New York City

[Walker]

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about healthcare subsidies for those who otherwise couldn't afford health care. Do you have anything to say about that?

You mean, other than using the Democrat plan that broke the system, to fix the system?

Of course.
The Democrats stop holding the country hostage for $1.5 trillion.
Government continuing the spending spree at current levels, for the next couple of weeks, until the next deadline.
During that time, begin the legislative process of negotiation to fix what Obamacare broke.

It's a rather simple map, Gary. Do you have anything to say, other than to go on about the starving children and folks keeling over in the streets because they are not refused treatment at hospitals and clinics?

[Walker]

Nevermind lousy healthcare caused by Obamacare.

Just wait until people can't fly because of the Democrat shutdown of the paychecks.
Or worse.

Guess whose fault that will be.

[Gary Childress]

So, since you're fixated on Republicans vs. Democrats, you would rather not see affordable healthcare, is that correct, Walker? Otherwise, what is the point of your rant?

[Walker]

Gary, no need to put stupid words in my mouth.
You do just fine putting stupid words in your own mouth.

I've explained the process that should be followed.
The legislators should work it out according to the design of the constitution, through legislative deliberation.
In fact, they should do it proto.
Before mid-term elections.
Fix the damn thing.
Quit saying the motor was eaten by snakes, you flakes.

Don't make any more major decisions in a panic, which is the Democrat way.

*

Once again, this thread is about New York City, and the commie mayor.

Your distractions are noted, answered, and now ignored at least by me, the one with the answers.

[accelafine]

Tell it to Obama.
It's his health care program.
Obama is a Democrat.
Every Democrat voted for the Obama plan.
The USA is following the Obama plan.
How's that working out?

And the big question is, why would those who broke it, have a say in fixing it?
Especially when their opposition was elected into power?
Stupid doesn't fix stupid.

It just doesn't make any sense, but that doesn't stop the Democrats from subverting the will of the people all over the duly elected authorities.

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about healthcare subsidies for those who otherwise couldn't afford health care. Do you have anything to say about that?

He thinks 'affordable healthcare' is a euphemism for Communism. He's too cowardly to say it outright of course, so he says it in gibberish and cutesie riddles instead.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, no need to put stupid words in my mouth.
You do just fine putting stupid words in your own mouth.

I've explained the process that should be followed.
The legislators should work it out according to the design of the constitution, through legislative deliberation.
In fact, they should do it proto.
Before mid-term elections.
Fix the damn thing.
Quit saying the motor was eaten by snakes, you flakes.

Don't make any more major decisions in a panic, which is the Democrat way.

*

Once again, this thread is about New York City, and the commie mayor.

Your distractions are noted, answered, and now ignored at least by me, the one with the answers.

And what does the "design of the constitution" have to say or not say about subsidized health care for people who otherwise couldn't afford it? Or what would you like to see done to make health care more affordable for all?

[accelafine]

Gary, no need to put stupid words in my mouth.
You do just fine putting stupid words in your own mouth.

I've explained the process that should be followed.
The legislators should work it out according to the design of the constitution, through legislative deliberation.
In fact, they should do it proto.
Before mid-term elections.
Fix the damn thing.
Quit saying the motor was eaten by snakes, you flakes.

Don't make any more major decisions in a panic, which is the Democrat way.

*

Once again, this thread is about New York City, and the commie mayor.

Your distractions are noted, answered, and now ignored at least by me, the one with the answers.

And what does the "design of the constitution" have to say or not say about subsidized health care for people who otherwise couldn't afford it? Or what would you like to see done to make health care more affordable for all?

Decent health care for everyone is 'Commie', but military spending is not. 'Walkers' are everything that is wrong with your country.

[Immanuel Can]

Shouldn't everyone have health care?

Paid for by whom?

Maybe some of those who are paying billions to fund the military or police departments or to pay for juicy government contracts for Elon Musk's companies could pay for health care? Is there something wrong with everyone having health care?

Is that what you see happening? Under the Democrats, did Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or George Soros, or Fink, or the elites of Hollywood, or any of the Dems get poor? Did you see them redistribute their personal earnings in order to create equality, or to fund the healthcare system? Why didn't that happen, if the Dems are advocates for it?

Answer: because they're not. They're elitists, "limousine liberals," who want to keep their own millions while telling the poor of America what to do. They don't risk their own money; they just take yours.

[Belinda]

Paid for by whom?

Maybe some of those who are paying billions to fund the military or police departments or to pay for juicy government contracts for Elon Musk's companies could pay for health care? Is there something wrong with everyone having health care?

Is that what you see happening? Under the Democrats, did Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or George Soros, or Fink, or the elites of Hollywood, or any of the Dems get poor? Did you see them redistribute their personal earnings in order to create equality, or to fund the healthcare system? Why didn't that happen, if the Dems are advocates for it?

Answer: because they're not. They're elitists, "limousine liberals," who want to keep their own millions while telling the poor of America what to do. They don't risk their own money; they just take yours.

But, Immanuel, to maintain equality of distribution requires constant work and care. The Devil of greed always pervaded the real world, so people of goodwill have to work and sacrifice to keep the Devil of greed at bay.

You are not helping by pointing out that some people say they want to stop greed, while their actions belie their words. Neither are such people an excuse for the rest of us to do nothing.

[Age]

Paid for by whom?

Maybe some of those who are paying billions to fund the military or police departments or to pay for juicy government contracts for Elon Musk's companies could pay for health care? Is there something wrong with everyone having health care?

Is that what you see happening? Under the Democrats, did Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or George Soros, or Fink, or the elites of Hollywood, or any of the Dems get poor? Did you see them redistribute their personal earnings in order to create equality, or to fund the healthcare system? Why didn't that happen, if the Dems are advocates for it?

Answer: because they're not. They're elitists, "limousine liberals," who want to keep their own millions while telling the poor of America what to do. They don't risk their own money; they just take yours.

It is great to see that you have finally been able to recognise and see for "yourself", here, "immanuel can".

Now, 'we' will just have to wait to see if "walker" will also be able to.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe some of those who are paying billions to fund the military or police departments or to pay for juicy government contracts for Elon Musk's companies could pay for health care? Is there something wrong with everyone having health care?

Is that what you see happening? Under the Democrats, did Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or George Soros, or Fink, or the elites of Hollywood, or any of the Dems get poor? Did you see them redistribute their personal earnings in order to create equality, or to fund the healthcare system? Why didn't that happen, if the Dems are advocates for it?

Answer: because they're not. They're elitists, "limousine liberals," who want to keep their own millions while telling the poor of America what to do. They don't risk their own money; they just take yours.

But, Immanuel, to maintain equality of distribution requires constant work and care. The Devil of greed always pervaded the real world, so people of goodwill have to work and sacrifice to keep the Devil of greed at bay.

How have these Dems, these "people of goodwill" been doing lately? What's Nancy Pelosi's net worth up to, now? When will she start to "redistribute" to create "equity" for "oppressed people" she loves so much? Will it happen this year?

How about Obama? How about Biden? Are they thinking of selling any of their various properties, or donating them to become homeless shelters? How about all those folks in Martha's Vineyard...what happened to the migrants who were shipped there? Where are they now?

You are not helping by pointing out that some people say they want to stop greed, while their actions belie their words.

I certainly am. Because these are the people who demand to be our leaders, and demand to tell the poor that they are morally obligated to share their worldly goods with others. And yet, they do not. So should we do what the Dems tell us to do, or do what the Dems actually do?

The answer will not be found in the Dems.

[Belinda]

Is that what you see happening? Under the Democrats, did Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or George Soros, or Fink, or the elites of Hollywood, or any of the Dems get poor? Did you see them redistribute their personal earnings in order to create equality, or to fund the healthcare system? Why didn't that happen, if the Dems are advocates for it?

Answer: because they're not. They're elitists, "limousine liberals," who want to keep their own millions while telling the poor of America what to do. They don't risk their own money; they just take yours.

But, Immanuel, to maintain equality of distribution requires constant work and care. The Devil of greed always pervaded the real world, so people of goodwill have to work and sacrifice to keep the Devil of greed at bay.

How have these Dems, these "people of goodwill" been doing lately? What's Nancy Pelosi's net worth up to, now? When will she start to "redistribute" to create "equity" for "oppressed people" she loves so much? Will it happen this year?

How about Obama? How about Biden? Are they thinking of selling any of their various properties, or donating them to become homeless shelters? How about all those folks in Martha's Vineyard...what happened to the migrants who were shipped there? Where are they now?

You are not helping by pointing out that some people say they want to stop greed, while their actions belie their words.

I certainly am. Because these are the people who demand to be our leaders, and demand to tell the poor that they are morally obligated to share their worldly goods with others. And yet, they do not. So should we do what the Dems tell us to do, or do what the Dems actually do?

The answer will not be found in the Dems.

You repeat yourself.I say again, others' faults are not an excuse for you to do nothing but complain. I understand why you are annoyed, but you should redistribute your good fortune despite others not doing so.

[Immanuel Can]

But, Immanuel, to maintain equality of distribution requires constant work and care. The Devil of greed always pervaded the real world, so people of goodwill have to work and sacrifice to keep the Devil of greed at bay.

How have these Dems, these "people of goodwill" been doing lately? What's Nancy Pelosi's net worth up to, now? When will she start to "redistribute" to create "equity" for "oppressed people" she loves so much? Will it happen this year?

How about Obama? How about Biden? Are they thinking of selling any of their various properties, or donating them to become homeless shelters? How about all those folks in Martha's Vineyard...what happened to the migrants who were shipped there? Where are they now?

You are not helping by pointing out that some people say they want to stop greed, while their actions belie their words.

I certainly am. Because these are the people who demand to be our leaders, and demand to tell the poor that they are morally obligated to share their worldly goods with others. And yet, they do not. So should we do what the Dems tell us to do, or do what the Dems actually do?

The answer will not be found in the Dems.

You repeat yourself.I say again, others' faults are not an excuse for you to do nothing but complain.

Well, you have not the slightest idea what I do. And it would be cheap of me to try to convince you, one way or the other.

But you do know the Dems don't do what they tell everybody else to do. And you know they're liars and hypocrites. About me, you'll just have to speculate; but let's imagine I did turn out to be a hypocrite myself. That wouldn't tell you that the Dems had stopped being hypocrites...it would just tell you that you had one more hypocrite.

And when those "others" want to rule us, and want to tell us what good social policy is, and want to claim the moral high ground for themselves, it's very useful for us to know they're hypocrites...which they most certainly are. That much, we do know for sure.

[Belinda]

For all I know you could be correct. You are certainly correct that I don't know you and I should not have implied you were uncharitable. I apologise.

I understand that you are using the plight of unfortunates for political leverage and I do not think that is right. If the Dems are as bad as you say they are then don't you need to vote for some other political party?

If all politicians are as bad as you say are then you need to vote for the least bad.

If your point is that it would be a great thing if a party politician give all her money to the poor and disadvantaged, then I heartily agree. Camels and needles eye.

[Immanuel Can]

For all I know you could be correct. You are certainly correct that I don't know you and I should not have implied you were uncharitable. I apologise.

I'm not hurt. And it's a fair enough assumption, since many people are not particularly charitable.

I understand that you are using the plight of unfortunates for political leverage and I do not think that is right.

You're hilarious.

"Political leverage"? I have no such thing. But look at what the Dems want for themselves: control of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. And do you note that they hesitate to use "the plight of unfortunates" to leverage their way to power? You know very well they don't.

If the Dems are as bad as you say they are then don't you need to vote for some other political party?

I'm not American. I don't have to take a side.

If all politicians are as bad as you say are then you need to vote for the least bad.

No, that's not logical. You really don't need to vote at all, if all the candidates are corrupt. Or maybe you need to run for office yourself. But you don't need to join yourself with evil, merely because they don't offer you an alternative.