacare: Good health insurance policy, lower premiums, lower deductibles.
After Obamacare: Higher premiums, higher deductibles - both of which result in less money in my pocket. And according to you I must now work harder to maintain the same level of income.
So...a worse insurance policy, less money in my pocket, more work resulting in less free time to spend with my family and doing the things that I enjoy, etc. So tell me again how political ideologies have no impact on my life? And tell me again why I should not be opposed to something that negatively impacts me and my family?
And keep in mind that Obamacare is just one small example of how politics intersects with and impacts our lives.
Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?
Oh, OK...so now I have to go find a higher paying job or work more hours just to maintain the same level of income. Great! Well, at least you are finally acknowledging that political ideologies negatively impact me and my family. We're making some progress now.
You are so lost here. What don't you get? Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare. I now pay a higher premium, have a higher deductible, etc. which means less net income in my pocket every month. That is a negative impact to me that is a result of a political ideology. Your suggestion...work harder...so now we have another negative impact to me and my family.
Before Obamacare: Good health insurance policy, lower premiums, lower deductibles.
After Obamacare: Higher premiums, higher deductibles - both of which result in less money in my pocket. And according to you I must now work harder to maintain the same level of income.
So...a worse insurance policy, less money in my pocket, more work resulting in less free time to spend with my family and doing the things that I enjoy, etc. So tell me again how political ideologies have no impact on my life? And tell me again why I should not be opposed to something that negatively impacts me and my family?
And keep in mind that Obamacare is just one small example of how politics intersects with and impacts our lives.
What you and so many others failed to understand is that the ACA was intended so that everyone would be able to get insurance, but the premiums are set by the insurance companies. Just about every insurance companies made record profits after the ACA was passed.
Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare.
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.
Medicare and Medicaid were heading down one of two paths: Complete insolvency, or, rescue from that insolvency via a massive tax crush that would start hitting as early as 2030, now not that far away.
As Medicare and Medicaid evolved over time, both parties ignored the Baby Boomer reality...eventually there was going to be waaaaay more claims paid out than there were workers paying in, simply by math.
The three main pillars of Obamacare:
1. Ban insurance companies from the pre-existing condition exemption from coverage - This is a win for the people that now would have insurance that did not have access before.
2. Mandate those without insurance to participate, or, pay a penalty. This is a win for the insurance companies who had to take on all those new customers with expensive conditions by balancing it with making those younger and healthier pay in, as that group tends to not use insurance as much. It also was originally concepted on a very basic conservative complaint - no free rides, everyone has to pay something.
3. More Americans have health insurance - This is a win for the government.
Three main groups, everyone gets something. This is the basic theory as originally presented by The Heritage Foundation, one of Washington's oldest and most respected conservative think tanks, and was also the basic framework for Bob Dole's heathcare plan on his 1996 Presidential campaign platform.
Not exactly so easily discernable by political ideology, now is it?
As to the premiums, the ACA left giant loopholes...there were no premium price controls at the Federal level, that was left to the states. Now there's 50 different states with 50 different insurance commissions, so while the Federal law enacted things, the states were left to run things, or opt in to the Medicaid provision to help offset the new administrative burden.
It should be noted that no matter one's level of regard for insurance companies, their motives and their profitability, it goes without saying that any premium increase can be made by any insurance company and they can blame Obamacare, the position of the Sun or the presence of demons as a reason to make that increase.
Premiums, like most other things, increase over time as adjusted with inflation. Let's say there's a full repeal and dismantling of the ACA. When premiums go up again, then who to blame?
After that, there's still the matter of millions of people now without insurance, which may or may not include the 76 million Baby Boomers getting older by the minute and a healthcare system that would be further behind the 8-ball than ever.
Then what do we do?
These threads all go so many different directions of off topic.
What you and so many others failed to understand is that the ACA was intended so that everyone would be able to get insurance, but the premiums are set by the insurance companies. Just about every insurance companies made record profits after the ACA was passed.
So that is why United, Humana and Aetna are withdrawing from some state exchanges...too much profit?
I mean yeah, I get it...huge windfall for them, the government mandates that everyone must buy their product and have health insurance and if you can't afford to buy it the government subsidizes it. Something obviously went wrong or else these companies wouldn't be withdrawing.
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.
Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.
Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.
So, building roads, schools, having police departments, fire departments, a standing military force to protect us are a political ideology? And that is bad?
Since you refused to read the rest of his post, we can add lazy and narrow minded to your list of perceived flaws. 😛
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.
Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.
So, building roads, schools, having police departments, fire departments, a standing military force to protect us are a political ideology? And that is bad?
Since you refused to read the rest of his post, we can add lazy and narrow minded to your list of perceived flaws. 😛
How one thinks we should go about doing those things, providing those services, and how we should pay for them is largely determined by one's political ideology. And I never said all government is bad, or that all political ideologies have negative impacts. I said that they can also have positive impacts. But if you had read my posts you would already know this. So I'm not the only lazy one.
And the primary point being debated was whether or not political ideology affects/impacts our lives. BoyntonBrother says "no". I say "yes". I used Obamacare as evidence that it does. Whether you are pro-OC or anti-OC is irrelevant (at least to the point being debated). The only question is...did Obamacare impact peoples' lives? I am living proof that it did. That's why I didn't read any further...I'm not interested in discussing the pros/cons of Obamacare.
Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?
Oh, OK...so now I have to go find a higher paying job or work more hours just to maintain the same level of income. Great! Well, at least you are finally acknowledging that political ideologies negatively impact me and my family. We're making some progress now.
You are so lost here. What don't you get? Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare. I now pay a higher premium, have a higher deductible, etc. which means less net income in my pocket every month. That is a negative impact to me that is a result of a political ideology. Your suggestion...work harder...so now we have another negative impact to me and my family.
Before Obamacare: Good health insurance policy, lower premiums, lower deductibles.
After Obamacare: Higher premiums, higher deductibles - both of which result in less money in my pocket. And according to you I must now work harder to maintain the same level of income.
So...a worse insurance policy, less money in my pocket, more work resulting in less free time to spend with my family and doing the things that I enjoy, etc. So tell me again how political ideologies have no impact on my life? And tell me again why I should not be opposed to something that negatively impacts me and my family?
And keep in mind that Obamacare is just one small example of how politics intersects with and impacts our lives.
What you and so many others failed to understand is that the ACA was intended so that everyone would be able to get insurance, but the premiums are set by the insurance companies.
Set by the insurance companies after the government forced them into what to include in their policies, who and what to cover.
Not that that would effect prices.
So I guess that makes it OK? Didn't we just have the double standard/hypocrisy discussion? If these folks thought it was vulgar, shouldn't they have tried to rise above that vulgarity and have a higher standard? If Trump thinks that some women are nasty and vulgar...well, I would have to say that many of them proved him right yesterday. Would it not have been better to come out and be classy, intelligent, and articulate as a response to Trump? Instead they protested vulgarity by being equally vulgar. And my questions/comments are directed at the ones who acted that way. I realize that they are not representative of all women or all of the protestors.
It's called context, they reappropriated his own words. Often times, quite sharply and wittily. They are responding to what they found insulting. How do you protest words and actions you find horrible by extracting them from your own protest? And how vulgar is "nasty" - what are you a Puritan? They peacefully protested? That is about as classy as you can get. You want them to burn Trump in effigy as many did Obama in 2008? You may not agree with what they protested, but you can't argue with how they protested.
I don't have a problem with them protesting...it’s their right…but apparently some of the stuff they were doing was too lewd and vulgar to even show on the news. And you know there were kids and teenagers at the march. I thought back to the commercial that Hillary had during the campaign...the one that showed the kids watching all of Trump's antics. But I guess it was OK for these same kids and young people to see the vulgar things that were displayed at the march...and I'm sure these kids totally understood the context (sarcasm). And I guess we just have different perspectives on what classy is. And, yes...I get what they were doing, and the context and all...but to protest vulgarity with more vulgarity is hypocritical in my book. Not to mention that women who are pro-life were not allowed to partner with the march. So much for women being united, and all that diversity and inclusiveness BS...
It would have been nice if Trump had in some way acknowledged the folks at the march...let them know that he hears them, ease some of their concerns, etc. And going forward it would be great if he would set up some town halls or other types of forums with some representatives of those groups and have some open dialog with them. I know...that's crazy talk...and I won't hold my breath, but I think that would be a great move on his part if he really wants to start healing some of the division in this country.
[Edited on 1/23/2017 by Redfish7]
So that is why United, Humana and Aetna are withdrawing from some state exchanges...too much profit?
Why aren't they withdrawing from them all?
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.
Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.
If no change had been made, by 2040 Medicare and Medicaid spending would require 40% (yes, 40%) of GDP.
The tax rate would have to go to 50% for everyone to cover that.
That has nothing to do with political ideology, that's fiscal reality.
You might go ahead and say that Medicare and Medicaid are bad programs too. That doesn't change the fact that millions of people had Medicare deductions taken out of the paychecks for most or all of their working lives and still may face having no assistance at all when the time comes.
There's still the matter of millions of people not having insurance, which may or may not include the 76 million Baby Boomers getting older by the minute and a healthcare system that would be further behind the 8-ball than ever.
Then what do we do?
Whether you are pro-OC or anti-OC is irrelevant (at least to the point being debated). The only question is...did Obamacare impact peoples' lives? I am living proof that it did. That's why I didn't read any further...I'm not interested in discussing the pros/cons of Obamacare.
So, get rid of it. Then what?
Bhawk - just to be clear...the point being discussed/debated was whether or not political ideology impacts our lives, either for good or bad. Are you actually siding with BoyntonBrother in trying to claim that it does not impact our lives?
I don't care to debate the pros/cons of OC, or how we fix it, or what we do after Trump dismantles it, etc. The only reason that it came up was as an example of how political ideology impacts our lives.
The belief that the right to health care is a basic human right, or that money should be taken out of Joe's pocket to pay for Bill's health insurance, or that the government should be involved in regulating/mandating health care in any way whatsoever, etc....those basic presuppositions are part of a political ideology whether you care to admit it or not. Is there a fiscal aspect also. Sure, OK...but that doesn't negate the political ideology behind it.
[Edited on 1/23/2017 by Redfish7]
How one thinks we should go about doing those things, providing those services, and how we should pay for them is largely determined by one's political ideology.
I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans agreed that taxes would pay for those things.
And the primary point being debated was whether or not political ideology affects/impacts our lives. BoyntonBrother says "no". I say "yes". I used Obamacare as evidence that it does.
I was referring to how it evidently affects you emotionally based on your previous posts.
But I guess it was OK for these same kids and young people to see the vulgar things that were displayed at the march...
Only you have said that. And what was so vulgar? Any links?
Not to mention that women who are pro-life were not allowed to partner with the march. So much for women being united, and all that diversity and inclusiveness BS...
What do you mean? My pro-life co-worker went to the D.C. one and had a great time. Where do you get your info?
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.
Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.
Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts? 😉
So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.
Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.
Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts? 😉
So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.
Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.
Bhawk - just to be clear...the point being discussed/debated was whether or not political ideology impacts our lives, either for good or bad. Are you actually siding with BoyntonBrother in trying to claim that it does not impact our lives?
I don't care to debate the pros/cons of OC, or how we fix it, or what we do after Trump dismantles it, etc. The only reason that it came up was as an example of how political ideology impacts our lives.
The belief that the right to health care is a basic human right, or that money should be taken out of Joe's pocket to pay for Bill's health insurance, or that the government should be involved in regulating/mandating health care in any way whatsoever, etc....those basic presuppositions are part of a political ideology whether you care to admit it or not. Is there a fiscal aspect also. Sure, OK...but that doesn't negate the political ideology behind it.
The original tenets of what became the Affordable Care Act was concepted by a conservative think tank and was on the platform of a Republican presidential candidate. So, the question is, whose ideology drove what?
If you are going to claim effects of political ideology, where does it apply in matters of consensus? In this case, ideology defined the opposition to an act of government because a tenet of that ideology dictates that the opponent, the enemy, is not allowed a "victory," regardless of if it a positive or negative for the citizenry.
The Republicans could have sold this exact same plan if they had framed it using the "everyone must pay something, no freeloaders" approach. Now, that's an example of using ideology.
It also looks like you tend to start with the extremes of an ideology. Why?
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.
Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.
Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts? 😉
So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.
I thought BB was getting too close to insulting you and said so. How you interpret that is up to you.
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.
Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.
Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts? 😉
So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.
Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.
Contempt is equally returned when given.
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.
Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.
Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts? 😉
So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.
Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.
Contempt is equally returned when given.
Equally? Contempt is "returned" whether it's given or not.