Sex bias

[Walker]

Well then, please answer me this: What do you think the prime motive of Obamacare was?

It had a significant impact on creating fundamental change in the United States, by lacing a thread of causality throughout the society that connects into a web of chaos. This was witnessed in real time, as one absurdity upon the next was foisted upon the public. Absurdity founded on absurdity, and then custom tailored to fit. What ended as the evolving Obamacare was far from what was passed as legislation in fact and reasoning, and the legal contortions to prop it up were absurd. Everyone remembers when the ashen-faced, swing-vote Roberts cast the unanticipated vote that led to much gossip and speculation of how they got to him.

I didn't ask you about the impact. I asked you about the motive . Are you able to discern the difference?

Your lashing out is understandable. When folks begin to wake up to what’s been going on right there under their noses, so close that if it was a snake it would’ve bit ‘em, there is bound to be some mental thrashing about and confusion. To backtrack towards first cause as you so graciously request (sarcasm rather than irony), and keeping in mind that who can really know the mind of another person, the effects of BO as cause indicate that his motive in life, is to Lie with a capital L.

If the confusion persists you will find that you have no choice to but to turn to rationality and compassion in order to enfold the antics and goings-on while maintaining good cheer and conviviality in discussion with naivete so slumbering as to be bamboozled into falling for the unicorn weaver. Do some research and contemplation, because I won’t do it for you by answering questions rooted in your own motives of perhaps dubious intent, judging by the consistent tone.

Since the snot is compulsive, to get past the blinders in this specific matter you may also want to listen to the doc’s advice, as he does not confuse absurd premiums and deductibles with actual access to a doctor, a PA, an NP, medical treatments or prescription medicine deemed necessary by them or their ilk... in a variety of choices.

On one end you have the wealthy.
On the other end, the poor.
In the middle of the bell, the big middle class.
Destabilize the big middle class by shaking up the system, i.e., fundamental change.
Nothing shakes up the middle class like taking their money.

Chaos ensues.
Once destabilized, restructure society with the gubberment much more in control, of you.

Pay attention. Rule of law was fatootsed in the past 8 years.
Chaos in government has ensued.
There is a coup in process right now, via obstructionism.
This is more of the fundamental change, i.e., the continuance of what was begun.

Analyze the dialogue surrounding 1:29 in this video. This is a crux of fundamental change right here, and it happened very recently. Hot off the presses. This is historic, just like the past 8 years of fundamental change were historic. The implications of this should be banner headlines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlXXZQgh72Y

- When asked why he didn’t follow legal procedure, the director of the FBI admitted, by what he said and didn't say and by what his actions reveal, that …

- And the consequences for him personally, for the past president, and for the current president, will be …

[artisticsolution]

Blah blah blah...

Have you lost all common sense? Does it seem reasonable to you that anyone,s motive in life would be to be to make the public dependent on government? C'mon! To what end, ask yourself!

It would be absurd to believe someones motive would be to spend that much money in an attempt to make people dependent...as there is no benefit for said person.

Now if that person had direct monetary gain, there might be a motive . But as it stands, your premise doesn't even make sense.

On the other hand, the exclusion of Healthcare for the majority puts your tax dollars into the pockets of government politicians to be able to tip the scale of the law in their favor...allowing them to profit from taxpayer dollars.

There is Real motive in such a scenario.

But you are too hard headed and too embarrassed to admit the truth that you are gullible and have fallen for the oldest con in the book.

And what is laughable is the fact that you think in denying the truth, you are going to trick us here in the forum that you are a leader of 'truth' to be respected. What you don't realize, is whether or not someone tells you directly you are full of shit...they are thinking it.

Simply put...don't fool yourself. Most everyone can spot a pathetic excuse for a human being when they see it.

And there in lies the 'karma' that is certain to come back and bite you in the ass.

Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!
Lock Him Up!

[thedoc]

Well then, please answer me this: What do you think the prime motive of Obamacare was?

To make everyone dependent on the Government (Liberals) for everything.

Aren't you being a tad dramatic? How does having access to purchase ones own health insurance, "make one dependant on government"? You are a silly little thing.

The government is attempting to take away the choice by making it mandatory, by taking away the choice the government is making citizens dependent on the government to make the choice for them. The government should see that people are educated so that they can make good choices but the government should not be making decisions for them. The government is not there to take care of everyone from cradle to grave.

[Walker]

Blah blah blah...

Sad. Losing the desire for truth and the capacity to discuss issues contributes to the heartbreak of TDS. (Trump derangement syndrome)

In a classic case of projection, the virus quickly spreads and makes people small.

We send moral support for a swift recovery, but you have to want it.

[Walker]

Is it time to start keeping a separate record book to define Number 1?

Weightlifting: Transgender lifter Laurel Hubbard wins first international outing
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11821399

[Harbal]

You are a silly little thing.

You've managed to sum him up completely with just this one short Sentence.

[Walker]

You are a silly little thing.

You've managed to sum him up completely with just this one short Sentence.

Maybe. Maybe just ironic. And since it doesn’t stray from all the other observations that are mysteriously called good, maybe it's just the accuracy of a stopped clock.

This unprovoked goodness does key in on an important question, that could be medically related.

Namely …

Is the feminine more susceptible to TDS?

[artisticsolution]

To make everyone dependent on the Government (Liberals) for everything.

Aren't you being a tad dramatic? How does having access to purchase ones own health insurance, "make one dependant on government"? You are a silly little thing.

The government is attempting to take away the choice by making it mandatory, by taking away the choice the government is making citizens dependent on the government to make the choice for them. The government should see that people are educated so that they can make good choices but the government should not be making decisions for them. The government is not there to take care of everyone from cradle to grave.

Doc,

With all due respect, a cooperation is way more different than dependence. If you work for an employer aND they give you health insurance as a benefit, does that make you dependent on them? No!

Because:

1. You are working for your health care benefit (whether or not you need it now or in 20 years) you don't have a choice. An employer usually tells the laborer what pay and/or benefit she will get.

2. Healthcare is merely a cooperation of a country so that, in part, the people of the country can survive and thrive. Part of the survival is making sure we are healthy. That means we must all cooperate in order the keep us safe by ALL paying for a defense system as well as a Healthcare system. Terrorist attacks kill far fewer people than disease.

I don't understand how you are okay with forcing me to pay for the defense of our country but you are not willing to have me do the same to you for healthcare.

We all should be cooperating with each other or then allow me not to have to pay into your silly little war games. Again, with all due respect .

[artisticsolution]

You are a silly little thing.

You've managed to sum him up completely with just this one short Sentence.

[Walker]

Well, since the clue words “historic significance” didn’t ruffle any brain cells, we’re just Whistlin’ Dixie here.

Byron York thinks that the implications are important enough to consider, however he’s careful to end with an illogical assertion that doesn’t connect the dots.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron ... le/2617960

If the FBI director was and is acting as a unilateral individual, then what’s his motive? Don’t struggle with it too long. It’s a rhetorical question based on the stinky premise that he’s acting alone. Stinky.

The identity of the other should be obvious to those not affected by the TDS virus, which might be triggering a synaptic block.

Then again, cautiously waiting to be told what to think, by the proper PC source, is perhaps a habit too deep.

[artisticsolution]

Walker,

What you call "PC" I call etiquette which I interpret as kindness. You don't like when people call you names. This is what I consider "double mindedness". Simply put...double mindedness is present in you when you you want others to treat you with respect but want to treat others with no respect.

Double mindedness

[Walker]

Walker,

What you call "PC" I call etiquette which I interpret as kindness. You don't like when people call you names. This is what I consider "double mindedness". Simply put...double mindedness is present in you when you you want others to treat you with respect but want to treat others with no respect.

Double mindedness

You’re dragging “polite” into the gutter with “politically correct.”
Polite deserves better than that.

You don't know what I call a "proper PC source." You attempt to imply my meaning. You imply that using the accurate identifier of "PC" is "name calling." Also, you're dishonest in implying that I would disapprove of politeness.
(Right or wrong, thinking what you think requires inference, which is all you know other than, you are)

Don't sweat it. No offense taken. You had to write what you wrote.

Politically correct is to be overly concerned with the views of others, often accompanied by attempts to influence or control the expression of those views in others. Methods such as taking offense and demanding public apologies, boycotting retailers, using publicity as a weapon, publicaly calling people out for using the wrong word, and so on, and so on. This is the principle made manifest.

This principle manifesting as a proper PC source, takes the form of opinion masquerading as news.


The question is, does dishonesty in dialogue correlate with sex, and if so, are men objectively justified in holding a bias against the integrity of dialoguing women? (or vice versa if you must).

Personal answer: No. Take folks for what they are.

[Walker]

Regarding healthcare, the good old days of free market, free enterprise are struggling to make a comeback …where people are doing what they have to do.

They are doing what they must do, which has led through a series of decisions folks like to call choice, to this result.

Kinda shocking that the Obamacare goons didn’t shut this down.
Don't laugh. When the weather gets hot, somewhere some municipal authority will shut down a kid's lemonade stand. Happens every year.

Perhaps this time, in an Obamacare Universe that attempts to control what folks do, the folks who did what they had to do with their medical care slipped through some regulatory crack in the universe.

A new kind of doctor's office charges a monthly fee and doesn't take insurance — and it could be the future of medicine
http://www.businessinsider.com/direct-p ... ?r=US&IR=T

[artisticsolution]

A new kind of doctor's office charges a monthly fee and doesn't take insurance — and it could be the future of medicine
http://www.businessinsider.com/direct-p ... ?r=US&IR=T

I agree that this is a good thing. The problem is, Healthcare cost is not just about doctors, it's the hospital, pharmacy cost that is crazy expensive.

Right now, as it stands, I could go to a doctor for as little as 100 a visit...without insurance. No need to pay the 70 a month to be on the Dr.s plan. I don't see the doc that often.

The problem is the cost of catastrophe care....God forbid you need surgery...or an expensive medication. The hospitals and drug companies basically have a monopoly. One could go bankrupt if one needs their care. And after bankruptcy, when you have no money left...comes death. Does that sound reasonable to you?

It begs the question, which is more important...laissez-faire capitalism or people? I would say people...and I think if Republicans really understood themselves, they would too...simply for the fact that they always rally around the importance of life ( i.e. pro- lifers, anti Euthanasia, and such.)

It seems to me your party gets confused about what they are for and against very easily.

[Walker]

Sure, the essence of that game is your money or your life.

The principle of institutionalization extends through all the phases of modern life … pre-school, government school, post-secondary school, corporate niche, so on and so on.

If that’s your party, the pot of gold at the end of the middle-class, yellow-brick-road is to trade all the accumulated worldly possessions and spend the last years or months in an age-appropriate frat house, with chauffeured transportation here and there to various group activities, such as shopping, spending money, clinic, and so on. Those who do so, have to do so.

Those who do otherwise, must.

Those who paid attention during the past 8+ years know that the Big O’s specialization is building false dichotomies upon the straw foundation of lies. Translation: my way or the highway.

He didn’t use content to build castles in the clouds. His lies were transparent to anyone with a functional capacity for critical thinking. The best salesmen sell dreams, and the dream he sold was created in the music and cadence of speeches for each to hear and weave in their own mind, plain and simple.

B.O. could have been saying anything for those who hear only the singer and not the song (or is it the song and not the singer?), and wouldn’t you know, Obamacare legislation was worded to say anything that regulators wanted to hear in the wording. Not really such a coincidence. They are both manifestations of the bullshit principle.

As you can see, this analysis communicates, rather than simply saying anyone who voted for the Big O is a delusional fool, or the barnyard equivalent.

The question is, does the sex of a person impact the capacity for rational analysis in sorting out facts and delusions? If anyone answers in the affirmative, you likely have the capacity to end that bias for almost everyone, if you can keep your nose clean.

*

As a professional, how do you like this? What kind of structure is that in the clouds?

An American painter to warm hearts.
2 in a series of 4.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... A05140.jpg