John Arnold and the death benefit

[Lucrum]

Quote from drownpruf:

I'm ok with Cruz strapping a bomb to his chest. I don't see it as much of a stretch.

THIS is your best answer to a question you've dodged several times now? At this point I can only surmise you lack either the intellectual honesty and or the intelligence to answer the question.

I brought up the Constitution and I'll hazard a guess that you would label yourself a strict-constructionist.

More or less, yes.

So how do you feel knowing that your heroes (the majority of which) were slave-owners?

I have no issue with it. But then what the fuck could I possibly have done about it anyway?

I mean, you being a historian and all.

Enjoying history hardly makes me an historian. Although I guess it might appear that way sometimes compared to those who know so little history. Liberals in particular,

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from atticus:
07-20-13 07:24 PM
...I won't contribute to a site utterly lacking in any semblance of fair-play.

Kill my nick.

I'm being told by members I respect that you're a smart guy and excellent trader. Having started a thread to announce your "departure" from ET. Only to come back a few months later. I expect those guys to add drama queen to your bio.

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from Lucrum:

I'm being told by members I respect that you're a smart guy and excellent trader. Having started a thread to announce your "departure" from ET. Only to come back a few months later. I expect those guys to add drama queen to your bio.

TBH, I don't care what you or others think about my intellect, but if you knew my ed background you'd shit yourself with envy. I do find it comical that you allude to these PM conversations about my nick. Sounds reasonable to you?

You think you let the cat out of the bag regarding my previous nick? You seem to be the last to know as it's common knowledge. And I came back the following day, not months later, as a propagandist to get surfer removed.

Oh the irony of a guy referring to "drama queens" when his life revolves around ET with nearly 35,000 posts to his credit.

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from Lucrum:

THIS is your best answer to a question you've dodged several times now? At this point I can only surmise you lack either the intellectual honesty and or the intelligence to answer the question.


More or less, yes.

I have no issue with it. But then what the fuck could I possibly have done about it anyway?


Enjoying history hardly makes me an historian. Although I guess it might appear that way sometimes compared to those who know so little history. Liberals in particular,

You're a constructionist, who is ostensibly anti-slavery, yet has no issue with the fact that the writers were slave owners. Yet you use that decision by the Supremes (upholding slavery and leading to the CW) as an analogy to the current Supremes upholding Obamacare. Holy shit you're nuts. So which is it?

Dude, fix your html tags. It's poor netiquette.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from drownpruf:

It's sarcasm, and obv the ACA has no pre-existing condition exclusions, which relates to "aging-out" which is already covered by Medicare. omfg, really? It's about as likely as seeing mainland Siberia from Palin's yard. Is there anyone to converse with that doesn't have their head up their ass and calling it constipation? Tsing?

i don't really believe there will be death panels but costs will continue to rise and eventually benefits will have to suffer. Medicare contributions clearly don't cover the cost so seniors need to pay more, obamacare is not going to cover the cost of medicare. it is raising premiums on young people who have no need for comprehensive health insurance to cover those who were previously uninsurable, that's really all it does. oh and it adds a huge amount of bureaucrats and taxes. awesome.

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from PiggyBank:

i don't really believe there will be death panels but costs will continue to rise and eventually benefits will have to suffer. Medicare contributions clearly don't cover the cost so seniors need to pay more, obamacare is not going to cover the cost of medicare. it is raising premiums on young people who have no need for comprehensive healthcare to cover those who were previously uninsurable, that's really all it does. oh and it adds a huge amount of bureaucrats and taxes. awesome.

Talk to the CBO. You stating it as fact doesn't make it factual. I do understand your point, but disagree. I believe that ACA will be revenue neutral within a few years.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from drownpruf:

...If you knew my ed background you'd shit yourself with envy.

Not bloody likely, some of the dumbest people I've ever known were highly "educated". An observation and experience you are handily reinforcing.

I do find it comical that you allude to these PM conversations about my nick. Sounds reasonable to you?

Comical? I can't imagine why but don't bother explaining.

You think you let the cat out of the bag regarding my previous nick? You seem to be the last to know as it's common knowledge. And I came back the following day, not months later, as a propagandist to get surfer removed.

1) No I don't think I let the cat out of the bag, wind bag. Too many others already knew. (sound reasonable to you?) I hadn't noticed mostly because I never paid much attention to your last two nicks. Apparently you weren't as important to ET as you thought. 2)The fact you came back any time makes you a drama queen for announcing your departure along with your pledge not to contribute here. See how that works?

Oh the irony of a guy referring to "drama queens" when his life revolves around ET with nearly 35,000 posts to his credit.

And prey tell how many COMBINED posts do your last three known alias' have to their credit? Ya know, for an apples to apples comparison, genius.

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from Lucrum:



And prey tell how many COMBINED posts do your last three known alias' have to their credit? Ya know, for an apples to apples comparison, genius.

18,519. So you have 1.85x my posts, and I've been here over a year longer than you. Add the year and you have over 2x my posts.

riskarb, atticus, drownpruf. They teach arithmetic in Appalachia? Must be a grad-school course.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from drownpruf:

You're a constructionist, who is ostensibly anti-slavery, yet has no issue with the fact that the writers were slave owners.

What Issue should I have? Disregard the constitution and bill of rights they wrote because they like so many other wealthy men at the time owned slaves? The founders including the slave owners were very smart guys. Infinitely smarter than you or I.

Yet you use that decision by the Supremes (upholding slavery and leading to the CW) as an analogy to the current Supremes upholding Obamacare.

Yes they both shared the courts approval. As in the court is not always right. As is the court is wrong about the disaster known as Obamacare.

Dude, fix your html tags. It's poor netiquette.

What's wrong with them?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from drownpruf:

18,519. So you have 1.85x my posts.

And this makes you morally superior? Who knew.

riskarb, atticus, drownpruf. They teach arithmetic in Appalachia? Must be a grad-school course.

1)Now you're just being a jackass, again.
2) I had no idea how many other nicks you might have had. Hence my use of the word "Known" alias'. They not teach reading comprehension at all those prestigious universities you claim to have attended?