It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP can go to hell.

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Grambler
Everyone said Medicare would do a great deal of good, but it is 40 TRILLION (yes trillion with a "t") and costs have gone up substantially since it was implemented.


You counted the cost -- now how about counting how much they put back into the economy.

This isn't money shoveled into a group of vegetables in a nursing facility. This is business owners and productive workers, health care givers, and children (with conditions like childhood diabetes) able to grow up and enter the workforce.

Heck if we used your metric, NOTHING would be worth spending money on. Ford Company (for example) costs around $20 billion per year to operate. If you look only at the cost and not what is gained (cars, jobs, businesses, economic boost) then Ford looks like a sinkhole

Salary for the Packers (football team) is $17 million per year yet cities and states offer huge tax breaks and other benefits to bring a sports team to a location.

If you're growling about "how much Medicare costs" you are shutting your eyes to "how much does the economy and the nation gain from it?"


Its not just how much money was spent on medicare, its how much DEBT its in. When will you consider this a problem? 200 trillion in debt? 1 zillion?

You speak of all of these neat things its done. Who is going to pay that money?

We have a duty to spend within our means and to not force future generations to pay for our lavish living.

You are right, I do not think any program that spends more than we raise to pay for it should be allowed.

This is the same argument that is made over and over again, and has gotten us into the financial pickle we are in today.

Infrastructure is important. So are welfare programs. What about education programs? Defense spending is important. Medicare and medicaid are important. What about the arts?

Whats that, we can't pay for any of it? Ah screw it, just print more money and let the future generations take care of it.

We spend over 200 billion a year on interests on our national debt. If we had spent within our means for the past 40 years (both parties btw) we would have trillions more at our disposal right now to put into programs, or god forbid, to let people keep in taxes to stimulate the economy.

The moral argument for medicare holds no wait, the question is has it been financially successful.

The answer is no.




posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd



You counted the cost -- now how about counting how much they put back into the economy.


That is an excellent point.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Name me one universal health system that has ever existed.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Seriously. Birth costs A LOT of money. The average household can hardly afford the crazy prices we have in America, and the gop wants to change medicaid coverage for births.. Why?


Well let's see here...
We tax payers didn't experience the highs of courtship
we didn't partake in the joyful release that produced the child
we weren't in the room when the baby's expected arrival was announced
we didn't feel the baby kick it's first kick
we didn't experience the warm amusement when mom-to-be asked us to run get her ice cream and pepperchini peppers at 1 AM
we didn't experience the joy of lovemaking after the hormone levels went all over the place
we won't be there when baby is born into the world, eager to grab our newborn and hold him or her...

That's just a few reasons why I ask WHY IN THE BLUE HELL IS SOMEONE ELSE'S BIRTH A TAX PAYER FUNDED ISSUE? I paid for my own kids to be born into this world, same as my parents did, same as many, many parents do. Not real sure why we continue to subsidize the poor decisions of others in this country...



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Name me one universal health system that has ever existed.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Name me one universal health system that has ever existed.


en.wikipedia.org...


Sorry you fail. Not one of those systems provides UNIVERSAL care. There will be always people that fall through the cracks, hence there is no universal system.

You are pushing a system that has never existed, and therefore all of your criticisms of me apply to yourself.

Oh and look, here is a wikipedia page that says we have had free market economies!

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-6-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
You counted the cost -- now how about counting how much they put back into the economy.


Well now, let's look at this shall we? This was a big rallying cry a few years back when the 99% idiots were clogging America's main streets and interjecting their lack of economical intelligence into everything shared over the airwaves, so we may as well use the same point to counter what you just asked.
economy.money.cnn.com...

It's nice to think one can easily go from being dirt poor to filthy rich, but it doesn't usually work that way. Of people born into lower income households, few will ever make it into the middle class, according to a recent study from Pew Charitable Trust. Only a tiny percentage rise into the highest income bracket.


So I ask you this, when 70% of those kids end up not making it out of the welfare, Kept Voter pools after reaching adulthood, do you really want to go through the REAL exercise of calculating not how much they "put back" into the economy, but rather... as statistics seem to indicate, how much they continue to TAKE from the economy through their lives?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Sorry you fail. Not one of those systems provides UNIVERSAL care. There will be always people that fall through the cracks, hence there is no universal system.


Many of them do. Read it again. Here is an example.


Tunisia operates a public healthcare system under the National Health Insurance Fund (Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie). All Tunisian citizens and residents can receive treatment in state-run hospitals and clinics free of charge



Macau offers universally accessible single-payer system funded by taxes. Health care is provided by the Bureau for Health.


While I do not agree with how some of the systems are ran, these are examples of UHC systems existing.



You are pushing a system that has never existed, and therefore all of your crioticisms of me apply to yourself.


Ya, they do exist. I'm unsure why you are being intentionally obtuse. Are you now denying that any universal systems exist, even though there is proof to the contrary?



Oh and look, here is a wikipedia page that says we have had free market economies!


I did not see any examples of any economies that have true free-markets at that link. It only discusses theories.

Can you cite which countries have true free market systems.

I do apologize if I missed it.

Edit: I see that it mentions America, but America is not a free-market economy, as it is highly regulated. Which means it's not free.
edit on 27-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The interesting thing is how much liberals whine and accuse republicans of killing people and taking away birth control when in reality it was never that bad before obamacare, and still won't be after. Most hospitals have payment plans and payment forgiveness if one is low income or cannot pay a bill. I've used clinics in the past for cheap when I had no insurance.
Jimmy Kimmel said kids should have healthcare...well in California and in most states they do!! Who the heck was he talking to?
I work for my local county and after obamacare all county health clinics in California closed down because "everyone was supposed to have health insurance now." So no cheap clinics, yet there's people that still cannot afford Obamacare and are forced to find more expensive doctors...also since more people have insurance wait times for specialists have gone way up, and doctors accepting medicaid/medi-cal clients is way down. I have clients that have to drive several hours to San Francisco to see a specialist!
edit on 6/27/2017 by AnonymousMoose because: derp



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Sorry you fail. Not one of those systems provides UNIVERSAL care. There will be always people that fall through the cracks, hence there is no universal system.


Many of them do. Read it again. Here is an example.


Tunisia operates a public healthcare system under the National Health Insurance Fund (Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie). All Tunisian citizens and residents can receive treatment in state-run hospitals and clinics free of charge



Macau offers universally accessible single-payer system funded by taxes. Health care is provided by the Bureau for Health.


While I do not agree with how some of the systems are ran, these are examples of UHC systems existing.



You are pushing a system that has never existed, and therefore all of your crioticisms of me apply to yourself.


Ya, they do exist. I'm unsure why you are being intentionally obtuse. Are you now denying that any universal systems exist, even though there is proof to the contrary?



Oh and look, here is a wikipedia page that says we have had free market economies!


I did not see any examples of any economies that have true free-markets at that link. It only discusses theories.

Can you cite which countries have true free market systems.

I do apologize if I missed it.

Edit: I see that it mentions America, but America is not a free-market economy, as it is highly regulated. Which means it's not free.


So you are honestly going to tell me that every single person in Tunisia has health care? Including the homeless, illegals, etc.

That is what universal means; EVERYONE within that country gets health care. I guarantee there are people that live off the grid, hence they do not receive those benefits.

Notice Tunisia limits care to CITIZENS! Meaning others do not receive that care. Unlike the US, where non citizens routinely can use health facilities without paying.

You claim any free market principled plan is utopia because we have never had a free market system. You know this is just a rhetorical argument, and so if you are going to be childish about this, then you also can not provide one country ever that has provided universal (that is coverage to any single person alive that wants it or at least people within its borders) health care. Much like the free market, its never technically existed, so you are arguing utopia.

You say just because America has called itself free market doesn't mean it technically was, and I contend just because Tunisia technically calls itself universal doesn't mean it is.

See how dumb your argument is?

You know I am implying that a more free market system, ie one with as little government intervention as possible is preferable, just as I know when you say a universal system you are suggesting one where the government provides health care to all of its people as much as possible (clearly for example a homeless person that refused could not be forced to accept coverage).

But you chose to try to be cute yet again, and say we can't discuss a free market approach because it technically doesn't exists, just like we can't use criticism of universal health care plans against your super secret awesome best ever plan that has no negative consequences whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   


Women who are in lower-income brackets and are not enrolled in a group plan through an employer would no longer be able to enroll in Medicaid, at all, if they are pregnant. So if a woman without a group plan becomes pregnant, she would not be able to get insurance for the duration of her pregnancy. Afterwards, having been pregnant could be considered a preexisting condition, which would possibly be protected in the Senate bill (but not the House health care bill).

www.romper.com...


I think there is a misunderstanding here...
I live in virginia, and it didn't expand it's medicaid coverage. I went close to a year with no income really, and I couldn't qualify for medicaid till I was confirmed to be disabled, unfortunately I had to turn to my son's for help and ended up with two of them living with me long before that ever happened. but that's besides the point...
although I easily managed to fall into their income guidelines...




You must also be either pregnant, a parent or relative caretaker of a dependent child(ren) under age 19, under age 21 and in foster care, adoption assistance or a nursing facility, blind, disabled, or be 65 years of age or older.


I wasn't any of these.... I think they are taking a part that describes who would be eligible for the extension, which says pregnancy disqualifies you, and thinking it means that if you are pregnant, you wouldn't be able to get on medicaid, but if they are pregnant, they wouldn't need to have to qualify for the extension to get the medicaid???



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
a reply to: Grambler

The interesting thing is how much liberals whine and accuse republicans of killing people and taking away birth control when in reality it was never that bad before obamacare, and still won't be after. Most hospitals have payment plans and payment forgiveness if one is low income or cannot pay a bill. I've used clinics in the past for cheap when I had no insurance.
Jimmy Kimmel said kids should have healthcare...well in California and in most states they do!! Who the heck was he talking to?
I work for my local county and after obamacare all county health clinics in California closed down because "everyone was supposed to have health insurance now." So no cheap clinics, yet there's people that still cannot afford Obamacare and are forced to find more expensive doctors...also since more people have insurance wait times for specialists have gone way up, and doctors accepting medicaid/medi-cal clients is way down. I have clients that have to drive several hours to San Francisco to see a specialist!


The problem is that feelings trump facts with some people.

I agree the health care system sucks.

But universal health care may seem like a fuzzy warm thing, but it will destroy quality of care, and hurt people significantly finacially.

Again, this is the exact same argument we saw with medicare.

It was the humane thing to do. It would provide much better care, and lower costs for everyone.

And now we see seniors forced to go to specific places (which they were told they wouldn't have to), sometimes with poor care. And the program is 40 Trillion dollars in debt (or more). And on top of that, medical costs have gone through the roof since its inception.

Medicaid, same story.

VA health care, same story.

Obamacare, same story.

But this time, trust them, if we just give the government TOTAL CONTROL they will fix it this time.

But that doesn't matter, because they feel its the right thing to do. And don't get me wrong, having empathy with others and wanting them to be taken care of is good.

But universal care will make it worse for most people.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Universal health care is bad enough when insurance companies are not thrown in the mix. Universal health care only covers the most basic care. Rich people don't use universal health care even when it's available. Rich people use private health care.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



So you are honestly going to tell me that every single person in Tunisia has health care? Including the homeless, illegals, etc. That is what universal means; EVERYONE within that country gets health care. I guarantee there are people that live off the grid, hence they do not receive those benefits.


Live off the grid? What sort of odd tactic is that? That would be their choice, yet they still have the right.



Notice Tunisia limits care to CITIZENS! Meaning others do not receive that care. Unlike the US, where non citizens routinely can use health facilities without paying.


It says citizens and residents. That is a clear distinction and applies to residents that may not have been granted citizenship.



You claim any free market principled plan is utopia because we have never had a free market system. You know this is just a rhetorical argument, and so if you are going to be childish about this, then you also can not provide one country ever that has provided universal (that is coverage to any single person alive that wants it or at least people within its borders) health care. Much like the free market, its never technically existed, so you are arguing utopia.


You cannot provide examples, as have I. You only gave us theory. But it appears you are moving the goal posts. I have given examples in which all citizens, and residents, have the right to coverage, but now claim universal coverage means any person that is alive.

How ridiculous.



You say just because America has called itself free market doesn't mean it technically was, and I contend just because Tunisia technically calls itself universal doesn't mean it is. See how dumb your argument is?


No. What's dumb is you moving the goal posts to include coverage for any person that happens to be alive.


Tunisia covers it's citizens and residents, universally.



You know I am implying that a more free market system, ie one with as little government intervention as possible is preferable,


"More" free market. That's an important caveat. You are admitting there is no such thing as truly free-market. Only more free in one case than the other. So what you are actually implying is regulated capitalism, which is not free.



just as I know when you say a universal system you are suggesting one where the government provides health care to all of its people as much as possible


Yes. "It's people", meaning citizens or residents. Not every damn person breathing on the earth.




(clearly for example a homeless person that refused could not be forced to accept coverage)


That's their choice. They still would be covered if they chose to get care. I'm finding your approach to be rather odd.



But you chose to try to be cute yet again, and say we can't discuss a free market approach because it technically doesn't exists


It doesn't. You still have yet to provide one example.


just like we can't use criticism of universal health care plans against your super secret awesome best ever plan that has no negative consequences whatsoever.


I've never said there were never any negative consequences.

In fact, I said there would be problems that we would have to adapt to.

Don't make things up as we go along.

This is getting rather absurd.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Universal health care is bad enough when insurance companies are not thrown in the mix. Universal health care only covers the most basic care. Rich people don't use universal health care even when it's available. Rich people use private health care.


Rich people drink 25 year old scotch too..lol

I'm not sure why rich people need to be in this conversation, I don't need to be either and I'm not rich since my company provides free healthcare for me...lol

No matter what we do some people will have better healthcare coverage than others...the issue is to provide some form of healthcare coverage to all, so isn't that the point.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousMoose

Yes. It. Was. Bad. Before. Obamacare.

If you were sick, there were lifetime caps and they could refuse to insure you at all if you lapsed in coverage.

There were Maternity riders that you had to pay into sometimes as long as 18 months prior to getting pregnant. They were expensive and more like a pregnancy layaway plan than actual insurance coverage, if you had a normal pregnancy. They were great if you needed an emergency care that would otherwise be out of pocket, like a c-section.

There were other problems too but I will leave it at that.

The ACA has "gaps" where low income folks who made too much to qualify for Medicaid couldn't afford plans, due to their state refusing Medicaid expansion. Another gap is at the higher end where middle/upper middle class who did not qualify for subsidies found themselves paying much higher premiums due to 1) mandated higher quality insurance with more coverage , 2) congress not fully funding risk management (they gave 12% of what insurance companies were expecting which forced rates to go up - i.e. Sabotage), and 3) due to lack of risk management stabilization, the other effect was insurance companies did not enter the market or pulled out of the market. Finally, small Businesses need more support if they are to be asked to purchase insurance plans for full time employees, as the cost of this was too high.

The ACA was never meant to be the final word on coverage and was always considered a first draft, but it is an attempt at combining current insurance methods ( i.e. Capitalism) with the needs of hospitals, and with input from healthcare industry leaders. It is an effort to eventually have universal coverage with a uniquely American twist.

It solved a lot of problems, including the ones I mentioned that existed prior to the ACA. It created some new ones that, if we had a functional rather than hell bent on destruction of all things Obama Congress, would have been fixed already.


PS
Over run Emergency Rooms used by uninsured people jacked up the cost of insurance as well as out of pocket costs. The ACA solved that.

Also the lack of preventive care in previous insurance was causing people to put off needed screenings and checkups, so they'd wait until they were extremely ill, and costs would then soar.
edit on 27-6-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Universal health care is bad enough when insurance companies are not thrown in the mix. Universal health care only covers the most basic care. Rich people don't use universal health care even when it's available. Rich people use private health care.


Rich people drink 25 year old scotch too..lol

I'm not sure why rich people need to be in this conversation, I don't need to be either and I'm not rich since my company provides free healthcare for me...lol

No matter what we do some people will have better healthcare coverage than others...the issue is to provide some form of healthcare coverage to all, so isn't that the point.



That is the point. We pay for it anyway already when the poor cant afford it. All we are doing in this country is killing the middle class for the sake of "free market" profit for the insurance companies.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



So you are honestly going to tell me that every single person in Tunisia has health care? Including the homeless, illegals, etc. That is what universal means; EVERYONE within that country gets health care. I guarantee there are people that live off the grid, hence they do not receive those benefits.


Live off the grid? What sort of odd tactic is that? That would be their choice, yet they still have the right.



Notice Tunisia limits care to CITIZENS! Meaning others do not receive that care. Unlike the US, where non citizens routinely can use health facilities without paying.


It says citizens and residents. That is a clear distinction and applies to residents that may not have been granted citizenship.



You claim any free market principled plan is utopia because we have never had a free market system. You know this is just a rhetorical argument, and so if you are going to be childish about this, then you also can not provide one country ever that has provided universal (that is coverage to any single person alive that wants it or at least people within its borders) health care. Much like the free market, its never technically existed, so you are arguing utopia.


You cannot provide examples, as have I. You only gave us theory. But it appears you are moving the goal posts. I have given examples in which all citizens, and residents, have the right to coverage, but now claim universal coverage means any person that is alive.

How ridiculous.



You say just because America has called itself free market doesn't mean it technically was, and I contend just because Tunisia technically calls itself universal doesn't mean it is. See how dumb your argument is?


No. What's dumb is you moving the goal posts to include coverage for any person that happens to be alive.


Tunisia covers it's citizens and residents, universally.



You know I am implying that a more free market system, ie one with as little government intervention as possible is preferable,


"More" free market. That's an important caveat. You are admitting there is no such thing as truly free-market. Only more free in one case than the other. So what you are actually implying is regulated capitalism, which is not free.



just as I know when you say a universal system you are suggesting one where the government provides health care to all of its people as much as possible


Yes. "It's people", meaning citizens or residents. Not every damn person breathing on the earth.




(clearly for example a homeless person that refused could not be forced to accept coverage)


That's their choice. They still would be covered if they chose to get care. I'm finding your approach to be rather odd.



But you chose to try to be cute yet again, and say we can't discuss a free market approach because it technically doesn't exists


It doesn't. You still have yet to provide one example.


just like we can't use criticism of universal health care plans against your super secret awesome best ever plan that has no negative consequences whatsoever.


I've never said there were never any negative consequences.

In fact, I said there would be problems that we would have to adapt to.

Don't make things up as we go along.

This is getting rather absurd.


So in your definition of universal health care, only citizens and residents would recieve health care. Illegals would be kicked to the curb. Goth]cha.

And again, just because a plan claims to be universal, if it is not providing coverage to every single person in that country, regardless of what their legal status is, then it is not universal. You know full well no country has ever achieved that.

But its irrelevant, I got drawn into you stupid semantic game.

"There has never really been a totally free market system, and so I refuse to listen to free market solutions to health care!" You are right its absurd.

But please, go on telling us how the real unemployment number is 4.4% and to believe otherwise is a conspiracy. Please go on telling us about you super secret health plan that avoids all criticism that people have mentioned because its different than other universal health plans that have been proposed.

Continue to ignore that every, single, time the government has gotten involved in a big way in health care, it has been a disaster in the US.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Universal health care is bad enough when insurance companies are not thrown in the mix. Universal health care only covers the most basic care. Rich people don't use universal health care even when it's available. Rich people use private health care.


Rich people drink 25 year old scotch too..lol

I'm not sure why rich people need to be in this conversation, I don't need to be either and I'm not rich since my company provides free healthcare for me...lol

No matter what we do some people will have better healthcare coverage than others...the issue is to provide some form of healthcare coverage to all, so isn't that the point.



That is the point. We pay for it anyway already when the poor cant afford it. All we are doing in this country is killing the middle class for the sake of "free market" profit for the insurance companies.



For example, Britain has a relatively well-regarded universal healthcare system that every citizen pays for through national income tax. The tax rate for income tax and National Health Insurance in the United Kingdom (England) in 2015-16 for all citizens earning between zero and £31,785, considered basic-rate (flat rate) taxpayers, is a whopping 20 percent of their entire income. It is a full 15 percent more than America’s middle class tax rate and would entail a 20 percent tax hike for 45 percent of Americans who pay nothing now.

If a British citizen earns just one pence over that “basic threshold,” their income tax rate jumps to 40 percent up to £150,000. For income over that number the rate is 45 percent; all to cover the National Health plan administered solely by the government with a form of rationing.

For a comparison, and one reason why many Democrats are reticent to go all-in to support enactment of single-payer in America, in 2015, 45 percent of Americans with earned income paid zero income tax. One cannot comprehend how nearly half of the population living in poverty and barely making it and then saddled with a 20 percent tax bill will embrace being poorer to have basic healthcare when they will be unable to eat or pay rent.

Many of those “45-percenters” are in poor Republican states and already complain they are “taxed enough already;” it is just one reason they reliably vote for Republicans pledging to cut taxes, get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, and get government out of the healthcare business.

For middle class Americans, the federal income tax rate stands at about 5.3 percent for tax year 2015. It is as laughable that Americans paying nothing in income taxes will support a 20 percent increase as it is the middle class supporting a 34.7 percent tax hike for universal healthcare; not when they already have healthcare insurance or can buy a “Cadillac” policy and still have money to eat, pay rent, take a vacation, and still afford their 5.3 percent federal income tax bill.


www.politicususa.com...

Ah yes, that sounds so much cheaper for the middle class. 40% of their income to pay for health care.

But you are the one who wanted to use European countries as a model.

Or let me guess, this isnt the same as you super secret plan, which would be much cheaper.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



So in your definition of universal health care, only citizens and residents would recieve health care. Illegals would be kicked to the curb. Goth]cha.


Red herring. The country still provides universal healthcare to it's citizens and residents. Therefore they are a universal system.



And again, just because a plan claims to be universal, if it is not providing coverage to every single person in that country, regardless of what their legal status is, then it is not universal. You know full well no country has ever achieved that.


Goalposts moved again.

What game are we playing?



But its irrelevant, I got drawn into you stupid semantic game.


This is your absurd creation of a game. Don't complain when you can't play by the rules you set yourself.



But please, go on telling us how the real unemployment number is 4.4% and to believe otherwise is a conspiracy. Please go on telling us about you super secret health plan that avoids all criticism that people have mentioned because its different than other universal health plans that have been proposed. Continue to ignore that every, single, time the government has gotten involved in a big way in health care, it has been a disaster in the US.


Keep avoiding the specific things I have said to distract from your inability to address them.

You've spent most of this thread simply making things up and using illogical statements, while resorting appeals to emotion.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join