The ONLY word for this is tragic

[IlarMeilyr]

[

You have what?


I did not defend insurance companies, you can't defend your contradictory statements so you spin away.
You should be proud of yourself!

I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies...

I should be proud of myself.

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.

Joe:

Stop it. You're simply and openly wrong and your assertions are false.

You are NOT "standing up" for sick kids. You are contending that some vaporous "others" OUGHT to pick up the costs associated with ALL children being sick.

What you see as all noble and good and kind and generous is actually just another example of you being compassionate enough to spend other people's money.

Lots of more or less wealthy people already contribute far more than you ever will to the overall welfare of children and society, in terms of health care and in numerous other ways. It is their choice and their right to do so. But as long as you construct your fantasy universe entirely of cartoonish "us" vs "them" stereotypes, you think you have some right to compel them to pay what YOU imagine is necessary and appropriate.

I have a dislike of insurance companies in many ways. But I would indeed defend them against YOUR efforts to encroach on the property rights of either the companies or the insured folks who provide the capital to insurance companies. You do not get a vote in how other people must spend their income or their wealth.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You have what?


I did not defend insurance companies, you can't defend your contradictory statements so you spin away.
You should be proud of yourself!

I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies...

I should be proud of myself.

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.

Joe:

Stop it. You're simply and openly wrong and your assertions are false.

You are NOT "standing up" for sick kids. You are contending that some vaporous "others" OUGHT to pick up the costs associated with ALL children being sick.

What you see as all noble and good and kind and generous is actually just another example of you being compassionate enough to spend other people's money.

Lots of more or less wealthy people already contribute far more than you ever will to the overall welfare of children and society, in terms of health care and in numerous other ways. It is their choice and their right to do so. But as long as you construct your fantasy universe entirely of cartoonish "us" vs "them" stereotypes, you think you have some right to compel them to pay what YOU imagine is necessary and appropriate.

I have a dislike of insurance companies in many ways. But I would indeed defend them against YOUR efforts to encroach on the property rights of either the companies or the insured folks who provide the capital to insurance companies. You do not get a vote in how other people must spend their income or their wealth.

The problem with your delusion here, Welchy, is that someone's money is being taken.

Guess what. The money has already been allocated. We spend more than any country on Earth on Health Care. The problem is, not enough of it goes to treating the sick, and too much goes to fatten the wallets of the Ed Hanaway's of the world.

The $350,000 to pay for Nataline's Liver Transplant WAS there. Unfortunately, it was part of the 83 million they paid old Ed to retire.

 

[P@triot]

I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies...

I should be proud of myself.

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.

Joe:

Stop it. You're simply and openly wrong and your assertions are false.

You are NOT "standing up" for sick kids. You are contending that some vaporous "others" OUGHT to pick up the costs associated with ALL children being sick.

What you see as all noble and good and kind and generous is actually just another example of you being compassionate enough to spend other people's money.

Lots of more or less wealthy people already contribute far more than you ever will to the overall welfare of children and society, in terms of health care and in numerous other ways. It is their choice and their right to do so. But as long as you construct your fantasy universe entirely of cartoonish "us" vs "them" stereotypes, you think you have some right to compel them to pay what YOU imagine is necessary and appropriate.

I have a dislike of insurance companies in many ways. But I would indeed defend them against YOUR efforts to encroach on the property rights of either the companies or the insured folks who provide the capital to insurance companies. You do not get a vote in how other people must spend their income or their wealth.

The problem with your delusion here, Welchy, is that someone's money is being taken.

Guess what. The money has already been allocated. We spend more than any country on Earth on Health Care. The problem is, not enough of it goes to treating the sick, and too much goes to fatten the wallets of the Ed Hanaway's of the world.

The $350,000 to pay for Nataline's Liver Transplant WAS there. Unfortunately, it was part of the 83 million they paid old Ed to retire.

First of all, who are you to say that "not enough money goes to treating the sick"?

Second, if you don't like it, become the next Ed Hanaway and fix it.

You won't because you don't care. As it always is with the left, this is simply about control. You hate yourself and your life and you want to feel the power of controlling others. That's all this is. It's sad and it's very transparent.

 

[P@triot]

[

You have what?


I did not defend insurance companies, you can't defend your contradictory statements so you spin away.
You should be proud of yourself!

I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies...

I should be proud of myself.

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.

Joe:

Stop it. You're simply and openly wrong and your assertions are false.

You are NOT "standing up" for sick kids. You are contending that some vaporous "others" OUGHT to pick up the costs associated with ALL children being sick.

What you see as all noble and good and kind and generous is actually just another example of you being compassionate enough to spend other people's money.

Lots of more or less wealthy people already contribute far more than you ever will to the overall welfare of children and society, in terms of health care and in numerous other ways. It is their choice and their right to do so. But as long as you construct your fantasy universe entirely of cartoonish "us" vs "them" stereotypes, you think you have some right to compel them to pay what YOU imagine is necessary and appropriate.

I have a dislike of insurance companies in many ways. But I would indeed defend them against YOUR efforts to encroach on the property rights of either the companies or the insured folks who provide the capital to insurance companies. You do not get a vote in how other people must spend their income or their wealth.

 

[P@triot]

[

You have what?


I did not defend insurance companies, you can't defend your contradictory statements so you spin away.
You should be proud of yourself!

I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies...

I should be proud of myself.

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.

Joe:

Stop it. You're simply and openly wrong and your assertions are false.

You are NOT "standing up" for sick kids. You are contending that some vaporous "others" OUGHT to pick up the costs associated with ALL children being sick.

What you see as all noble and good and kind and generous is actually just another example of you being compassionate enough to spend other people's money.

Lots of more or less wealthy people already contribute far more than you ever will to the overall welfare of children and society, in terms of health care and in numerous other ways. It is their choice and their right to do so. But as long as you construct your fantasy universe entirely of cartoonish "us" vs "them" stereotypes, you think you have some right to compel them to pay what YOU imagine is necessary and appropriate.

I have a dislike of insurance companies in many ways. But I would indeed defend them against YOUR efforts to encroach on the property rights of either the companies or the insured folks who provide the capital to insurance companies. You do not get a vote in how other people must spend their income or their wealth.

 

[MeBelle]

[

You have what?


I did not defend insurance companies, you can't defend your contradictory statements so you spin away.
You should be proud of yourself!

I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies...

I should be proud of myself.

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.

Proud of yourself for lying again?

You aren't standing up for poor sick children.

You don't even have the balls to deal with your contradicting statements.

 

[P@triot]

[

Ah - now he moves the goal posts to "was it worth it?". I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about WMD's (since you are the one who brought them up).

It's hard for me to take this seriously since there are two glaring flaws:

1.) There are uninformed ass-hat's like you running around out there, completely ignorant of the fact that thousands of WMD's have been uncovered in Iraq

2.) Many polls are designed by ass-hats like you who have an agenda of starting with their conclusion and then working backwards to find something that supports their pre-determined conclusion.

Guy, we did not go to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914. Bush presented an IMMINENT threat posed by Saddam.

As a result, he made Iraq safe for the Ayatollahs. And now the Ayatollahs can resupply Syria with impunity.

Dude - we already disproved your asinine "cutting edge weapon of 1914" quote that you keep using because you keep losing.

You yourself said that Sarin Gas would have been legitimate - and that's exactly what was found in Iraq.

It was a WMD. Bush was right. Get over it.

 

[JoeB131]

[

First of all, who are you to say that "not enough money goes to treating the sick"?

Second, if you don't like it, become the next Ed Hanaway and fix it.

You won't because you don't care. As it always is with the left, this is simply about control. You hate yourself and your life and you want to feel the power of controlling others. That's all this is. It's sad and it's very transparent.

Uh, guy, this is what you don't get. Maybe you are dense.

We ALREADY fixed it.

Insurance companies can't disallow for pre-existing conditions.

They are required to spend 85% of their budgets on treatments.

They can no longer set maximums on coverage.

GET IT. We DEMANDED they do it right. And they will. Or they'll go out of business and we get single payer.

I don't really care which.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Ah - now he moves the goal posts to "was it worth it?". I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about WMD's (since you are the one who brought them up).

It's hard for me to take this seriously since there are two glaring flaws:

1.) There are uninformed ass-hat's like you running around out there, completely ignorant of the fact that thousands of WMD's have been uncovered in Iraq

2.) Many polls are designed by ass-hats like you who have an agenda of starting with their conclusion and then working backwards to find something that supports their pre-determined conclusion.

Guy, we did not go to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914. Bush presented an IMMINENT threat posed by Saddam.

As a result, he made Iraq safe for the Ayatollahs. And now the Ayatollahs can resupply Syria with impunity.

Dude - we already disproved your asinine "cutting edge weapon of 1914" quote that you keep using because you keep losing.

You yourself said that Sarin Gas would have been legitimate - and that's exactly what was found in Iraq.

It was a WMD. Bush was right. Get over it.

Stockpiles of Sarin Gas would have been legitimate.

Something someone mixed up in his kitchen wasn't.

But you avoid the point. Who runs Iraq now? Those Iraqi Thomas Jeffersons you guys all claimed would come out of the woodwork when Saddam was gone?

Nope. The Ayatollahs run Iraq now.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You have what?


I did not defend insurance companies, you can't defend your contradictory statements so you spin away.
You should be proud of yourself!

I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies...

I should be proud of myself.

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.

Proud of yourself for lying again?

You aren't standing up for poor sick children.

You don't even have the balls to deal with your contradicting statements.

Your lack of reading comprehension and inability to reason is not a contradictory statement.

Come back and bother me when you are less retarded...

 

[P@triot]

[

First of all, who are you to say that "not enough money goes to treating the sick"?

Second, if you don't like it, become the next Ed Hanaway and fix it.

You won't because you don't care. As it always is with the left, this is simply about control. You hate yourself and your life and you want to feel the power of controlling others. That's all this is. It's sad and it's very transparent.

Uh, guy, this is what you don't get. Maybe you are dense.

We ALREADY fixed it.

Insurance companies can't disallow for pre-existing conditions.

They are required to spend 85% of their budgets on treatments.

They can no longer set maximums on coverage.

GET IT. We DEMANDED they do it right. And they will. Or they'll go out of business and we get single payer.

I don't really care which.

You haven't "fixed" shit. What you've done (as libtards always do) is broke our healthcare system and our economy.

And there is no "we" Joe. You are on the outside fringe with the rest of the communists. Now WE (ie normal Americans) are trying to fix the disaster you and a few radical ass-wipes created.

Now that we've cleared up your bullshit - back to the question you keep running from: why won't you get off your lazy ass and become the next Ed Hanaway and do it better?

(It's a simple question Joe - why do you fear it and run from it?)

 

[P@triot]

Guy, we did not go to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914. Bush presented an IMMINENT threat posed by Saddam.

As a result, he made Iraq safe for the Ayatollahs. And now the Ayatollahs can resupply Syria with impunity.

Dude - we already disproved your asinine "cutting edge weapon of 1914" quote that you keep using because you keep losing.

You yourself said that Sarin Gas would have been legitimate - and that's exactly what was found in Iraq.

It was a WMD. Bush was right. Get over it.

Stockpiles of Sarin Gas would have been legitimate.

Something someone mixed up in his kitchen wasn't.

But you avoid the point. Who runs Iraq now? Those Iraqi Thomas Jeffersons you guys all claimed would come out of the woodwork when Saddam was gone?

Nope. The Ayatollahs run Iraq now.

It's run by the Iraqi people (psst...Joe....the Ayatollah is Iran)

 

[JoeB131]

[

You haven't "fixed" shit. What you've done (as libtards always do) is broke our healthcare system and our economy.

And there is no "we" Joe. You are on the outside fringe with the rest of the communists. Now WE (ie normal Americans) are trying to fix the disaster you and a few radical ass-wipes created.

Now that we've cleared up your bullshit - back to the question you keep running from: why won't you get off your lazy ass and become the next Ed Hanaway and do it better?

(It's a simple question Joe - why do you fear it and run from it?)

Guy, I don't want to be the next Ed Hanaway.

Ed Hanaway is a reprehensible human being who was willing to let a teenage girl DIE.

I want a world that doesn't have Ed Hanaways in it.

But, yeah, we fixed the insurance industry and their evil... and frankly, republicans are already "learning to live with ObamaCare".

Cause it's never going away.

 

[JoeB131]

[

But you avoid the point. Who runs Iraq now? Those Iraqi Thomas Jeffersons you guys all claimed would come out of the woodwork when Saddam was gone?

Nope. The Ayatollahs run Iraq now.

It's run by the Iraqi people (psst...Joe....the Ayatollah is Iran)

Pssst.... I think you are showing your ignorance here.

Ayatollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ayatollah ( is a high-ranking title given to Usuli Twelver Shī‘ah clerics. Those who carry the title are experts in Islamic studies such as jurisprudence, ethics, and philosophy and usually teach in Islamic seminaries

In short, they have Ayatollahs in Iraq. Because 65% of the Population of Iraq is Twelver Shi'ites.

More to the point, when we pulled out, the Iranians moved right in.

Arianna Huffington: Iraq and Iran: A Partnership Made in America

With the war there officially "ended" and most of our troops back home, Iraq isn't getting much ink these days. But the story is far from over. Indeed, according to Wadah Khanfar, former director general of Al Jazeera, Iraq is still the most important story in the Middle East -- with a far greater impact on the region's future than Syria. "Nobody's paying attention to Iraq anymore," he told me during dinner in London over the weekend, "but it's becoming a client state of Iran, with a giant amount of oil between them." This state of affairs is, of course, primarily our doing.

In truth, we've "teamed" with Iran in propping up the Shiite government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- so stability and self-reliance remain elusive goals for Iraq. And Iraq's closest partnership is no longer with the U.S. but with its Shiite neighbor. The evidence increases by the day.

The Associated Press last week called Iran the "big brother" to Prime Minister al-Maliki's government, noting that Iran "helped create" the al-Maliki administration in 2010 and is now "calling in favors among its allied factions in Iraq" to keep the al-Maliki government from falling in a no-confidence vote. "Iran's fingerprints are all over al-Maliki's inner circle," the AP noted.


Or to put it in terms your tiny mind can get around.


OH SHIT!!!!!!

 

[jasonnfree]

[

First of all, who are you to say that "not enough money goes to treating the sick"?

Second, if you don't like it, become the next Ed Hanaway and fix it.

You won't because you don't care. As it always is with the left, this is simply about control. You hate yourself and your life and you want to feel the power of controlling others. That's all this is. It's sad and it's very transparent.

Uh, guy, this is what you don't get. Maybe you are dense.

We ALREADY fixed it.

Insurance companies can't disallow for pre-existing conditions.

They are required to spend 85% of their budgets on treatments.

They can no longer set maximums on coverage.

GET IT. We DEMANDED they do it right. And they will. Or they'll go out of business and we get single payer.

I don't really care which.

You haven't "fixed" shit. What you've done (as libtards always do) is broke our healthcare system and our economy.

And there is no "we" Joe. You are on the outside fringe with the rest of the communists. Now WE (ie normal Americans) are trying to fix the disaster you and a few radical ass-wipes created.

Now that we've cleared up your bullshit - back to the question you keep running from: why won't you get off your lazy ass and become the next Ed Hanaway and do it better?

(It's a simple question Joe - why do you fear it and run from it?)

Broken "our" healthcare system? The most expensive healthcare system in the world. What makes republicans worship corporate wealth and hate the average person? If modern republicans were alive during the boston tea party times they'd be posting hate messages about the tea partiers throwing tea overboard that belonged to a corporation. Good thing these anti american repubs are a dying breed.

 

[kiwina]

I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job. Obama. ObamaCare it is then.

Deal with it.

realy? are you listing? Are you saying that we should elect some on and let them leed us around by the nose? Are you saying that our opion only os valid at election time when the man was voted on by his good looks, "stupid is as stupis does"

 

[LoneLaugher]

I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job. Obama. ObamaCare it is then.

Deal with it.

realy? are you listing? Are you saying that we should elect some on and let them leed us around by the nose? Are you saying that our opion only os valid at election time when the man was voted on by his good looks, "stupid is as stupis does"

Well said, bro.

 

[thanatos144]

I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job. Obama. ObamaCare it is then.

Deal with it.

realy? are you listing? Are you saying that we should elect some on and let them leed us around by the nose? Are you saying that our opion only os valid at election time when the man was voted on by his good looks, "stupid is as stupis does"

Well said, bro.

your avatar is offensive...

 

[P@triot]

Uh, guy, this is what you don't get. Maybe you are dense.

We ALREADY fixed it.

Insurance companies can't disallow for pre-existing conditions.

They are required to spend 85% of their budgets on treatments.

They can no longer set maximums on coverage.

GET IT. We DEMANDED they do it right. And they will. Or they'll go out of business and we get single payer.

I don't really care which.

You haven't "fixed" shit. What you've done (as libtards always do) is broke our healthcare system and our economy.

And there is no "we" Joe. You are on the outside fringe with the rest of the communists. Now WE (ie normal Americans) are trying to fix the disaster you and a few radical ass-wipes created.

Now that we've cleared up your bullshit - back to the question you keep running from: why won't you get off your lazy ass and become the next Ed Hanaway and do it better?

(It's a simple question Joe - why do you fear it and run from it?)

Broken "our" healthcare system? The most expensive healthcare system in the world. What makes republicans worship corporate wealth and hate the average person? If modern republicans were alive during the boston tea party times they'd be posting hate messages about the tea partiers throwing tea overboard that belonged to a corporation. Good thing these anti american repubs are a dying breed.

It was the BEST healthcare in the world. Who gives a flying fuck what the cost is? You get what you pay for ass wipe. Are you such a tight-wad cheap-ass that you want Detroit Dollar Store open heart surgery when you could have Rodeo Dr. Gucci open heart surgery?!?

You're a fuck'n moron! Cuba has done this with their healthcare - how is that working out ass-hat?

 

[P@triot]

[

You haven't "fixed" shit. What you've done (as libtards always do) is broke our healthcare system and our economy.

And there is no "we" Joe. You are on the outside fringe with the rest of the communists. Now WE (ie normal Americans) are trying to fix the disaster you and a few radical ass-wipes created.

Now that we've cleared up your bullshit - back to the question you keep running from: why won't you get off your lazy ass and become the next Ed Hanaway and do it better?

(It's a simple question Joe - why do you fear it and run from it?)

Guy, I don't want to be the next Ed Hanaway.

Ed Hanaway is a reprehensible human being who was willing to let a teenage girl DIE.

I want a world that doesn't have Ed Hanaways in it.

But, yeah, we fixed the insurance industry and their evil... and frankly, republicans are already "learning to live with ObamaCare".

Cause it's never going away.

And that's why I said become the NEXT Ed Hanaway and do it BETTER. I did not say become Ed Hanaway.

You keep running from this and pretending like you don't understand because it proves you're a worthless asshat and ends the debate.

It's over stupid. You're a lazy, worthless, communist who wants government to put a gun to the head of the American tax payer and force them to provide for your lazy, worthless ass. You've been exposed for what you are...

As they say Joe: "Liberalism: Ideas so good, they have to be FORCED on other people"