Post New

It's time to tell everyone in person and online.... I'm Republican, and you should vote Republican---- so we can make sure those ACA subsidies don't come back.


C'mon Republicans, let's be loud and proud about it --- especially in swing states with a million + people on ACA.


Let's post all over the place, tell them how it sucks, and we're out to repeal it.

Be back in a few....

PS: Dems, please dont' go AOC. We're gonna give this to you....at least be nice in return ?

C'mon Republicans, let's be loud and proud about it --- especially in swing states with a million + people on ACA.

One of the funniest things I ever read on FB, was by the husband of an old g/f of mine. He posted "build the wall! repeal Medicare!". Even his own friends replied "are you crazy? we PAID for Medicare".

His friends are clearly "out of step". All the programs that benefit Proles need to be repealed, so that the money can be given to the "JCs". The "JCs" are entitled to that money, because they are rich.
/sarcasm

Steve

The dems are 90% likely to sweep the midterms. After all, why wouldn't they?

-The out-of-power party almost always wins
-The left's foot soldiers are going to riot all summer and there are bloody shirts to be waved.
-The media will downplay economic data no matter how wrong they've been the entire time (every goober here said tariffs would kill the economy, clearly hasn't happened)

So on and so forth. The rioters are even now setting up "Papers, please" checkpoints in Minne-haha to make sure you're not ICE and using their kids as human shields. Remember, every left wing accusation is in fact a confession.

So the dems will likely win. But then what?

I get that you like Obamacare. But as a policy, it's a failure. Complete. Utter. Failure. Healthcare is more expensive than it's ever been and the democrats have ZERO ideas (just read this board) on what to do about it.

Trump will still be the President. Oh, the democrats will launch another Star Chamber Impeachment and put the country through that again because they're a collection of loser adult babies who need to distract the voters from their incompetence, but it won't matter: Before he leaves, Trump will:

-Pardon himself
-Pardon his family
-Pardon every single member of ICE and the DOJ

...for anything any of them did.

Someone will come along and claim that blanket pardons don't work, will never fly, blah blah blah but those someones will refuse to ack the Hunter Biden...blanket pardons that they all supported.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on the census. You think the democrats care about illegal immigrants? There's only one reason they're fighting to keep them around. In 2028 you're going to see a very different electoral map.

Healthcare is more expensive than it's ever been and the democrats have ZERO ideas (just read this board) on what to do about it.

Is single-payer health care (Medicare for All) not an idea?

I know it's not one you endorse. But it's certainly a proposal that a large chunk of the party supports. It doesn't have uniform support within the party, but the same is also true of any single idea on the GOP side (lots would support getting rid of the ACA in favor of market-based solution, but not enough within the GOP to actually enact that into law).

Is single-payer health care (Medicare for All) not an idea?

Sure. Even terribly unworkable ideas count as ideas. But only a couple of democrats are willing to come out and publicly support it since they know it'll collapse under its own weight.

It doesn't have uniform support within the party, but the same is also true of any single idea on the GOP side (lots would support getting rid of the ACA in favor of market-based solution, but not enough within the GOP to actually enact that into law).

Obama was smart enough to set up a system that resulted in the government giving something away to the voters...and if the Republicans tried to do anything, they'd have to put themselves in the position of taking something away from the people (no matter how bad the thing is). He always was a master cynic.

Sure. Even terribly unworkable ideas count as ideas. But only a couple of democrats are willing to come out and publicly support it since they know it'll collapse under its own weight.

The same is true of the GOP, though. Their ideas are also unworkable. Many of them are very difficult for anyone outside the base of the party to advocate, just like Medicare for All is for Democrats. But most of them are difficult to get adopted because they simply won't work, so you can't get the last votes you need to put them in place. They work great as messaging proposals, but not as actual policy. That's because the stuff that can get implemented won't solve the problem (reducing medical costs that consumers pay); the stuff that would solve the problem can't get implemented (because it would require inflicting a lot of pain on a lot of constituencies).

Which is why I think your criticism of Democrats as not having ideas isn't really a fair one. Like the GOP, the Democrats have tons of policy ideas. But like the GOP, they have very few policy ideas that could get 60 votes in the Senate. Like the GOP, they have very few policy ideas that are supported uniformly (or near-uniformly) across all the factions of the party. And like the GOP, they have very few policy ideas that could meet the prior two criteria that aren't already in place - so a big part of what the Democrats are trying to do is preserve what works (in their opinion).

Which is why I think your criticism of Democrats as not having ideas isn't really a fair one.

Well we can agree to disagree here. You may not like Trump. You may even hate his guts. But one thing you absolutely can't deny is that Trump is carrying out the policy actions he was elected on.

My criticism of the democrats is that...they're offering no policy. Nothing. They're a collection of dogs chasing the car and once they run into the bumper they'll have nothing. Nothing for healthcare other than to kick Obama's can down the road (and keep making things worse) and nothing for anything else (other than to quietly continue some things they publicly decried, just like when Biden did).

But one thing you absolutely can't deny is that Trump is carrying out the policy actions he was elected on.

Sure - because he's the President, and his party controls both houses of Congress. Which puts you in a position to "carry out the policy actions" you want to carry out, so long as they involve the use of Executive power.

The Democrats don't have that. They are in the minority. They can't implement policy, they can't "carry out policy actions," they can't bring bills the floor, they can't even vote something out of committee. Not because they don't have ideas, but because they are out of power.

My criticism of the democrats is that...they're offering no policy.

Again, they're offering lots of policies. You just don't like them. Or more likely, you just don't hear about them - because the Democrats are (again) not in power, so there is zero possibility of anything they want to do being implemented in the next year or so, which means that no one covers their policy proposals. If you're not actively looking to learn what Democrats think should be done about education or housing or child care or transportation, you're not going to be aware of what they propose. And I suspect you're not actively looking.

Because they have no ability to implement policy, they get no attention for their affirmative proposals (because there's no chance of them coming into fruition). They only get attention for their opposition to GOP proposals, because unlike with their affirmative policies, there is a chance that they might succeed in opposing something. And that's part of why they seem a bit more divided on all the issues that aren't opposition issues, because (again) since none of their affirmative policies has a chance to be adopted, there's no way to whip members.

So, yes. The Democrats are in the minority in the House and Senate, and don't hold the Presidency. So it's no surprise that they're not "carrying out their policies" the way Republicans are.

The Democrats don't have that. They are in the minority. They can't implement policy, they can't "carry out policy actions," they can't bring bills the floor, they can't even vote something out of committee. Not because they don't have ideas, but because they are out of power.

Nice attempt here, but I clearly stipulated after they sweep the midterms.

Then they can pass all the legislation they want. It won't go anywhere as Trump could veto it but a functioning political party would use the opportunity to showcase what they would do with a White House win in 2028.

But that's not the modern democrat party. No, they'll merely use their legislative majorities to run Star Chambers, just like last time.

Again, they're offering lots of policies. You just don't like them. Or more likely, you just don't hear about them

Oh? Such as?

Free healthcare we've discussed. Immigration is something they're running away from as fast as possible but we both know the second they think no one is looking the border will be flung wide open again. Their electoral survival depends on it as California stands to lose 4EVs and other blue states are bleeding them out. Fewer EVs mean the democrats get less power, and that party is all about power and nothing else.

Tax policy? They want to increase taxes. democrats learned from Walter Mondale to never be honest about taxes, and haven't since.

National defense? They'll continue (much more quietly) focusing on China although they'll loudly throw the Ukrainians a bone and flush more money down the toilet (while continuing Trump's policy of selling US weapons to europe to hand to Zelensky).

Tariffs ? Biden kept them in place. So would a theoretical democrat President in 2028. The democrats will also fight tooth and nail to keep this power in the executive branch.

How about Project Vault? They'll keep that also, albeit quietly and less successfully.

EV mandates also aren't coming back. The market has spoken.

So it's no surprise that they're not "carrying out their policies" the way Republicans are. That's an excellent strawman. No one said they were carrying out anything. What IS being said is that even if they could, they are intellectually bankrupt as a party and as such have no ideas.

democrat ideas are roughly the equivalent of a sardine sandwich cooked in the microwave for several hours: never very good to begin with, and only got worse with the extra re-heating.

Dope1,

The Dems just can't help themselves.

Rather than using an anticipated House victory in 2026 as leverage to actually get some of their policy objectives accomplished, or, compromises in that direction,

they're going to go straight into two years of impeachment proceedings against Trump.

That will paralyze the House and Senate since impeachment proceedings take priority.

They will spend two years doing absolutely nothing of any value.

They will again trivialize to the point of meaningless what it's supposed to mean when a President is impeached.

They will veer even farther to the radical Left wing.

Meanwhile, Mamdani will continue to fail; as will Spanberger in VA and Sherill in NJ. Their collective failures will be blamed by the Dems on them not having been radically Leftist ENOUGH.

However, Trump can still take action via Executive Order and otherwise to enforce the law currently in place.

And who do the Dems have for President in 2028?

No one.

Dope1,

Democrats DO have a policy. The policy is to try to buy as many votes from dumb, naive, unhappy, mis-educated, and mentally unstable people as they possibly can via leveraging identity politics and pseudo-intersectionality of what are actually very disparate interest groups that they are trying to cater to.

Combine with open borders policy, and funneling as much money to these interest groups as possible, legally or illegally, as well as getting direct and indirect kickbacks from said privileged interest groups.

End result: A permanent Democrat electoral majority.

Also End result: Destruction of the United States as we know it.

They will veer even farther to the radical Left wing.

Meanwhile, Mamdani will continue to fail; as will Spanberger in VA and Sherill in NJ. Their collective failures will be blamed by the Dems on them not having been radically Leftist ENOUGH.

This. Mamdani and Spanberger are walking ads for the GOP writ large in 2026 and 2028. Spanberger is an absolute gift who wants to tax Fantasy Football for crying out loud. This is the kind of platinum-coated gift the GOP needs to highlight.

Mamdani's implosion into Teh Stoopid happened even faster than I thought it would, lol.

And who do the Dems have for President in 2028?

They have 2 guys who could win but will never get the nod. Shapiro because the d's dislike Da Joos and Beshear because their Coastal Elite base won't go for a Kentucky bumpkin.

So who does that leave them with?

Kamala Harris.
Cory Booker.
Hair Gel Newsom.
AOC
Pete Buttigieg
JB Pritzker
Gretchen Whitmer
Wes Moore
Rahm Emmanuel

Talk about a starting lineup of Terrible. Of that list 8/9 would be so incompetent as to create laughs (but lots of damage) for decades. Rahm Emmanuel is the exception. He'd use the FedGov power in a way that would make Woodrow Wilson blush.

Oh? Such as?

Such as the ideas you just listed. For every area of policy-making you listed!

You may not like their policies. You may not think they have the ability to enact those policies into law, because Trump can veto them (true!). You may think they're bad policies. But the truth is that for any particular policy-making arena that comes to mind, you can probably identify at least one Democratic proposal for it.

I'm not sure why you keep saying the Democrats have no ideas, when I bet that for almost every possible area of policy, you could probably name at least one left-coded or Democratic idea for that policy field that you think is terrible or dumb.

Is there a specific area of policy that you think the Democrats literally have no ideas, even bad ones?

Such as the ideas you just listed. For every area of policy-making you listed!

As I said: the ones where they'll just...copy Trump...but claim they're not. Except for the border, that they'll throw open again the second they think no one is looking.

I'm not sure why you keep saying the Democrats have no ideas, when I bet that for almost every possible area of policy, you could probably name at least one left-coded or Democratic idea for that policy field that you think is terrible or dumb.

Oh, okay. Now we're having a semantics debate. Sure - I can do that. How about this?

The democrats have no new, interesting, innovative, or even marginally competent ideas that don't involve copying something the GOP is already doing. Does that help?

Is there a specific area of policy that you think the Democrats literally have no ideas, even bad ones?

Sure. I've already listed them, but let's create a specific set of categories the democrats have zero for, in no particular order:

Energy Policy
Environmental policy
Taxation
Border security
Foreign policy all-up
Policing and public safety
"Affordability"
Healthcare
The economy in general
National security
International diplomacy

Did I miss anything?

Let's flip this around. What, in your mind, do the democrats have in terms of "good" ideas? Surely you can name 1 or 2.

Today's democrat party excels at making protest signs and at mobilizing suburban AWFLs to hit the streets and jeer somebody. That's about it. Actual governing isn't a thing.

My responses:

Energy Policy - reinstate major subsidies for green energy, restrict exports of petroleum and petroleum products, increase promotion of energy efficiency, emphasize siting LULU energy facilities away from disadvantaged communities.

Environmental policy - the entire Green energy suite and controlling CO2 emissions, implementing carbon trading arrangements, boosting enforcement of pollution control requirements, fostering more energy efficiency (again).

Taxation - revising the tax code to be more progressive, eliminating the carry trade exemption, increasing marginal rates on high earners, imposing taxes on securities transactions.

Border security - dramatically increase the number of immigration judges to process asylum applicants, allow asylum applications in a more orderly fashion (CBP one), foster improved conditions in countries-of-origin using foreign aid.

Foreign policy all-up - engage in traditional diplomacy and cultivation of allies from other democratic wester economies, encourage foreign development and increased economic ties to the U.S..

Policing and public safety - address root causes of crime through economic development, direct services to at-risk communities, and immense improvements to the social safety net to reduce poverty and inequalities in access to social and cultural capital.

"Affordability" - increased use of anti-trust regulation to foster more competition in key industries like health care and financial services, price controls/rent controls in certain areas, direct subsidies for high-cost services.

Healthcare - Medicare for all.

The economy in general - the above in general, plus increased governmental investment in marginalized and low-access areas of the economy.

National security & International diplomacy - build up international institutions and foster existing alliances with countries that share our interests in order to build up U.S. influence on the global stage, rather than alienating the nations whose help we need to counter global threats like China.


See? That's off the top of my head, with very little time spent to delve into the specific policy proposals that underlie each of those broad categories. None of those are Trumpian approaches to the issues. None of them reflect the full breadth of different approaches to those things on the Democratic side (Bernie Sanders has a very different idea than Ezra Klein on most things).

Again, I don't know why you keep saying there's no ideas out there. None of these are mysteries. I bet you probably could have generated most of the above list on your own just by asking, "What does a stereotypical Lefty think about policy area X." I mean - seriously? You don't think that Democrats have any ideas about taxation or energy policy or environmental policy? That if you gave someone like AOC or Sanders the power to just re-write the Tax Code, or the Clean Air/Clean Water Acts, to be whatever they wanted, they literally wouldn't have any suggestions at all?

Energy Policy
Environmental policy

Woof. Talk about piledriving the US economy. This stuff isn't working for Europe and would fail twice as hard here.

Taxation You really won't like the effect this has on 401(k)s and the speed brake you'll apply to the economy.

Border security We've discussed this at length. This is basically a quasi-legal way of throwing open the gates again.

Foreign policy all-up It's fallacious to say we engage in no diplomacy or don't encourage foreign ties today. Trump's gone out and gotten loads of pledges from foreign partners for capital investments already.

Policing and public safety Yikes. Without disincentives to commit crimes...you get more crimes.

"Affordability" There's a reason Rent Control is taught in literally every econ course in accredited universities.

Healthcare Yeah, no. 1) Unaffordable 2) fastest way to kill quality of care. Ask the Brits.

The economy in general so more wealth transfers and disincentives for business/job creators plus top-down control.

National security & International diplomacy lol. Come on, man. The Europeans have *zero* interest in opposing China especially when they can barely be bothered to defend themselves against Russia.

See? That's off the top of my head, with very little time spent to delve into the specific policy proposals that underlie each of those broad categories. None of those are Trumpian approaches to the issues. None of them reflect the full breadth of different approaches to those things on the Democratic side (Bernie Sanders has a very different idea than Ezra Klein on most things).

No, but these are all Excellent examples of the microwaved sardine sandwich analogy!

Again, I don't know why you keep saying there's no ideas out there.

There are no *good* democrat ideas and your response(s) are Exhibits A-J. No offense, but literally everything you said above is not only provably bad, but if implemented en toto would Piledrive large sectors of the American economy for decades to come.

There are no *good* democrat ideas and your response(s) are Exhibits A-J. No offense, but literally everything you said above is not only provably bad, but if implemented en toto would Piledrive large sectors of the American economy for decades to come.

That's certainly your opinion. But that's very different than saying Democrats don't have ideas.

You think Medicare for All is a bad idea, for example. That's fine. I happen to be of the opinion that Medicare for All is both impossible to enact in our political system and that it would not reduce U.S. health care expenditures very much, if at all. But you can't really deny that it is a major, significant, bold policy proposal.

But that's very different than saying Democrats don't have ideas.

democrats have neither new nor good ideas. In other words, they really don't have any ideas.

You think Medicare for All is a bad idea, for example. That's fine. I happen to be of the opinion that Medicare for All is both impossible to enact in our political system and that it would not reduce U.S. health care expenditures very much, if at all.

There's a scene in the movie Argo where Ben Affleck and Bryan Cranston go take their film production proposal to the State deparment. The exchange goes like this:

State Department guy: You don't have a better bad idea than this?

CIA guy: This is the best bad idea we have, sir.

But unlike the plan to get some of the trapped Americans out of Iran, Medicare For All is a hideous idea. Turning over ~20% of the US Economy to the federal government is a non-starter.

But you can't really deny that it is a major, significant, bold policy proposal.

Heating your house by burning a pile of $100 bills is a Major, Significant, Bold, idea also. So is making a Halloween costume by dipping yourself in tar and rolling in chicken feathers. But conspicuously absent in all the Major, Significant, Bold ideas the democrats "have" is the descriptor "good".

Props to you for taking your particular version of the microwaved sardine sandwich and expressing it in public. That's something your running mates on this board never do.

Healthcare Yeah, no. 1) Unaffordable 2) fastest way to kill quality of care. Ask the Brits.

Ask the Norwegians.

democrats have neither new nor good ideas. In other words, they really don't have any ideas.

Your "in other words" is simply wrong. There are very few new ideas under the sun. There are almost no Democratic ideas that Republicans would think are good - and vice versa. Why? Because ideas that both parties think are good ideas (like, say, prohibiting people from sacrificing virgins into a volcano, or disallowing the private ownership of surface-to-air missiles) have long ago been enacted into law.

Props to you for taking your particular version of the microwaved sardine sandwich and expressing it in public. That's something your running mates on this board never do.

People on this board tell you their opinions on things here all the time. I genuinely don't understand why you don't notice. I wonder if you might simply be applying the same filter that you tried to apply above - if it's a policy you think is bad, you just dismiss it as not being an idea.

But if you think every policy you disagree with is not "really" an idea, and every policy you agree with is just "copying" some Republican, then by definition no one can ever have a new good idea except for Republicans. So I think your assessment here is more an artifact of your own filters, rather than anything about the Democratic party.

So I think your assessment here is more an artifact of your own filters, rather than anything about the Democratic party.

By Jove! I think you’ve got it!

Your "in other words" is simply wrong.

Play all the word games you want. Your list was nothing more than the reheated sardine sandwich known as Marxism with the add of bad mayonaise on the top.

There are almost no Democratic ideas that Republicans would think are good - and vice versa.

Sure. Because anyone who thinks that price controls are Teh Awesome really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the economy becasue they clearly don't understand its mechanisms.

Bill Clinton was the last national democrat who really and truly understood the economy down to its gears. I heard him give a master's class on farm commodities once. The man did know his stuff. Now? Your party thinks the warm light of collectivism is the bee's knees.

Not gonna fly.

People on this board tell you their opinions on things here all the time.

Laughing.
Out.
Loud.

No liberal on this board does any such thing. You *rarely* see any "I think we should do Policy X" posts from that crowd. What you see instead is "Trump did a thing and I hate the thing".

Hardly the same thing. And when I say "hardly", I mean Not in the same zip code.

But if you think every policy you disagree with is not "really" an idea, and every policy you agree with is just "copying" some Republican, then by definition no one can ever have a new good idea except for Republicans. So I think your assessment here is more an artifact of your own filters, rather than anything about the Democratic party.

Nah, bruv. I hate to break it to you, but the left has been bereft of anything original or good in terms of policy in decades now. It takes a little time but pretty much every single social experiment the d's have tried at all levels in the last 20 years have been abject busts.

Obamacare? Failure.
Border policy? Failure.
Rent/price controls? Failure.
Taxation as a source of growth? Failure.
Increased regulations as a source of growth? Failure.
Green energy? Failure.

On and on.

By Jove! I think you’ve got it!

When the game is being contested on the field, nobody listens to the water boy. Or the guy selling peanuts up in the stands.

In other words, get in the game.

Oh, almost forgot:

The last line of defense of a losing argument is to make it personal about your opponent.

Play all the word games you want. Your list was nothing more than the reheated sardine sandwich known as Marxism with the add of bad mayonaise on the top.

You're entitled to think that all Democratic ideas are Marxist. It's not true, of course - actual Marxism requires something significantly more than, say, I think we should have the same type of social safety net and labor laws as most countries in Europe. But even if you think that, it doesn't mean that Democrats don't have ideas. It's just you decided long ago that ideas that liberals and progressives are advocating for are bad. "Sardine sandwiches." It's far more correct to say, "I disagree with Democrats' ideas" than "Democrats have no ideas."

You *rarely* see any "I think we should do Policy X" posts from that crowd. What you see instead is "Trump did a thing and I hate the thing".

Really? Not one person on this board has ever advocated for more progressive taxation, or increased financial regulation, or any actions to fight climate change, or any type of health care policy (like Medicare for All or restricting health insurance company profits)? No one's ever advocated any type of gun regulation, or revising the electoral college, or efforts to prevent voter intimidation? No one ever suggesting a path to citizenship for DREAMERs or other immigrants?

I sort of get where you're coming from, because Trump's superpower is to overwhelm the attention economy - he does a dozen super-high-profile, precedent-breaking things every day before breakfast, so that nearly all the time the conversation of the day is about him and what he's done. But I think that's causing you to forget that for years and years when he wasn't President, people have been arguing with you on this board (and the predecessor) about fundamental differences in policy perspectives.

You're entitled to think that all Democratic ideas are Marxist.

Did I say that? If they have one that's not I'm all ears.

Wow, one strawman after another, making it about me, *and* word semantic games. This thread's got it all! :)

Not one person on this board has ever advocated for more progressive taxation, or increased financial regulation, or any actions to fight climate change, or any type of health care policy (like Medicare for All or restricting health insurance company profits)? No one's ever advocated any type of gun regulation, or revising the electoral college, or efforts to prevent voter intimidation? No one ever suggesting a path to citizenship for DREAMERs or other immigrants?

Most "ideas" expressed by the denizens of this board are things shouted in the middle of an emotional breakdown of some kind or other. Very little calmly expressed in response to a policy question. How high for taxes? What financial regulation? Fighting climate change with what?

It's the specifics that doom liberals when they try to debate actual policy as making the leap from Sloganeering to actual, codifiable ideas is very difficult for some. One of my favorites are all EV fans who forget you need to plug the things in to a wall plug and then generate/transmit/distribute power someplace...

Can't ever say zero, though, as there might be one post of out 10,000 out there. You never know. This is also the part when someone who doesn't post regularly shows up and claims that The Following Idea Was Regularly Expressed when...it wasn't.

But I think that's causing you to forget that for years and years when he wasn't President, people have been arguing with you on this board (and the predecessor) about fundamental differences in policy perspectives.

The previous board spent its time calling Bush Hitler or Mitt Romney a robber baron/abuser of dogs or something. When Biden ran for President his sole feature was that He Was Not Trump. The other trick is to dress up vague and non-specific slogans and world salads as "policy" such as "restoring norms in government" or "returning to international diplomacy". Biden's campaign was an egregious example of "returning to normalcy" or some such without defining what "normal" meant.

The truth is that when democrats open their mouths and keyboards and start talking what they really want in terms of policy, two things happen

1. Their wants collapse under the inability to discuss the specifics of the things they want, and
2. People run screaming in the other direction (because the ideas are inevitably bad)

like, say, prohibiting people from sacrificing virgins into a volcano

Then dropping Spankee into a volcano is NOT prohibited (per you).

Would you prefer a US volcano, a European one, or one "elsewhere"? Your choice. You are the one who said it was perfectly legitimate (quoting you, above).

Did I say that? If they have one that's not I'm all ears.

Perhaps I misunderstood. You said the entire list was nothing more than the reheated sardine sandwich known as Marxism. Since the list included a whole host of different and disparate policy prescriptions, everything from gun regulation to a path to citizenship to anti-trust regulation to progressive taxation, labelling all such ideas as "Marxist" certainly seemed like you were arguing that all Democratic proposals were Marxist.

Of course, they aren't Marxist - any more than Norway is a Marxist country. Marxism involves the complete abolition of private ownership of the means of production and total collective control of the entire economy - you can't just point to something that's directionally increasing collective action (however slightly) and claim it's Marxism, any more than you can point to something that's directionally deregulating an activity and claim it's Anarchism. Marxism and Anarchism involve a degree or level of collective regulation and ownership (or none) - not a direction.

Most "ideas" expressed by the denizens of this board are things shouted in the middle of an emotional breakdown of some kind or other. Very little calmly expressed in response to a policy question. How high for taxes? What financial regulation? Fighting climate change with what?

Do you not also have discussions in generalities? Fail to present your opinions in the form of a White Paper, identifying specific tax brackets and what income levels they should be cut off at or the specific provisions of the CFR you think should be modified in support of your ideas? I don't recall you - or me or anyone - coming in with the level of specificity you are describing here.

It's a message board. People exchange ideas at the level of a message board, not presenting papers at an academic panel. And like all of us (including me), you're not always making calm inquiries about policy questions, either.

But let's try that out. The last thread you started on a policy issue was to criticize Mamdani's approach to homelessness. Not really a policy outline there - blanket criticism of what Democrats do, rather than offering a solution. But let's give it a shot - what's your policy prescription to solve homelessness?

You said the entire list was nothing more than the reheated sardine sandwich known as Marxism. Since the list included a whole host of different and disparate policy prescriptions, everything from gun regulation to a path to citizenship to anti-trust regulation to progressive taxation, labelling all such ideas as "Marxist" certainly seemed like you were arguing that all Democratic proposals were Marxist.

Oh, so your list is representative of the entire democrat party?

Marxism involves the complete abolition of private ownership of the means of production and total collective control of the entire economy - you can't just point to something that's directionally increasing collective action (however slightly) and claim it's Marxism, any more than you can point to something that's directionally deregulating an activity and claim it's Anarchism. Marxism and Anarchism involve a degree or level of collective regulation and ownership (or none) - not a direction.

Sure I can. Especially when you yourself want government healthcare for all via Medicare.
Top-down government control via a pool of "experts" is Marxist to the core - which party constantly tells us to Shut Up And Listen To The Experts? Of course this "policy prescription" is predicated on having a group of "experts" who actually understand the thing they're supposed to be in charge of.

Do you not also have discussions in generalities? Fail to present your opinions in the form of a White Paper, identifying specific tax brackets and what income levels they should be cut off at or the specific provisions of the CFR you think should be modified in support of your ideas? I don't recall you - or me or anyone - coming in with the level of specificity you are describing here.

You mean besides yours truly citing source material and/or basic documents to propose or promote an idea?
That's all me, my man. None of your running buddies ever have.

But let's give it a shot - what's your policy prescription to solve homelessness?

Wow. Glad you asked! Because I've covered this AT LENGTH in the past.

First off, homelessness is a local issue best dealt with at the city/county level.
Second off, homelessness is generally is problem with drug addiction or mental illness. It's not Amazon's fault or some other Big Massive Corporation's fault that a drug addicted and/or mentally ill person is living on the streets: they tended to landed there based on actions they've taken at some point in their lives.

What doesn't work? Enabling their drug addiction. Taking a drug addled person and dropping them into taxpayer subsidized housing that has zero accountability, zero rules for living there. All that gets you is a destructive drug addict inside a shelter and pretty soon your shelter is destroyed, too.

So what does work?

1. Person to person outreach.
We Heart Seattle started with one woman who'd had enough of her neighborhood (South Lake Union in Seattle) being home to tents, garbage and discarded drug needles. She started doing something by going out and picking up litter near homeless camps by herself and now WHS is an outstanding organization that makes contact with people in tents and connects them with services 1:1 and/or their families. Their success rate in getting people off the street is orders of magnitude better than the city of Seattle programs. In fact, their litter picks are often staffed by ex-homeless who now want to give something back to the community:

https://weheartseattle.org/

2. Accountability.
You can't keep enabling bad behavior; if you're going to integrate somebody into society then they have to be made to understand that societies have rules and expectations. This means a night in lockup for low level assaults, shoplifting, littering, graffiti, etc.

Know why junkies really fear a night in jail? Because withdrawal's a bitch. Ergo, you can't let small crimes slide - you have to break up the homeless bike chop shops and put those people in jail for the property crimes they routinely commit. You also don't let them block streets with their RVs and trailers nor do you let them behead geese in public parks. (Routine features in the city of Seattle).

Since someone will whine about a link, here. Don't say I didn't warn you: https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=357...

3. Drug addiction treatment.
Ironically, the very best program in the entire country is from a blue state: Rhode Island's Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) program. It starts with getting prisoners in jail hooked up with addiction services then follows through with care after release:

https://bhddh.ri.gov/substance-useaddiction/indivi...

Their recidivism rate among people who've gone through the program is *shockingly* low. In other words, it works.
See? Not all democrat ideas are bad!. When democrats embrace logic and winning ideas, I'll praise them.

The state of Washington has unused facilities that could be a perfect home for a WA MAT-style program.

Outreach + Accountability + Addiction Services = = Fixing homelessness.

Enabling a drug addict to do more drugs nets you more overdoses as well as unsafe parks. WHS routinely removes foil and other drug paraphernalia from parks:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AXMqJAZ6a/

So there you go. Specific, measurable, actionable proposals. Best part is, it works in blue states already.

problem with drug addiction or mental illness

Based on your posting, which programs would best treat Spankee and co?

You are the one stating the need to treat his drug addiction AND mental illness, which he indisputably has. Treatment is required.

Your response shall be fascinating.

Is single-payer health care (Medicare for All) not an idea?

It absolutely is. One I support.

As an aside, I was watching a nurse react to "The Pitt". One comment he made that struck me was that nurses don't get paid very well, especially when one considers the expense to get the nursing education. He said the money never makes it down to the doctors and nurses. Which implies it's being intercepted by administrators. If so, that's another inefficiency in our system. Administrators shouldn't be making more than doctors or nurses. The latter have the expensive, specialized, education. The administrators are not part of the care equation at all. I suspect a lot of their function shouldn't even be necessary.

Which could lead to a tangent about the expense of a medical education. On a recent trip we hung out with some Canadians. Either the daughter or granddaughter (forget which) was paying something like $300 per semester for med school. She will not come out with massive student loan debt. So she won't have to earn as much to enable her to pay that debt. Yet another way to bring our costs down.

Wow. Glad you asked! Because I've covered this AT LENGTH in the past.

But....have you?

I do not for a moment doubt you are sincere in believing that. But I don't remember you ever doing so. In fact, I took a few minutes to look at every post you've ever made on this site that has the word "homeless" in it - and none of those posts mentioned any of that stuff. In fact, they were all entirely posts that were critical of Democratic or blue state policies on homelessness. And quite a lot of them were the sort of quick asides or snappy rejoinders that you deride when others do in your conversations.

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?command=searchAuthor&au...

This site only goes back about four years. So it's entirely possible that back on Old Fool you may have run down an actual list of policy prescriptions on homelessness. But it's been four years since the last time you did - and it's a topic that you've posted on a lot. And it's consistently to criticize Democrats, or to point out the awful effects of Democratic policies, or how horrible things are in blue states, etc.

I say that not as a criticism, but an invitation for you to consider the possibility that what you're criticizing in others is just what people tend to do in political conversations - and that you do it as well.

When I asked you politely to just tell me what you thought should be done, you just....responded with what you thought should be done. You've had four years of writing and responding on this topic, and you never really did that in those last four years. So maybe - just maybe - if you tried responding to people on this board and asking them without comment or criticism what they thought might be a good solution to a policy, they might give you the substantive response you seem to want?

The same is true of the GOP, though. Their ideas are also unworkable.

What specifically? The only idea I'm aware of is eliminating the ACA without replacement. Which they almost did in 2016 (McCain saved the program). You've said many times, they do not want any government healthcare, which is why they never vote for any. Even the ACA, which had some elements proposed by the Heritage Foundation, couldn't get any support (and then they repealed the mandatory subscription which was the primary contribution of the Heritage Foundation).

They only appear to want it dead. Do they have other policy ideas? Serious question. I'm not being partisan. I am just not aware of any Rep ideas for healthcare except to kill government involvement.

When I asked you politely to just tell me what you thought should be done, you just....responded with what you thought should be done. You've had four years of writing and responding on this topic, and you never really did that in those last four years. So maybe - just maybe - if you tried responding to people on this board and asking them without comment or criticism what they thought might be a good solution to a policy, they might give you the substantive response you seem to want?

And here we go again making it about me instead of addressing what I just said.

By the way: you're flat out wrong.

<20 seconds of searching and I find this:
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=781048264

This. This is the way. There are laws on the books about public camping, public dumping, public defecation/urination and virtually all the other behaviors exhibited by street campers.

When Seattle's outreach people help the city conduct camp cleanups what they find is that
-The people they talk to don't want shelter. They find they don't like the restrictions
-They don't want rehab, either. They like their lifestyle because it doesn't have any consequences attached.
-Sometimes they even have multiple tents at different locations (because they follow the local drug and sex supply chains)

Mere enforcement of laws on the books does wonders for people who are hopelessly addicted to drugs or mentally ill. You offer them treatment like this
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6137785/

...and you see results:
The increase in illicit use of heroin and other illicit opioids is a serious public health concern. Despite justice-involved persons being especially vulnerable to overdose and relapse upon release, prisons and jails have been slow to allow this population access to MAT. Rhode Island’s statewide comprehensive program expansion at the RIDOC shows that MAT is feasible in correctional settings, and preliminary outcomes suggest strong rates of treatment retention after release.

Any cop or any case worker will tell you that one thing that tends to motivate junkies is a night in the slammer where they're forced to go Cold Turkey. That's not popular At. All.

So there you go.
Meanwhile, I crushed your question.

They only appear to want it dead. Do they have other policy ideas? Serious question.

The ones I'm aware of are a suite of market-based ideas that they believe will lower the cost of healthcare generally, and eliminate inefficiencies in the market. Things like medical malpractice reform, increased price transparency, greater portability/control for individuals to manage their own healthcare dollars (like healthcare accounts), states offering insurance policies across state lines, and the like. The idea being that high medical costs are the result of friction in the marketplace and/or the cost of defensive medicine/recordkeeping, so that measures that grease the wheels will lower costs.

Like I said, none of those things are really workable. Some are politically unpopular; others are just not likely to do very much.

Meanwhile, I crushed your question.

Sure. It's easy to crush these questions. Again, if you just asked people - politely - to explain to you what they think should be done on a particular policy question, they would probably tell you. You could then have a discussion about the policy particulars.

Why don't you try it? 1pg is on this thread. Why don't you ask him what he thinks should be done on a particular issue that you are genuinely uncertain about what someone who isn't in your ideological camp would recommend?

Again, if you just asked people - politely - to explain to you what they think should be done on a particular policy question, they would probably tell you. You could then have a discussion about the policy particulars.

I've done this also. Many times.
Again, as much as you're bound and determined to make me the issue, I'm not the one who routinely issues blood insults to the opposite side of the aisle.

That's the left. Always has been, always will be.

I'd suggest you start with policing those folks.

The ones I'm aware of are a suite of market-based ideas that they believe will lower the cost of healthcare generally,...

Which is why, I believe, that Obama chose an insurance-based solution for the ACA. He wanted Rep votes, and thought this approach would garner them. It did not, of course.

...eliminate inefficiencies in the market... increased price transparency...states offering insurance policies across state lines...

Pretty sure Dems want that, too. So, the Reps want different solutions to that problem, or they misidentify the problem. Yes?

"Friction" is a huge problem, IMO. For example, IMO, putting insurance companies between me and my provider is a friction. Those companies expect to get paid. And many of them report to shareholders, which means a P&L statement that better be more P than L. So, the shareholders expect to get paid, too.

Didn't Reagan get the tort reform rolling in the 80s? I seem to recall all sorts of -IMO- arbitrary limits being set. At the same time, lawyers started being able to advertise legally (which, I think, has caused more litigiousness because of the idea of "free" money with no consequence if you fail to get it).

One comment he made that struck me was that nurses don't get paid very well, especially when one considers the expense to get the nursing education.

Is that true? Google tells me that average salary for nurses is just under $100K per year (on the high end for college grads), and that starting salary averages around $64K per year (which is significantly higher than that for college graduates generally). Those salary levels are also considerably higher than in most other western economies.

That premium is certainly enough to make it worthwhile to get a nursing degree. Average amount of borrowing for such a degree is about $20K-40K, and the salary premium in the first year is well over $10K.

https://www.edumed.org/online-schools/nursing-rn-p...

I'm not the one who routinely issues blood insults to the opposite side of the aisle

Maybe not to albaby directly, but you do it all the time. "Liberalism is a mental illness". I don't know if that qualifies as a "blood insult", but you say it periodically (most recently a few days ago).

So, unless you're "the left", it's "the right". Of course, some posters say similar things about conservatives (i.e. "mental illness"). The left isn't pure as the driven snow. But I don't think you can absolve the right of nearly identical behavior/comments.

Again, as much as you're bound and determined to make me the issue, I'm not the one who routinely issues blood insults to the opposite side of the aisle.

I think you insult folks a lot more than you might realize.

I'd suggest you start with policing those folks.

I'm not trying to police you. You're the one who's always complaining that no one will engage in substantive conversation with you - that no one ever tells you their policies. You're free to keep insulting folks all you want. Or deriding what they say to you as "microwaved sardine sandwich Marxism" rather than perhaps asking follow-up questions or inquiring about the details of what they write with genuine interest. I'm just taking you at face value that you want more substantive responses than that...and pointing out that there's a pretty easy path to getting it. If you don't want to do that, no one's forcing you.

Maybe not to albaby directly, but you do it all the time. "Liberalism is a mental illness". I don't know if that qualifies as a "blood insult", but you say it periodically (most recently a few days ago).

Failure. But nice try, even with the hedge you put in.

Pretty sure Dems want that, too. So, the Reps want different solutions to that problem, or they misidentify the problem. Yes?

Not really. Sure, Democrats want price transparency and efficiency - after all, who wouldn't? But that's not really something they diagnose as the source of the problems of health care. If everyone had perfect knowledge of all prices offered by all healthcare providers and all such services could be purchased with pretty high levels of efficiency, it wouldn't provide universal access to health care.

"Friction" is a huge problem, IMO. For example, IMO, putting insurance companies between me and my provider is a friction. Those companies expect to get paid. And many of them report to shareholders, which means a P&L statement that better be more P than L. So, the shareholders expect to get paid, too.

Sure, in much the same way that car insurance companies get between you and your mechanic. Just far more often, because we deliberately run nearly all of our routine health care through insurance companies for tax purposes. But that's not really the friction that the GOP is concerned with.

Didn't Reagan get the tort reform rolling in the 80s?

A little, but most Republicans believe it's still a massive problem, and a source of significant savings to be had.

I think you insult folks a lot more than you might realize.

I can do nothing but insult this entire board for the next decade and still not catch up in volume to libs here.

I'm not trying to police you.

No, you're trying to make me the issue again. First you claimed I didn't ever offer up policy ideas and dropped a challenge, which I answered. Then you claimed I never had done that before and it took me a couple of seconds to disprove that one.

Come on. Enough already.

Or deriding what they say to you as "microwaved sardine sandwich Marxism"

Nice attempt at jiu-jitsu. Seriously.

But what you're forgetting is that I couched my statement as democrat ideas are the sandwich thing:

democrat ideas are roughly the equivalent of a sardine sandwich cooked in the microwave for several hours: never very good to begin with, and only got worse with the extra re-heating.

...clearly referring to the party.

Again, clean up your side of the aisle.

Is that true?

It's true that is what he claimed. I could link the video. Is what he claimed true? Maybe. Depends where he is. A quick search showed a very wide range depending on whether it was an RN or an "ordinary" nurse, and where they are geographically. He didn't specify in his reaction, so I don't know the details he was talking about. And NP is another category again (as is CNA, on the lower end).

A college grad isn't getting $90K per annum. As you say, they're starting at $64K or lower (I found a quote of $50K, but I won't quibble). As for college, it greatly depends on the program. A quick check showed me ranges from about $48K for fours years to more than $80K. NPs go to grad school, so that's more again (up to $200K, depending on how far they go, though the "average" I saw was $100K+).

Just speculating, but perhaps they have to cover their own MP insurance, which can be a big chunk of salary for someone making "only" $70K per year. (Which then gets into tort reform...how much is a leg worth (or newborn, or husband, or whatever) vs how reasonable is it to hold an individual responsible for something that may have been unavoidable anyway.)

Failure. But nice try, even with the hedge you put in.

I won't get into a "yes it is", "no it isn't" argument. I stand by my statement, and I can go back and search your post where you said it (and link it). But you know you said it.

Unless you don't consider that an insult. Hadn't considered that you may have been thinking you were stating a fact instead of issuing an insult. I assure you, most liberals would take offense.

If everyone had perfect knowledge of all prices offered by all healthcare providers and all such services could be purchased with pretty high levels of efficiency, it wouldn't provide universal access to health care.

By itself, no. It's just one of a thousand moving parts that should be optimized. When we talk about one thing (like transparency), I don't think any serious person would consider it a silver bullet that solves the whole mess. We're talking about one thing in isolation. We still have to talk about the other 999 moving parts, too.

A quick example. There are two BIG imaging companies in Arizona. One is SimonMed, the other is Banner Imaging. There are more, but I only need two for my illustration. If I need an MRI, which is cheaper? They both have 4T MRI machines, and competent people. I want to go to the cheaper one. If you call them, they will tell you that until they submit a claim (or pre-auth) they can't answer that question. And you can't really go by their cash price (if they even have one...many do not) because different insurances will have negotiated different rates.

That's about as opaque as it gets.

And then, to make matters worse, I scout out which one is on my insurance, I go there, and then I get an EOB indicating that the procedure isn't covered because the name the facility used for the claim isn't an in-network provider. Even though the facility is. (I'm actually fighting that battle right now.)

I can do nothing but insult this entire board for the next decade and still not catch up in volume to libs here.

So? That still doesn't mean you're not insulting people, and it means you're not going to get any substantive responses in return.

But what you're forgetting is that I couched my statement as democrat ideas are the sandwich thing:

So? That wasn't my point. I didn't say you called me a name. If want a substantive debate about policy ideas, then deriding the policy ideas out of hand isn't going to get that. "Microwave sardine sandwich Marxism" is just name-calling directed at the ideas (many of which had nothing to do with Marxism). If you were to ask more details about these ideas, try to find out why another person thinks they would work or teasing out differences between what different parts of the party think...that would get you a substantive comment.

Again, clean up your side of the aisle.

I just had a thread where I tried to explain to "my side" of the aisle why it was necessary and beneficial to have a constructive conversation with people whose ideas they might disdain. Literally within the last few days. I think you participated in it.

They lament that that people aren't moving away from right-wing populism; you lament that no one engages in constructive discussion of policy matters. There's an opportunity to change those dynamics.

By itself, no. It's just one of a thousand moving parts that should be optimized. When we talk about one thing (like transparency), I don't think any serious person would consider it a silver bullet that solves the whole mess. We're talking about one thing in isolation. We still have to talk about the other 999 moving parts, too.

Sure, but even the other 999 moving parts won't provide universal access.

Markets don't provide universal access. They can't. It's not what they do. Markets are excellent at price discovery and resource allocation and giving people the opportunity to shift resources from what they currently have to what might bring them more happiness/satisfaction/needs met/utility. But markets cannot provide universal access to goods or services, because for anything other than the very cheapest of goods there will be plenty of people who can't afford to purchase them. There will also be plenty of people who could afford to purchase those goods, but at the price of giving up all other consumption (other than, perhaps, other necessities).

If you want universal access, even the most frictionless and efficient markets can't give it to you.

If you want universal access, even the most frictionless and efficient markets can't give it to you.

That is probably one of the moving parts to healthcare. I tend to agree with you, and so I would classify "markets" as another friction. They are getting in the way of the objective (from my view...others have different objectives like bonuses and shareholder reports). Their goal/function is different than the goal many of us would have, and that is to get everyone decent healthcare. The wealthier people will always get more than "decent", and that's OK. If we elevate the floor to "everyone" and "decent", we've made a huge stride.

Mere enforcement of laws on the books does wonders for people who are hopelessly addicted to drugs or mentally ill. You offer them treatment like this
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6137785/

...and you see results:
The increase in illicit use of heroin and other illicit opioids is a serious public health concern. Despite justice-involved persons being especially vulnerable to overdose and relapse upon release, prisons and jails have been slow to allow this population access to MAT. Rhode Island’s statewide comprehensive program expansion at the RIDOC shows that MAT is feasible in correctional settings, and preliminary outcomes suggest strong rates of treatment retention after release.


Have you followed up on this? Because the trend I noticed over the years is that any new way of treating it seems to work for a bit and then slowly deteriorates back into almost what it used to be. Portugal's experiment was very promising and I propose it for a long time and the Economist touted it too. It seems that if you try something new it seems to work for a while and then fade. Portugal's rates are about the same as the rest of Europe now. But I'm willing to back it if you want to try it.

By the way, I wrote about my border proposal. That we use embassy type powers to create compounds in Mexico that housed the legal processes deciding who qualified for amnesty. That we didn't release people into the US to come for their court date. They would be assigned dates and we'd have compounds in which they lived during their case time. And they didn't have to be by the border, but we could do a few by the border. Away from the border we would hire mostly local Mexican nationals to run the place, but have an American judge who'd fly down Monday through Friday. This was before I knew there was a "remain in Mexico" policy that went in and out of favor with Mexioo. When I brought it up much later and used "remain in Mexico" you refused to "buy" that I had proposed it.

I even proposed that we have trained quasi judges (administrators) whose main job was to hear cases and sort them out by merit, eliminating cases with no merit, and the remainder went before a judge. It all sounded good, but reality bites. Dope, you are absolutely too well practiced at venom and nastiness for anyone to believe that isn't the main way you trained.

Dope, you are absolutely too well practiced at venom and nastiness for anyone to believe that isn't the main way you trained.

Sez the doppel owner who routinely throws not only a lot of punches, but often the first one. LOL!

Sez the doppel owner who routinely throws not only a lot of punches, but often the first one. LOL!

You see? This is just a game to you. And for years you knew me and I never ever threw punches, but then you started indiscriminately throwing them at me. And I once asked you to stop it, because I wasn't throwing anything at you. You didn't care, or remember. So it didn't phase me at all to make you Surrender Monkey. You didn't even realize you created Surrender Monkey yourself. If you don't keep track of who is civil to you, and who isn't, and just fling shit about, why be civil to you? I'm civil 99% of the time because that's my nature. It isn't your nature.

Yeah, no. Just about every post of yours contains a personal attack. You’re not a victim.

Pro tip; you can’t toss casual slurs at someone constantly and expect them to just take it.

But those slurs are just the left telling the right the truth, right? And who could be offended by that?

It’s really simple. Stick to the issues and conversations can be had. Fling insults and they won’t be had.

Stick to the issues and conversations can be had.

YOU run from the issues and conversations because you know you will lose them.

STILL waiting for your reply to the posted "DOPE TRAP" I reposted 1-3 days ago.

Pro tip; you can’t toss casual slurs at someone constantly and expect them to just take it.


Need no pro tip. You get it because you earned it. You can't keep track of who's who here. When someone gets to you here you throw shit everywhere. It's the same for you - you can't keep tossing shit around indiscriminately and when asked to stop it blame the person who asks you to stop throwing shit at them, and expect them to take it. Got that Surrender Monkey?

Yeah, you need some Pro Tips.

Here, I'll give you another one: Hate the game, not the player.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader what that means.

Here, I'll give you another one: Hate the game, not the player.

I practice not hating. It's hard at times, but it's especially easy not to hate someone on the internet who has no effect on you life whatsoever.

I practice not hating. It's hard at times, but it's especially easy not to hate someone on the internet who has no effect on you life whatsoever.

All you have to do is remember to hate the game, not the player.

All you have to do is remember to hate the game, not the player.

I'm with Lambo. At least as far as this board is concerned, no hate. If I "hate the game", I'll just stop visiting the boards like this one.

It's also a lot less stressful to not hate (split infinitive!) public officials. I think they are mostly idiots and morons**, and I would not be sad if several of them had heart attacks or strokes. But life is too short for the stress of hating.



**Not just the MAGA administration. As an example, our town is saying our water bills are going up because there isn't enough water, yet they continue to issue building permits for housing developments that will bring more people -and more demand for water- into the town. That's moronic.

It's also a lot less stressful to not hate (split infinitive!) public officials. I think they are mostly idiots and morons**, and I would not be sad if several of them had heart attacks or strokes. But life is too short for the stress of hating.

What most don't realize is that hate is negative energy that does more damage to the person expressing that it does to the target. Ergo, it's better to just let stuff go.

What most don't realize is that hate is negative energy that does more damage to the person expressing that it does to the target. Ergo, it's better to just let stuff go.

Well, lookie...we're in 100% agreement. :-)

All you have to do is remember to hate the game, not the player.

To you it's a game,I understand that. There are many people here not playing games. They make the place interesting.

There are many people here not playing games. They make the place interesting.

And that explains a lot.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.