Enuyasha said: »
I know you like to disrespect people in your responses, but if you can't even bother to respond normally, then what's the point in replying to what you said?
First Official GOP President Announcement
|
First official GOP President announcement
Stop being lazy and actually separate out what you said to what you are replying to. I know you like to disrespect people in your responses, but if you can't even bother to respond normally, then what's the point in replying to what you said? Other than creating a huge quote train, its basically the same thing. Youre creating an excuse so you dont have to reply to the points ive made because you know your argument is invalid. Its typically not in your behavioral pattern to not take the opportunity to sling around personal attacks, so please dont talk at me about disrespectful posting as that is hypocrisy in itself.
Enuyasha said: » Blatantly ignoring the fact that the law only says an individual needs to be under one policy which would mean that legally you can carry your spouses on your insurance policy which would mean you personally wouldnt be using the female coverage, but your female spouse/carry would. Even if we like, pretend the package is not already available from third party insurers for double or equal to the price anyway. But live in your delusions where a single male or a single female is the only person in need of health insurance. Enuyasha said: » You still do. And refer to the first bolded response. I have not taken any subsidies, BCBS just offers cheap package deals sometimes before they completely reneg and drop you. Youre using more strawmans or some other more broad span fallacies than you allege me of using at this point. Please admit that you dont understand this is exactly as Medicare/caid went into effect and has the same starting problems that system did or atleast your ignorance of it so you can move on with this played out excuse and logical dissonance. Enuyasha said: » Cherrypick all you want, most if not all of our problems are from Reagan, Bush sr/jr, Clinton (Though done in majority bipartisan in origin), and onward style needless deregulation and defunding. We had a surplus under Clinton too, does that mean that anyone who says anything bad about Clinton is Delusional as well or are you going to backpedal that argument and suddenly realize some bad choice figures that occurred under his presidency? The homeland may have been fine, but we still have the ripples of his (Reagan) inadequacy as a proper statesman today with cold war *** and useless deregulation. You can just wave that off, but it doesnt make it any less true no matter how many buzzwords and fallacious statements you throw at it. B) Clinton had a surplus mainly because of removing huge drains on the federal government out, like Sallie Mae, USPS, and Freddie Mac. Take out those huge expenses and look what happened... But seriously, stop being lazy in your responses, because you managed to quote others perfectly fine. I don't know why you choose to respond to me like you did... Well, other than to be completely disrespectful and also to try to pass random words together in a response and hope nobody notices. Zackan said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Lots of people died when Clinton lied, has nothing to do with *** either. Like I said. "Genocide opportunist" is not a pretty label. But when I have to weigh that vs. what is best -- or, least, what I think seems best -- for the majority of people in the country? Ugh. I *** hate that Hillary is the leading left candidate. I really want a better candidate overall. If there were a fiscally conservative candidate who wanted to keep our current systems in place, but have them administered in a more conservative fashion? I'd be all for that. Keeping disability and social security, but tightening restrictions on who qualifies? I'm in! Keeping food stamps and welfare programs funded, but capping numbers and incentivizing doing real work? I'm in! Cutting federal programs and discouraging states from funding these programs? Not...on board as much. There needs to be a balance. You act like that is not what will happen if Ted Cruz or Rand Paul actually get elected. I trust them both that they want to repeal, but it will not happen. They will end up meeting in the middle and instead of repealing stuff, it will be reforms. For medicare/medicaid, food stamps, just raise the requirements and lower the output. For Social Security that ***needs to be utterly and completely removed with a grandfather clause.. Like say anyone born 1975 or earlier? is eligible to receive it. If born later, no Social Security for you. Most people my generation expect it to be bankrupt anyway, so what is the difference? Well there goes 20 years or so of SS contributions I've made. Do I get any ROI for those (probably hundred or so of thousands of) dollars? Can I throw someone's grandma into the tar pits?
[+]
Hell with the ROI now I just want to throw someone in a tar pit !
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Well there goes 20 years or so of SS contributions I've made. Do I get any ROI for those (probably hundred or so of thousands of) dollars? Can I throw someone's grandma into the tar pits? Because if you did, why do they call it a tax? There has never been nor there ever was an account set aside with your name and SSN next to it for your personal use in later in life.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » Blatantly ignoring the fact that the law only says an individual needs to be under one policy which would mean that legally you can carry your spouses on your insurance policy which would mean you personally wouldnt be using the female coverage, but your female spouse/carry would. Even if we like, pretend the package is not already available from third party insurers for double or equal to the price anyway. But live in your delusions where a single male or a single female is the only person in need of health insurance. Enuyasha said: » You still do. And refer to the first bolded response. I have not taken any subsidies, BCBS just offers cheap package deals sometimes before they completely reneg and drop you. Youre using more strawmans or some other more broad span fallacies than you allege me of using at this point. Please admit that you dont understand this is exactly as Medicare/caid went into effect and has the same starting problems that system did or atleast your ignorance of it so you can move on with this played out excuse and logical dissonance. Enuyasha said: » Cherrypick all you want, most if not all of our problems are from Reagan, Bush sr/jr, Clinton (Though done in majority bipartisan in origin), and onward style needless deregulation and defunding. We had a surplus under Clinton too, does that mean that anyone who says anything bad about Clinton is Delusional as well or are you going to backpedal that argument and suddenly realize some bad choice figures that occurred under his presidency? The homeland may have been fine, but we still have the ripples of his (Reagan) inadequacy as a proper statesman today with cold war *** and useless deregulation. You can just wave that off, but it doesnt make it any less true no matter how many buzzwords and fallacious statements you throw at it. B) Clinton had a surplus mainly because of removing huge drains on the federal government out, like Sallie Mae, USPS, and Freddie Mac. Take out those huge expenses and look what happened... But seriously, stop being lazy in your responses, because you managed to quote others perfectly fine. I don't know why you choose to respond to me like you did... Well, other than to be completely disrespectful and also to try to pass random words together in a response and hope nobody notices. Let me tell you how your insurance quips fall apart quickly: The american dream is to ultimately be a fully functional member of society. This includes getting married, owning a home, having children, and being financially stable enough to support all the previous things. So lets run it down by who could possibly benefit from a "redundant" policy in the nuclear family of an ideal american dream circumstance. Males- Father Grandfather (or otherwise elderly individual) A Male child Females- Mother Grandmother (or otherwise elderly individual) A Female child Largely, this relies on every member of the family living under the same roof or a family lasting into elderly ages. Also, assuming the family procreates or adopts a child and that child stays on the policies into their mid twenties as the law allows. Even if they dont, the child would then have the option to purchase a plan which would function the same way whether or not any other person they come into contact has insurance thenselves. As far as having multiple policies per person you can STILL do this and the system itself as far as insurance goes ENCOURAGES this for better coverage. As far as homosexual pairings, this is what would apply under the whole "if they adopted" thing and "if they make it to be considered elderly". The good thing about already having benefits for elderly conditions is the rare case you actually need that coverage and when you need it down the line anyway. Again, like i said, when you apply logical thought these arguments you make easily fall apart and become perfectly moot even if you applied an example that is not representative of a more broad circumstance. As far as the other topics youve presented, im on my phone and you already did exactly as i said you would in those responses so theres no real point in readdressing an INB4 since i already did. And trust me, its not some type of reason just for you. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Well there goes 20 years or so of SS contributions I've made. Do I get any ROI for those (probably hundred or so of thousands of) dollars? Can I throw someone's grandma into the tar pits? Because if you did, why do they call it a tax?
[+]
Enuyasha said: » The american dream is to ultimately be a fully functional member of society. This includes getting married, owning a home, having children, and being financially stable enough to support all the previous things. Sucks to be you Pleebo! Enuyasha said: » Largely, this relies on every member of the family living under the same roof or a family lasting into elderly ages. Also, assuming the family procreates or adopts a child and that child stays on the policies into their mid twenties as the law allows. Even if they dont, the child would then have the option to purchase a plan which would function the same way whether or not any other person they come into contact has insurance thenselves. As far as having multiple policies per person you can STILL do this and the system itself as far as insurance goes ENCOURAGES this for better coverage. As far as homosexual pairings, this is what would apply under the whole "if they adopted" thing and "if they make it to be considered elderly". The good thing about already having benefits for elderly conditions is the rare case you actually need that coverage and when you need it down the line anyway. Again, like i said, when you apply logical thought these arguments you make easily fall apart and become perfectly moot even if you applied an example that is not representative of a more broad circumstance. As far as the other topics youve presented, im on my phone and you already did exactly as i said you would in those responses so theres no real point in readdressing an INB4 since i already did. And trust me, its not some type of reason just for you.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » The american dream is to ultimately be a fully functional member of society. This includes getting married, owning a home, having children, and being financially stable enough to support all the previous things. Sucks to be you Pleebo! Enuyasha said: » Largely, this relies on every member of the family living under the same roof or a family lasting into elderly ages. Also, assuming the family procreates or adopts a child and that child stays on the policies into their mid twenties as the law allows. Even if they dont, the child would then have the option to purchase a plan which would function the same way whether or not any other person they come into contact has insurance thenselves. As far as having multiple policies per person you can STILL do this and the system itself as far as insurance goes ENCOURAGES this for better coverage. As far as homosexual pairings, this is what would apply under the whole "if they adopted" thing and "if they make it to be considered elderly". The good thing about already having benefits for elderly conditions is the rare case you actually need that coverage and when you need it down the line anyway. Again, like i said, when you apply logical thought these arguments you make easily fall apart and become perfectly moot even if you applied an example that is not representative of a more broad circumstance. As far as the other topics youve presented, im on my phone and you already did exactly as i said you would in those responses so theres no real point in readdressing an INB4 since i already did. And trust me, its not some type of reason just for you. Its super boring, and it gets us nowhere when you cant actually constructively debate the concept before dismissing the argument against you. And before you deflect again, i was constructively addressing your points with an actual counter argument that was my own and not in any way yours except one particular common sense point. Enuyasha said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » The american dream is to ultimately be a fully functional member of society. This includes getting married, owning a home, having children, and being financially stable enough to support all the previous things. Sucks to be you Pleebo! Enuyasha said: » Largely, this relies on every member of the family living under the same roof or a family lasting into elderly ages. Also, assuming the family procreates or adopts a child and that child stays on the policies into their mid twenties as the law allows. Even if they dont, the child would then have the option to purchase a plan which would function the same way whether or not any other person they come into contact has insurance thenselves. As far as having multiple policies per person you can STILL do this and the system itself as far as insurance goes ENCOURAGES this for better coverage. As far as homosexual pairings, this is what would apply under the whole "if they adopted" thing and "if they make it to be considered elderly". The good thing about already having benefits for elderly conditions is the rare case you actually need that coverage and when you need it down the line anyway. Again, like i said, when you apply logical thought these arguments you make easily fall apart and become perfectly moot even if you applied an example that is not representative of a more broad circumstance. As far as the other topics youve presented, im on my phone and you already did exactly as i said you would in those responses so theres no real point in readdressing an INB4 since i already did. And trust me, its not some type of reason just for you. Its super boring, and it gets us nowhere when you cant actually constructively debate the concept before dismissing the argument against you. And before you deflect again, i was constructively addressing your points with an actual counter argument that was my own and not in any way yours except one particular common sense point. You see for an argument to be valid there has to be a point !
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Enuyasha said: » The american dream is to ultimately be a fully functional member of society. This includes getting married, owning a home, having children, and being financially stable enough to support all the previous things. Sucks to be you Pleebo! Enuyasha said: » Largely, this relies on every member of the family living under the same roof or a family lasting into elderly ages. Also, assuming the family procreates or adopts a child and that child stays on the policies into their mid twenties as the law allows. Even if they dont, the child would then have the option to purchase a plan which would function the same way whether or not any other person they come into contact has insurance thenselves. As far as having multiple policies per person you can STILL do this and the system itself as far as insurance goes ENCOURAGES this for better coverage. As far as homosexual pairings, this is what would apply under the whole "if they adopted" thing and "if they make it to be considered elderly". The good thing about already having benefits for elderly conditions is the rare case you actually need that coverage and when you need it down the line anyway. Again, like i said, when you apply logical thought these arguments you make easily fall apart and become perfectly moot even if you applied an example that is not representative of a more broad circumstance. As far as the other topics youve presented, im on my phone and you already did exactly as i said you would in those responses so theres no real point in readdressing an INB4 since i already did. And trust me, its not some type of reason just for you. Its super boring, and it gets us nowhere when you cant actually constructively debate the concept before dismissing the argument against you. And before you deflect again, i was constructively addressing your points with an actual counter argument that was my own and not in any way yours except one particular common sense point. Its tiring and you constantly follow through with the same routine every time youre actually confronted with something that invalidates your rhetoric. Please continue. I don't want to get into a semantics argument that you are trying to do, so I would like for you to drop it. I promise I will if you will.
Asura.Kingnobody said: » I don't want to get into a semantics argument that you are trying to do, so I would like for you to drop it. I promise I will if you will. This ***is still going on !
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Can I throw someone's grandma into the tar pits?
[+]
Polling time:
Quote: General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 40 Clinton +6 General Election: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Walker 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Paul 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 49, Cruz 43 Clinton +6 General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Rubio 43 Clinton +3 General Election: Christie vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Christie 37 Clinton +9 General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Huckabee 41 Clinton +7 General Election: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Carson 42 Clinton +5 General Election: Perry vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Perry 39 Clinton +9 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 54, Warren 14, Biden 7, Sanders 6, O'Malley 3, Webb 2 Clinton +40 Looks like Rubio is out in front atm. Depressing results though, ugh. Looks like the Dem strategy is churning along, throw Hilary out there to take all the hits, let the GOP spend millions trying to slander her, let them throw out candidates so they can fight amongst themselves, and keep the actual Dem candidates clear of it all. Its way too early still.
Of course it could easily be said that the GOP hasn't thrown out any serious candidates either, but they have spent millions trying to slander Hilary to no avail. Shiva.Viciousss said: » but they have spent millions trying to slander Hilary to no avail. Why would they, Hillary is doing a great job in giving herself a bad name. By the way, slander is a legal term where somebody is falsely stating something to damage one's reputation. Show the slander. Please, we can all do with a good laugh.
[+]
Nah, I'm good. I'm content with the results.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Nah, I'm good. I'm content with the results. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Polling time: Quote: General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 40 Clinton +6 General Election: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Walker 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Paul 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 49, Cruz 43 Clinton +6 General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Rubio 43 Clinton +3 General Election: Christie vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Christie 37 Clinton +9 General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Huckabee 41 Clinton +7 General Election: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Carson 42 Clinton +5 General Election: Perry vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Perry 39 Clinton +9 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 54, Warren 14, Biden 7, Sanders 6, O'Malley 3, Webb 2 Clinton +40 Looks like Rubio is out in front atm. Depressing results though, ugh. Ted Cruz @ 43 votes (Tied for the most) And Rand Paul in second place Ted Cruz in 3rd place for nomination.. not bad and we still got plenty of time. I like the results Zackan said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Polling time: Quote: General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 40 Clinton +6 General Election: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Walker 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Paul 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 49, Cruz 43 Clinton +6 General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Rubio 43 Clinton +3 General Election: Christie vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Christie 37 Clinton +9 General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Huckabee 41 Clinton +7 General Election: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Carson 42 Clinton +5 General Election: Perry vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Perry 39 Clinton +9 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 54, Warren 14, Biden 7, Sanders 6, O'Malley 3, Webb 2 Clinton +40 Looks like Rubio is out in front atm. Depressing results though, ugh. Ted Cruz @ 43 votes (Tied for the most) And Rand Paul in second place Ted Cruz in 3rd place for nomination.. not bad and we still got plenty of time. I like the results Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Zackan said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Polling time: Quote: General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 40 Clinton +6 General Election: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Walker 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Paul 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 49, Cruz 43 Clinton +6 General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Rubio 43 Clinton +3 General Election: Christie vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Christie 37 Clinton +9 General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Huckabee 41 Clinton +7 General Election: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Carson 42 Clinton +5 General Election: Perry vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Perry 39 Clinton +9 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 54, Warren 14, Biden 7, Sanders 6, O'Malley 3, Webb 2 Clinton +40 Looks like Rubio is out in front atm. Depressing results though, ugh. Ted Cruz @ 43 votes (Tied for the most) And Rand Paul in second place Ted Cruz in 3rd place for nomination.. not bad and we still got plenty of time. I like the results In any event, once Clinton makes it official then I'll donate to help the cause. If for some reason she doesn't then it's less, but when/if she does it's got to be more.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » In any event, once Clinton makes it official then I'll donate to help the cause. If for some reason she doesn't then it's less, but when/if she does it's got to be more. You're serious? o.O Zackan said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » In any event, once Clinton makes it official then I'll donate to help the cause. If for some reason she doesn't then it's less, but when/if she does it's got to be more. You're serious? o.O Now that I have the ability to do so why not?
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Polling time: Quote: General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 40 Clinton +6 General Election: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Walker 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Paul 42 Clinton +4 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 49, Cruz 43 Clinton +6 General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Rubio 43 Clinton +3 General Election: Christie vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Christie 37 Clinton +9 General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Huckabee 41 Clinton +7 General Election: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Carson 42 Clinton +5 General Election: Perry vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Perry 39 Clinton +9 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 54, Warren 14, Biden 7, Sanders 6, O'Malley 3, Webb 2 Clinton +40 Looks like Rubio is out in front atm. Depressing results though, ugh. Polls this far out mean nothing, their value comes in shaping and funneling public opinion rather than reflecting it. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.