Douchebag Thread for Politics & Religion Spill Over

Moiraine said:
Redux waan't piled on. Can we stop with that idiocy?

For f#*k's sake zoogs explained the irony of Trump's statement to him. How the f#*k is that piling on?

He then said he didn't care what zoogs said because zoogs is partisan, but whether or not the new healthcare plan is more socialized is not a partisan topic. It is less socialized, period. The Democrats know it, the GOP knows it, my 4 year old nephew knows it. Saying he wouldn't listen to zoogs explanation on it because he's partisan was bullsh#t.
Click to expand...
*wasn't
default_wink.png


 
Stumpy1 said:
Moiraine said:
Redux waan't piled on. Can we stop with that idiocy?

For f#*k's sake zoogs explained the irony of Trump's statement to him. How the f#*k is that piling on?

He then said he didn't care what zoogs said because zoogs is partisan, but whether or not the new healthcare plan is more socialized is not a partisan topic. It is less socialized, period. The Democrats know it, the GOP knows it, my 4 year old nephew knows it. Saying he wouldn't listen to zoogs explanation on it because he's partisan was bullsh#t.
Click to expand...
*wasn't
default_wink.png
Click to expand...
haha. I noticed that like 6 hours ago but I was at work and it's more annoying to edit it. I also assumed no one would notice.

 
ZRod said:
I could see where you're coming from if it weren't for the fact that zoogs initial replies were simply unbiased facts.
Click to expand...
With grains of salt things do I take. Agreeing blindly a fool me will that make.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1995 Redux said:
ZRod said:
I could see where you're coming from if it weren't for the fact that zoogs initial replies were simply unbiased facts.
Click to expand...
With grains of salt things do I take. Agreeing blindly a fool me will that make.
Click to expand...

"Clearly the ACA removed government involvement in health care completely. I can argue this 'cause I'm not informed and don't know what a fact is. Please don't discuss it with me though. It hurts my feelings and makes my intelligence feel insulted."

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I prefer discussing politics with 84HuskerLaw to this guy. At least 84 doesn't pretend to not have an opinion while actually having a stupid opinion about something everyone else knows is a fact.

Like, how the hell does someone argue that increasing the number of insured by millions does not get us closer to universal health care? You have to not know what the word "universal" means, right?? I could discuss this with Rush Limbaugh and he would agree with me and be happy about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1995 Redux said:
I then made my opinion that Obamacare etc. were not moving us anywhere near UHC either. I said that, that was my uninformed opinion. Zoogs laid down a lot of information. I must note that this information I took with a grain of salt because I'm quite certain you didn't include many ugly parts of it, which is why I'm incredibly hesitant to take any political info I learn here as gospel.
Click to expand...
I think where there's room for disagreement is whether Obamacare is the right way to go (or indeed, whether single payer will be good or bad for us). Or whether for example, it was implemented well or poorly. I have my opinions on that, but let's not get into all of it for now.

Where there isn't room for debate is where these things fall on the more/less government scale. This is the *entire* deal with the Trump comment.

ACA = substantially more government than before.

UHC = substantially more government than even that. It wouldn't be wrong to call this socialist. Good or bad word, you decide
default_smile.png


AHCA = undoes a lot of the government involvement of the ACA. Again, good or bad word, good or bad ideas on the whole, you decide.

The last several elections (not just the presidential) have been pushed by the parties themselves as a referendum on this more/less? government-in-healthcare question. Both Trump and the Republican Party, in action, are clearly on the "less" side of this debate, and they've won. No sane GOP leader in the past twenty years would have been caught dead extolling the virtues of a UHC system, but that's what Trump did. The most Trump-friendly interpretation of this would be: "Nice solution everybody else has, but we're going to reinvent the wheel and get there our [notably opposite] way."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I highlighted in red what I think the most important part of the conversation was. Previously, Redux asked how it wasn't better. Let's please stop saying Redux made a casual comment that he didn't have any type of discussion about.

At that point he clearly didn't understand why knapp posted about it in the first place. Then he posted "I guess I don't see a problem with his statement."

Most people see a post saying "I don't see a problem" as an opening for a discussion. It's similar to a question. Trying to answer what the problem is should not be considered discussing something that the person was not interested in. He invited the discussion by posting those 2 things.

Then we get to the red part. It's clear to zoogs that Redux is interested in discussing the topic based on his 2 posts, so he tries to explain why knapp posted Trump's quote. He explains it. It's NOT PARTISAN. The ACA got the government more involved in health care. The ACHA would get government less involved. Erego it takes us further away from the health care plan Trump praised in his quote. These are not partisan opinions. They are 100% facts.

Then Redux's reply follows. He won't listen to zoogs' "partisan" explanation because zoogs is "biased." He's accusing him of being biased about something that anyone who knows anything about the ACA and ACHA knows as a fact. The GOP knows it. The Democrats know it. The GOP wouldn't deny it because they are happy about it as are many of their constituents. This is the part of the conversation that should annoy people. zoogs did not "pile on." Nobody else "piled on" Redux. Why do we continue to bring up Redux's "mistreatment" here?? He wasn't mistreated. He wasn't piled on. That never happened. If anything zoogs should have gotten a lot more annoyed than he did. Redux is writing off anything zoogs could possibly say on the topic. If that isn't rude, nothing else in the conversation has been.
Click to expand...
Reading that from a different perspective I can see how somebody may interpret that discussion differently. I think the key point is when Redux said "I guess I don't see a problem with his statement". I obviously took that differently than a few others did. I took it as a simple reiteration of what Trump said was true. But I can now see how it could be taken as glossing over the irony of Trump's statement, as in, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Trump saying that. Obviously there are problems with Trump saying that because of Australia having UHC and the current version of the ACHA moving us in the opposite direction. I guess I just didn't feel (there's that word again) that Redux was intending to comment in that fashion. Probably because he had made it clear that Trump/ACHA was not moving us towards UHC and that he didn't want to get involved in a fact filled policy debate. So I took it all at face value of what Trump said was true so what's the problem. And I completely discounted the Uber partisan part of the discussion because, let's face it, we all pretty much know how zoogs feels about UHC the ACA and Trump. Even thoigh I basically agree with zoogs on those issues, I can see where a person may feel they are partisan views. I'm not sure I know how Redux feels about any of those things other than he, like I, wants more reasonable insurance premiums and lower care costs.

But I have grown weary of rehashing this. I still really think it was a case of a couple people just not being on the same wavelength. Or I completely misinterpreted the whole shebang...either way I'm done.

 
knapplc said:
I don't come to HuskerBoard to follow recruiting. That stuff spills over into the regular forum all the time. In the DBHOF, people complain about Recruiting trolls, most recently Matty.

Please create separate threads for DBHOF complaints for Recruiting so I don't have to see it in the sanctified DBHOF.
Click to expand...
I'm complaining or I'm the troll?

 
MattyIce said:
knapplc said:
I don't come to HuskerBoard to follow recruiting. That stuff spills over into the regular forum all the time. In the DBHOF, people complain about Recruiting trolls, most recently Matty.

Please create separate threads for DBHOF complaints for Recruiting so I don't have to see it in the sanctified DBHOF.
Click to expand...
I'm complaining or I'm the troll?
Click to expand...
All of the above bro

 
I still don't understand why anyone would offer an opinion/comment/thought on a topic unless they were willing to defend that position. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This whole thread perhaps could've been avoided.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
I still don't understand why anyone would offer an opinion/comment/thought on a topic unless they were willing to defend that position. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This whole thread perhaps could've been avoided.
Click to expand...
Jeebus F'n Krist.

It was a pretty innocuous comment that started it.

Knapp posts that Trump said Australia has better healthcare and that Australia has UHC.

Some people complain about what Trump said.

Redux says that simple statement is correct, Australia does have better healthcare. Then reiterates that he doesn't see a problem with it?

Forget for a minute that it is a highly ironic statement coming from somebody heading us in the opposite direction of UHC. Simple fact is, it was a true statement that Trump made. One of the very few true statements he's ever made I might add.

How f#cking prepared does a person have to be to defend that simple comment in your book?

It's a discussion that escalated beyond what a person should expect. Get off your high horse and let it go.

 
Besides that, it was in a status update. This didn't occur in a thread dedicated to the subject. IMO, status updates are designed for little more than drive by comments and smart a$$ retorts. If a person is hoping for deep policy debate in that area of the board, I would expect them to often be disappointed with the results.

 
Back
Top