Senator Sanders, in his own words

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Introducing universal healthcare isn't a piece of major legislation?
Click to expand...
Nope

First, it was an unfinished bill. It didn't come with a funding mechanism. It spelled out what but not how.

Second, it never even made it to the floor for a vote.

Third and I think this is most important. It was simply not politically acceptable to the people of this country. Bernie's bill was a mandate that everybody would switch to federal health care program. There are 80 million people who already have health care coverage. About 80% of them like their health care plan. What that plan would have done is to create 60 millon angry people. Scott Lamb won by 700 votes. If he supported that poisonous bill, A Republican would have his seat instead of a Democrat. He supported making the ACA better and he won with that policy.

No sir. That plan, if it had made it into a serious national debate would have ensured Republican control of Congress for the foreseeable future. It would have enabled Republicans to do away with the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid

That symbolic bill that you believe in so much without any real understanding.fails because it wasn't a complete bill, it never saw the light of day and would have forced 80 million people out of coverage that they already have and like.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
All opinions here.

Yours directly help Trump.
Click to expand...
False logic, which thus casts doubt on the rest of your opinions here.

The notion that I owe the Democratic Party my vote or loyalty when they don't effectively represent me is fundamentally flawed and even antidemocratic.

Not to mention self serving.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
I think wasting time whining about 2016 is idiotic.

I explained to you before about taking money doesn't guarantee a damn thing.

How many disappointed donors are there?
Click to expand...
Examining the disaster of 2016 is extremely instructive if one actually wants to make changes to better reflect the votes of its base.

Nancy Pelosi herself is on record as saying the Democratic Party plans no such corrections, so why should I support them?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
My company used to donate to both sides.

I guess they were always behind the eight ball, right?

There is such a thing as good money.

Maybe you just don't like money. Most people do.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to bet they 'earned' an excellent return on their investment in political bribery.

You must be proud. Did you personally profit? Are you a stockholder? If so, you're an accomplice. If not, merely a sucker.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Are all bernouts this divisive? I can't even be friends with people now? I mean, I'm not friends with you because you say stupid shit, like that time you claimed that more is expected of you at work because you are a white guy. So you want me to stop being friends with people who acknowledge idpol and be friends with you instead?

You're dumb. :lol:
Click to expand...
This post proves how divisive YOU are.

Nevermind childish.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You must be blind. You and Buckwit and your Merry band of ballwashers have made attacks, personal and otherwise the centerpiece of your 'debate' style for years now.

If you don't like being on the receiving end, then try to grow up and debate on the merits and without puerile insults, you know, like an actual intelligent adult.
Click to expand...
So "merry band of ballwashers" is not a personal attack?

That's why your only friends on this site are schuylaar and padaraper. Get a job gringo.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I never consented to your "purchase" of real estate property. That land is only made "yours" by threat of violence against other natural persons who may happen upon it not to trespass.
Click to expand...

For the time being, I'll speak to this in a generic way, rather than a personal level, to try to
establish a basis for defining property.

Your point is reasonable, except human beings are physical, meaning we have to exist somewhere and no two human beings can occupy the same physical space at once. That's a feature of nature, not a manmade construct. So our physicality and having to occupy SOMEWHERE is not a thing we can consent to or not, it is a pre-existing condition of our being.

So, if you are occupying a physical space prior to me, if I come to you and attempt to remove you, my action would be an application of offensive force. I would be the attacker. Your action, to defend that space you physically occupy would be defensive, since you would be repelling my offensive force.

Further in order for people to exist they require things from the physical world, food, water, shelter etc. Therefore the food that you might harvest or grow in the area you occupy is said to be "property" and if you grew it, etc. it would be YOUR property and not mine.


Where do you agree or disagree, so far?
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
That bill was poison to the goal of enacting universal health care legislation.
Click to expand...
If you are a fan of Universal Healthcare and it became a law, would you be in favor of using guns to enforce that law against peaceful people who decided they didn't want to go along with your idea or would you leave them in peace?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.
Click to expand...
That was cryptic. Let me guess, you mean that defining property makes no sense, because you don't believe some things can be owned or can't be owned to the extent that some people claim they can be owned?

It would help if you offered a definition of the range of things which you think can (or should) be owned and why. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top