Health Care for Everyone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danoff
  • 1,658 comments
  • 219,631 views
Rush, whatever his good arguments may be, is annoying in that he does come of as arrogant. Savage is probably the worst of them.
 
Now, to go back a few hours, I want to respond to this post which you accused me of skipping.

Originally posted by milefile
How should I know? Maybe so people don't starve to death.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is physically why the is "universal food" in the United States. But lets move a little deeper. Why is it considered just that money/food should be taken from those who earned it and given to those who didn't? To me, that is the real iinjustice.

What system? What are you talking about? All I'm saying is that it's hard to let people die when they can be saved. Are you saying it's supposed ot be easy to let people die?
Click to expand...
Where did you get that? "Out of left field"?

The system I'm talking about is socialism.

Sure, it's hard to let people die. It's hard to get myself out of bed in the morning and go to work; it was hard to pay off my student loans. Nobody promised me life wouldn't be hard. I'm not eager to face death myself, but considering that I think the magic of my simple existence is enough to be grateful for, I'm not going to wail about any injustice when it's my turn to die. If I can afford to be cured, I will be. If not, I will die. I've been on borrowed time for 38 years, 4 months, and 5 days at last count. It's my job to extend that if I can. It's not your job to make sure I can.
Me too. And to let all these supreme individuals die and/or suffer is sad, that's all. Where do we differ here?
Click to expand...
See my paragraph above. We differ because while I agree it is sad, I see no obligation on my part to help them live, and I see no obligation on their part to help me live - unless it is freely chosen for mutual benefit in some way.

Again, I was never promised that life wouldn't be sad. However, the potential exists for great happiness if I can make it for myself. And it sure beats the alternative - never having existed at all.

Duke's words here: Others see the collective - call it "makind", call it "society", call it "the government", call it "life" - as supreme. Which, paradoxically, places no value whatsoever on the individual person. All are only seen by what they can give to others - others who are only valued by how much they need.
I don't know where you got this from. I don't think that.
Click to expand...
I got that from your numerous posts on this board, where you've taken a similar stance on questions concerning welfare, minimum wages, exploitation, etc. Your continual undertheme has been that somehow it must be made possible for all people to be supported (with the implied standard of the American lower-middle class as a minimum), regardless of the economic reality of their situations. Ask anyone you choose for their general impression and interpretation. I don't believe I'm the only one who has gotten this impression from your posts.

It does exist, but not for everybody, and is shrinking dramatically for many more. My coverage has been lessened while it has doubled in cost.
Click to expand...
OK. So has mine, which is provided by my wife's company, a large international corporation. It's more expensive than when she started in the company 12 years ago, and many things are covered less than they were. But the prior coverage was only so good because the company had huge cash reserves, gained from earlier decades when there was no such thing as "fringe benefits". I am NOT saying that the cost of insurance is what drove the company into financial trouble. It was a great company to work for and offered cradle-to-grave security for anyone who performed above the barest of minimums. But like all forms of socialism, it is not sustainable. Profits slipped. Reserves dipped. Pretty soon the company - and it's a huge company - was, like many nations, in financial trouble. The simple fact remains than income must be greater than outflow for an organism to survive, be it a person or a company or a society. No matter how much that hurts to hear, it's the truth. If that means that benefits are reduced, that's what it means. My wife is free to find a better job. So far, none has appeared - so she accepts what is available. That's not injustice, that's not society's problem, that's the circumstances of our life, with which we have to deal.
I need my tonsils removed. But it would cost me $6000.00 out of pocket so I can't do it. A co-worker of mine has pointed out to me that when he adds up the medical costs for his family, and then adds his premiums to that, he would've spent less money paying out of pocket. And prescription coverage, which is the real meat and potatoes of any health plan for most people, is insufficient in many cases.
Click to expand...
Your tonsillectomy is not my problem. My back pain is not your problem. Why is this unfair? Find a better job or find a cheaper doctor. I wouldn't dream of complaining to you that I can't afford surgery. It's not your problem, any more than it is society's problem. It's my back injury, it's my pain, it's my life. I accept that.
So if you're suggesting the health system in America is healthy and functioning well, I have to disagree. Even doctors are aware of the emphasis on profit over care. There is nothing in the hypocratic oath about pinching pennies for insurance companies. There is no good that will come from an HMO manager making patient treatment decisions with no medical training and having never even met the patient. Medicine's primary tool is not a ten-key machine. But it would seem that way a lot of the time.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting that. There is nothing in the hippocratic oath about pinching pennies for insurance companies - but then, who is responsible for earning those pennies in the first place? Anybody who wants to can spend as much as they like on health care, if they've got enough money to do it. People who don't are limited to what they can provide for themselves by buying insurance or paying out of pocket.

If doctors can provide those services for less money, they should. If they can't, they shouldn't. Implied in your whole paragraph above is the idea that it is somebody else's problem - that someone is never defined - to make expensive health care cheap.

There are only two possible places from which that subsidy can come - the doctors and drug companies, who must voluntarily take less money for their products - or from the government. But of course, the government just takes it from people who earn money and give it to people who don't.

Socialism. The enslavement of those who have, in service of those who have not.
But you are perfectly willing to stand there and say: "OK, you've earned $100,000 this year? Give me $40,000 of it in taxes - or else." Why is that?
What? No I'm not. And I don't know what I said that would make you think that.
Click to expand...
What makes me think that is the myriad posts you've made, saying that it is unjust that some people should be poor, starve, freeze, and die. The money to feed, house, and cure those people has to come from somewhere. Do I have to draw you a picture?

Taxes.
My car breaks down - my bad luck, or maybe I neglected it. Either way, I need it to get to work and the grocery store. Why on earth would I consider it my mechanic's duty to fix it for me, regardless of my ability to pay him, just because I need it?
I don't know. Would you? I wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Yet you are willing to require a doctor or an insurance company or the government to pay for someone's medical treatment. Explain to me why that is different; somehow "more acceptable".

Remembering always that saying "the government provides it" means that "the government takes it away from me and gives it to you".
It's a perfect parallel. You are just not able to get past the idea that every person is somehow responsible for every other person on the planet.
Again. I don't know where you got that from. I don't think that.
Click to expand...
Again. See every previous answer I've made to this comment.
I don't feel internal conflict. I just wouldn't want to be the one who says "You are going to die because nobody will help you." No matter how much you bring catch-words like "the state" and "society" into it, you are telling that person (supreme individual) that they are not worth saving. But I still don't know where you derived any of the labels you slapped on me. Certainly not from my post. I'm not for socialized anything. I just appreciate the weight of the problem and can't pretend it's more simple than it is. You seem to have mastered comprehension of Western Civilization and all of it's problems, are able to toss out the final word off-the-cuff. To me it seems cavalier and I'm suspicious of it.
Click to expand...
You sure seem to feel internal conflict. You've certainly made plenty of threads and posts in this forum discussing some crisis of conscience you've had or are having. You've made posts saying you support capitalism, yet tempered that with socialistic tendencies like mandatory minimum wage and universal health care. On more occasions than I can recount you've denied my insistance that some things are black and white; you've even said that everything is grey and nothing is objective or permanent.

All of those actions point to an unresolved logical/philosophical conflict in you. That's why I said what I did.

You may take this as a personal attack if you wish. I'll go on record as stating it's not intended as one. It's intended to further the discussion at hand.

You have another post a little later to which I really need to reply, but I'm more than out of time right now.
 
Originally posted by milefile
A simple yes or no would've sufficed. Then you're not as capitalist as you say. Danoff is right. Health insurance is socialistic. You pay whether you get sick or not. When you're not sick someone else gets the benefit, the benefit you expect when you get sick, the treatment you are not paying for, but others are. And you do this voluntarily. You chose it because it is beneficial and necessary.
Click to expand...
Actually, a simple yes or no wouldn't have sufficed, as you would have seen if you'd bothered to read my answer. Health insurance is not socialistic because:
  • It's voluntary on my part - I can always choose not to participate. Socialism is not voluntary, by definition.
  • I pay all the time, but only get benefit when I'm sick - that much is correct. But it is still capitalistic, because I'm not paying money into a pot that anyone can take from that pot when they need it. I'm paying that money in exchange for having my insurance company assume the risk of me needing health care.
I could just as well pay money to myself in a special account reserved for just such a risk and hedge my bets that way. I can get better terms on that from an insurance company, so I don't. Putting it another way, I'm not buying the actual dollars used to pay my doctor. I'm buying the coverage of some unknown future costs. That's not socialistic in any way.
 
Regarding the way-too-long post.

Since you have broadened the scope of this thread to include other threads and your personal interpretations of me, I shall do the same, but I will be succinct and less boring.

The perspective you define is what sucks about America.

You are defensive and belligerent, stingy and pompous. You erroneously believe you have the solutiuons to modern life. If we all just thought like you the world would be perfect.

To you there is no room for discussion, no need to exchange ideas. You only read a post so you can attempt to dicount it. Your entire way, based on what I know, is obsessed with control and paranoia over what will be taken from you. You are a neverending well of negativity and cynicism. This is the root of your self righteousness.

There is no other way to interpret you. It is not so much your opinion that proves this, but rather the manner with which it is delivered. Your game is predictable and transparent. You have not fooled me or anyone else, hiding behind your magnified illusion of intelect at nobody's expense but your own.

Reading your posts just makes me pity you. And the worst part is since your a moderator I can't ignore you. But like you point out, nobody ever said life is fair, right?

I have said all I have to say about this. I feel no need to endlessly paraphrase and nit-pick every word you post. It's all out there for the world to read. I'm happy with that and with what I said.

By the way, you really should listen to Rush Limbaugh. You'd like him.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Actually, a simple yes or no wouldn't have sufficed, as you would have seen if you'd bothered to read my answer. Health insurance is not socialistic because:
  • It's voluntary on my part - I can always choose not to participate. Socialism is not voluntary, by definition.
  • I pay all the time, but only get benefit when I'm sick - that much is correct. But it is still capitalistic, because I'm not paying money into a pot that anyone can take from that pot when they need it. I'm paying that money in exchange for having my insurance company assume the risk of me needing health care.
I could just as well pay money to myself in a special account reserved for just such a risk and hedge my bets that way. I can get better terms on that from an insurance company, so I don't. Putting it another way, I'm not buying the actual dollars used to pay my doctor. I'm buying the coverage of some unknown future costs. That's not socialistic in any way.
Click to expand...

This is BS. Nice try though.

As an experiment, why don't you tell your wife you'd like to cancel the insurance and just start a medical fund. See what she says. One serious illness would wipe it out. So it's not voluntary. You need it. And you know it.

It's only un-socialistic in that a handful of people skim their cut off the top and get rich while investing your money. It socialism in every other way. Where are your universal principles now?
 
I don’t listen to any of these radio shows you guys keep talking about. I don’t really know what these people think, but I really hate it when I hear party politics, and most of those shows are all about that.

I do not think insurance companies are socialistic. They cannot be because they’re not the government. As duke said, if an independent company wants to take on the risk of my health, that’s fine. If they can make it cost effective for me, I’ll pay for it.

What I’m against is the concept (that most people have) that the insurance companies are necessary. I’d like to see a conceptual shift in people’s way of thinking to once again be willing to actually pay money for health care (rather than pay taxes). Many people don’t actually sit down and ask themselves whether the insurance plan that they’re on will actually save them money. They just buy into the plan thinking that insurance is just the way things are done. Look at dental coverage for example.

When I started working at this company, dental coverage for me would have been 25 bucks / month. In my opinion this is a huge ripoff. I asked my dentist how much a cleaning would be, he said it’d be around 60 bucks. So if I pay for the coverage (which gives me 2 cleanings / year) then I’ve bought a 300 dollar / year dental plan that pays for cleanings worth 120 dollars / year Of course, this assumes that nothing goes wrong with my teeth. But wait, what if I have a cavity, how much is that? It turns out to be 100 dollars. So if I had 1 cavity each year (no way) and paid for 2 cleanings all out of pocket, I’d still hang on to 80 bucks more / year.

Now the coverage would also pay for a fraction of additional work (bridges, root canals, porcelain teeth) – but with a deductible and only a small fraction.

So I opted to not take the dental plan (see there, it’s not socialist because I can opt not to take it). I figured it wasn’t worth my money, and it hasn’t been. Looking back over my expenses for the last year, I’ve made out like a bandit. I’ve pocketed an extra 200 bucks already with that decision. I want people to think of their health coverage in those terms.

To answer a question that was posed to me, if I can’t pay for cancer treatment, I die. Simple as that. I know this sounds rough, but I don’t plan on having to deal with that scenario because I’d take out a loan (I haven’t ruined my credit). I’d find a way to scrape up the money (by letting even more people make money in interest off of me). Maybe I’d visit family members and see if they’d loan me the cash. I’d find a way. A totally novel and unheard of way to do it is to actually take that kind of thing into consideration and save up the money in advance, or at least a chunk of it so that the loan doesn’t have to be so high.

What this is all about is a shift in the American way of thinking about health care that started back in the post WWII era. People have begun to think of doctors as civil servants, and health care as a function of the government that no person should have to do without… like police or military. But the distinction here is that nowhere in the founding of our nation does it say that we will provide for everyone’s health. It says we’ll enforce the law. One is necessary the other is not. One is expensive, the other is ridiculously expensive.

The reason universal health care doesn’t work is the same reason so many other programs like it don’t work. The money is taken out unevenly and the rich shoulder the burden. After already shouldering an excessive burden of providing police and military, they now have to pay for a few hundred people to get health care. The rich already provide jobs and take huge risks with enormous amounts of money all benefiting the American economy. They do it all with individual responsibility for their own actions. Why is it that we must excuse so many people from responsibility of their own actions?
 
I can already predict the response here. It says: “Oh you’re making sound like it’s soooooooo tough to be rich… yea right.”

I’ll ask you this. If it’s not tough to be rich, then why aren’t you?




That’s why I’m not - because it’s tough.
 
Originally posted by danoff
I can already predict the response here. It says: “Oh you’re making sound like it’s soooooooo tough to be rich… yea right.”

I’ll ask you this. If it’s not tough to be rich, then why aren’t you?




That’s why I’m not - because it’s tough.
Click to expand...

This proves you're not merely saying your opinion. You're already having the argument in your head, your second guessing. You're covering your bases. You gave yourself away. And neon duke gives himself away all the time.

The two of you have no integrity at all. You'll say anything to be right and it ends there. When there is nobody to fight, the thread dies.

Interesting how a moderator has such a negative effect on his forum.
 
Originally posted by milefile
This is BS. Nice try though.

As an experiment, why don't you tell your wife you'd like to cancel the insurance and just start a medical fund. See what she says. One serious illness would wipe it out. So it's not voluntary. You need it. And you know it.

It's only un-socialistic in that a handful of people skim their cut off the top and get rich while investing your money. It socialism in every other way. Where are your universal principles now?
Click to expand...
My universal principals are right where they always are. It's your premise that is mistaken. I've explained why. You choose to ignore that explanation; the choice is yours but the fault does not lie with the statement itself.

Those people get rich because they provide me a service I'm willing to pay for. As soon as I'm not willing to pay for it, they cease to get rich from me. How does this weaken my universal principles?

And, actually, my wife and I discuss the insurance vs. self-insurance every year when we re-enroll. We also examine which of several levels is most cost-effective, based on our needs and expenses of the previous year. It's not that difficult to analyze and decide.

Your premise about needing insurance is not valid, either. You're correct, I do need insurance because at the moment it is the most cost-effective way of providing the security we need.

But it is still voluntary. I can choose not to eat, as well, despite the fact that my body needs food. I can choose not to insure myself, and gamble that our family health will be good. That's my risk to take if I wish to do so. Nobody will arrest me and jail me if I don't have health insurance; they may just refuse to treat me unless I can demonstrate ability to pay for it. That's well within their rights.

But what happens if I don't pay my taxes? At best I get prosecuted and fined. What happens if I don't pay the fines? Ask Leona Helmsley.

That's what I mean about voluntary and involuntary. Clear enough?
 
Originally posted by milefile
This proves you're not merely saying your opinion. You're already having the argument in your head, your second guessing. You're covering your bases. You gave yourself away. And neon duke gives himself away all the time.
Click to expand...
Please do elaborate. I'm totally at a loss here to understand what you mean.

The two of you have no integrity at all. You'll say anything to be right and it ends there. When there is nobody to fight, the thread dies.
Click to expand...
I'm also at a loss here. You're saying that the two people who champion the idea of concrete, universal principles, and whose every post in this forum is logically derived from those clearly stated and consistently held principles, have no integrity?

Interesting how a moderator has such a negative effect on his forum.
Click to expand...
Why? Because I refuse to be swayed by your flawed logic and poor debate skills?

I challenge you to point out an instance when I have ever used my position as a moderator in this forum, at least as a method of amplifying my personal opinion. On several occasions I've gone out of my way to STATE that I'm giving a personal opinion, not a moderator's opinion. Incidentally, I've only been a moderator for precisely 3 months and 3 weeks, but you'll find my convictions and debate haven't changed in my year-plus membership here.
 
I'm going to get in trouble because it's hard to keep from laughing here at my desk. You have got to be kidding me. You act like you're something important, like like world hangs in the balance of your "opinion". If you are to be believed, you are always right, you are incapable of error.

I never accused you of abusing moderator power. I merely observed that a moderator injects an abundance of negativity into this forum. You are like the opinion cop. The act is old. You just like to argue. I can't take that seriously. Don't you ever get tired of quoting every little detail (conveniently skipping ones you can't fit into your "universal principles") in posts, endlessly nit-picking and twisting people's words, using colored fonts and itallics and bold-type as if every sentence you type has something worth extra emphasis, blindly insisting you are right? You obviously have all the answers. Why do you even come here? To enlighten everybody? Have you brought anybody over to way of thinking lately? Why don't you write a book? You could call it "Predictable Regurgitations for Those Who Can't Think for Themselves."

It's like you're afraid to see something you didn't already know. Everything you say conceals more than it reveals.

When I choose to drop out of a debate with you (this is the second time) I always already know that you will believe the reason is whatever is most convenient for you (I know there is no way you would ever question yourself. You might learn something or grow.). But I do it anyway because it doesn't matter and I have more important things to do with my time. In fact, I can't think of anything that matters less.

You're just an insignigicant drag. I can't be bothered anymore to dissect your posts because I deplore repetitive tasks. I always already know what the response will be (your opinion is easy to master) and the entire episode concludes in my head before I even finish reading your posts. The irony is that we basically agree in the last analysis. You just can't comprehend how anyone could arrive at the same place in a different way. You cover this up by insisting I am a "liberalist" when, in fact, this is false. I'm just not an asshole.

You obviously have more time on your hands than me to be willing to continue spinning your wheels like that. Enjoy. Like I said, everything I need to say on this topic is already there, and wasting my time on you enhances nothing. Time to move on to the next thing.
 
Attacking with generalities and dropping out of the debate is not something to be proud of.
 
I know there is no way you would ever question yourself. You might learn something or grow
Click to expand...

The reason I'm here is to do just that.

Why are you here? To grow? To listen? I think you're here to get frustrated and leave.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Regarding the way-too-long post.
Click to expand...
I've said it before to others and I'll say it again to you. Don't expect me to tailor the rigor and depth of my own thought process to suit your attention span.
Since you have broadened the scope of this thread to include other threads and your personal interpretations of me, I shall do the same, but I will be succinct and less boring.

The perspective you define is what sucks about America.

You are defensive and belligerent, stingy and pompous. You erroneously believe you have the solutiuons to modern life. If we all just thought like you the world would be perfect.

To you there is no room for discussion, no need to exchange ideas. You only read a post so you can attempt to dicount it. Your entire way, based on what I know, is obsessed with control and paranoia over what will be taken from you. You are a neverending well of negativity and cynicism. This is the root of your self righteousness.

There is no other way to interpret you. It is not so much your opinion that proves this, but rather the manner with which it is delivered. Your game is predictable and transparent. You have not fooled me or anyone else, hiding behind your magnified illusion of intelect at nobody's expense but your own.

Reading your posts just makes me pity you. And the worst part is since your a moderator I can't ignore you. But like you point out, nobody ever said life is fair, right?

I have said all I have to say about this. I feel no need to endlessly paraphrase and nit-pick every word you post. It's all out there for the world to read. I'm happy with that and with what I said.

By the way, you really should listen to Rush Limbaugh. You'd like him. [/B]
Click to expand...
If you think I'd like Rush Limbaugh based on your analysis of me above, I hope I never hear him except in the interest of general experience.

It's funny to see you portray me as some kind of arch-conservative. Other people on this board with whom I've debated have called me a flaming liberal. I suppose it depends on the predisposition of the one doing the name calling.

For what it's worth, I hugely enjoy debate and the free exchange of ideas, but you're mistaken in thinking that requires me to bend to the prevailing will of the discussion. I read posts here not to belittle them as you suggest, but to look for people who can demonstrate a coherent opinion that betters my own logic, in order to correct my own mistakes or premises. I come here looking for differing views that are better-constructed than my own so I can learn from them. That doesn't mean I have to surrender to the weight of disagreeing opinion if I do not accept the thought process behind it.

I disagree with many people but I respect those who have shown me they formed their opinions after as thorough a thought process as mine. I have utmost respect for Der Alta despite the fact that we are on completely opposite sides of the religious debate. I respect vat_man despite our disagreement on social issues. Ask danoff about the difference between an agnostic and an atheist, and why he considers himself one while I consider myself the other.

You used to show evidence of that kind of rigor. I haven't seen it lately. Perhaps it is simply the task of responding to your perception of me that prevents it.

A small, but logically correct set of premises, such as those enjoyed by danoff and I, allows a great freedom of thought to the person who can understand them truly and hold them clearly. You seem to think I'm a narrow-minded prig, yet I've voted Libertarian in every election since reaching my majority. You're actually falling into the conservative trap that they usually fail to see concerning civil issues such as drug use, homosexuality, and religion.

I believe what I earn is mine to dispose of as I see fit. No one has a right to take that money from me against my will. That is a simple, logical premise on which I base my opinions and actions. Yet from that foundation, what I choose to do with my money is open to the widest possible interpretation:
  • I can buy food, clothes, a house, and cars with it.
  • I can roll it up into a little tube and snort cocaine through it.
  • I can open a soup kitchen or an orphanage.
  • I can endow a fellowship for Libertarian Architecture students at my favorite university.
  • I can bury it in little jars in my back yard.
  • I can invest it in the stock market, T-bills, or horse races.
  • I can tithe it to the church of my choice.
  • I can take 20% of my paycheck in crisp $5 bills at the bank, and hand one to each homeless person I meet on the way home.
You can do none, any or all of those things too. The point is, the choice is ours to make since we earned the money. But if you take that 20% of my paycheck as taxes to fund public housing and food stamps and universal health care, that choice is taken from me. And from you.

I am defensive and belligerent only when you speak of restricting my rights to do as I please to myself and my posessions.

I'm not cynical - I believe life is a wonderful thing, and man is capable of amazing feats of ingenuity, beauty, and love. I'll wager my opinion of man in general is far better than yours.

I am not stingy. I love taking friends out to dinner and giving them things I think they'll like. I'm always first to reach for the check or take my daughters' friends to the movies. My wife has a closet full of wool she will never have time to knit, yet I encourage her to buy more simply because it makes her happy to have it available to her.

Nor am I a control freak. I have no desire to control you or what you do with your posessions. I am paranoid over my own earnings being taken from me, but by the flip side of that I have no desire to take anything from you. I earned my money and I want it. You earned your money and I want you to have it - knowing that you are free to do with it as you please, as described above.

You speak of being self-centered as if it's a bad thing. Actually, given your perception of "self-centered", it probably is - but the significance lies in the definition of "self-centered". You say that I see cruelty as the inevitable outcome of capitalism, yet that actually seems to be the only possible outcome you see. I on the other hand see a system of great opportunity and liberty for all who chose to participate, free from coercion and full of promise.
If we all just thought like you the world would be perfect.
Click to expand...
That's truer than you know and yet you've totally failed to understand in what way it is true. I do think I understand the key to modern life and happiness, yes. But it is not the fascist world of "all must agree with me" that you are supposing. It is in the willing and open association of people who are free to choose their own associates, friends, partners, employers, employees, customers, and merchants. Yet all are based on [a few] fundamental, concrete principles that allow common ground between the most widely varying of views:
  • Ends do not justify means.
  • Never use violence against another who has not initiated violence first.
  • Do not live your life for anyone, and do not ask anyone to live their life for you.
It really could be as simple as that. There's so much room to build and grow and wander within those three simple, universal lines.
 
thank you, milefile, for blessing this thread with your holier-than-thou presence. I certainly enjoy reading your condescending posts. This thread has gone the way of so many others:
I state my opinion alongside yours and others.
People disagree with all of us.
You attack back with generalities and feelings.
You are explained incorrect by details and logic.
You get mad and call everyone names.
You claim the reason you are leaving is because you are too intelligent for us.

Ironic isn’t it? That you should claim that the reason we can’t understand you is because we’re stupid. Doesn’t decent intelligence imply some communication skills? I thought you were proud of yours? Why then are you so unable to communicate in specifics and examples? I’ll tell you why. You learned a long time ago that specifics and examples thwart your way of thinking (which is that whatever feels right is right).
 
He's wonderful at that. This entire thread has been nothing but him accusing me of attitude and behaviour and opinions he himself holds. In fact it's probably the clearest example of it to date.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we all entitled to health care??????
What does everyone else think?
 
Go back and look at all these threads that danoff has started. They all end the same way. I get sick of beating a dead horse. The flies come in and lay their maggots on the argument (last several posts by neon duke and danoff) and M5 makes a joke or two. And it's over. Again.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Go back and look at all these threads that danoff has started. They all end the same way. I get sick of beating a dead horse. The flies come in and lay their maggots on the argument (last several posts by neon duke and danoff) and M5 makes a joke or two.
Click to expand...

Cynical bastard. Since we appear done here, how old is your Grand Cherokee?
 
No, no, no, I'm the one that's cynical.

He is the one that has the Jeep, though.
 
Arguments ensue when people make claims they can't substantiate. I can't help it if the thread dies after that.
 

Latest Posts

Back