Holy....that was...quite a press conference.
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
OK. If you insist, then we are the ones making the ransom demand in this case! But you are incapable of understanding even that. We held their money hostage to our demands. You are a fool, jem. You arguments here have made that clear to me for the first time. I hate to say it. But you are a fool.
Wow, you are incredibly slow to realize.
On the topic I 100% agree with you. The money was owed by the US for a long time. What the US did is called DIPLOMACY, they tried to get the max out of something they owed anyway. What was better, pay the money and that is it or pay the money and squeeze additional concessions out of a deal. I think where some on the right side get hung up on is that they want to avoid the slightest impression of "ransom" to avert future demands and threats. Except in this case it was not a ransom but money the US owed for a long time. We can make a choice, to lower our standard to that of dictatorships and banana republics or we can follow through on obligations and deals/promises. I know that with Trump in power the role model is exemplifying the exact opposite standard, the many times he has denied suppliers payment of rendered services are testimony to a new approach to agreements and whether promises are to be kept or not.
On the topic I 100% agree with you. The money was owed by the US for a long time. What the US did is called DIPLOMACY, they tried to get the max out of something they owed anyway. What was better, pay the money and that is it or pay the money and squeeze additional concessions out of a deal. I think where some on the right side get hung up on is that they want to avoid the slightest impression of "ransom" to avert future demands and threats. Except in this case it was not a ransom but money the US owed for a long time. We can make a choice, to lower our standard to that of dictatorships and banana republics or we can follow through on obligations and deals/promises. I know that with Trump in power the role model is exemplifying the exact opposite standard, the many times he has denied suppliers payment of rendered services are testimony to a new approach to agreements and whether promises are to be kept or not.
It's not so much hatred as a feeling of complete apathy for someone like you and their well-being. Sort of like how you would view a buzzing house fly or mosquito.
Then why not take a bet with me to prove that? Wait, I know, because you know you're full of shit, right? I mean, if I was 100% convinced of something, I'd definitely wager on it. It's a no-lose!
I did well under Obama. But unlike you, I don't view Obama's success by how well I did under his Presidency, but by what his policies could potentially do for my child in the long run. Not sure about the two persons thing...whatever that means. But then again, half the time you appear to be rambling.
Huh? To sum up, you admit to trolling me and making up shit (which is really what you do most of the time) which you call "banter", but again your statement trails off into rambling. Not quite sure what the second half of your statement even means. I think I need an English to Volpunter dictionary.
I honestly don't care what you think. In fact, the more wrong someone like you thinks I am, the more comfortable I am with my position on something. And the escort agency thing was proven false, and the publication that put it out there retracted it and apologized (after being threatened with a lawsuit over defamation).
Sorry, are you talking to me? Other than the admin/moderator account I had, what multiple handles do I have? And what am I conning you on?
I major problem Trump has got is the repeal of Obamacare on day one. A promise already broken. He is not even going to be able to repeal it unless it is in the semantic sense. The ACA was a deal worked out with insurance companies that traded mandated coverage, and thus a risk pool containing a big boost at the low risk end, for broadened and less restrictive coverage. Everyone of the "repairs" offered by Republicans, so far, breaks that necessary link between lowered risk to insurers and broadened coverage. Without it we will be right back where we were with pre-existing conditions assigned to a separate high risk pool with sky high premiums, and vast numbers without any coverage except via the emergency room.
If the Republicans were really interested in improving U.S. health care they would dismount from their ideological highhorse, repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, make coverage completely independent of employment and employers, and bring back the public option.
Last edited:
It's not so much about the promises he has already broken. I am still searching for any of the promises he actually kept and turned into action.
you no longer have any argumentation. like just about every lefty here you no longer answer with substance... you don't even go one post deep any more. you may give a link to something off point... but no substance.
You know damn well it was ransom money but you can't go against the memory of your dear leader, soros puppet.
like Margaret Thatcher said... The facts of life are conservative (which is classical liberalism.)
You know damn well it was ransom money but you can't go against the memory of your dear leader, soros puppet.
like Margaret Thatcher said... The facts of life are conservative (which is classical liberalism.)
for instance.... piezoe
you have never even gone one post deep on McCarran - Ferguson. I have asked you a handful of times to explain you obsession with this act... you never do. you are mindless repeating something read from daily kos or pro publica. Obamacare and the dems who passed it were not limited by McCarran Fergusson in way.
I have asked you why you keep bringing it up since it is not an impediment to obamacare. There is one point you could make, its a point that exists independent of Obamacare and I would find it interesting... but you never make it.
you have never even gone one post deep on McCarran - Ferguson. I have asked you a handful of times to explain you obsession with this act... you never do. you are mindless repeating something read from daily kos or pro publica. Obamacare and the dems who passed it were not limited by McCarran Fergusson in way.
I have asked you why you keep bringing it up since it is not an impediment to obamacare. There is one point you could make, its a point that exists independent of Obamacare and I would find it interesting... but you never make it.