Canada Freedom Convoy

[connyro]

LOL. when you need to invoke Bill fucking Maher to make your point, you've already failed. I bet Joe Rogan or maybe Tuckkker Carlson must have some brilliant insight as well.

[Nitram Tocrut]

I love fact checkers. They're position is usually "who are you gonna believe, me, or your lyin' eyes"?
Here's the moment the "protesters attacked police on horseback". Of course, it was stationary protesters in a crowd who could not escape from police as they rode 1200-pound animals into the crowd. Here's the woman not getting trampled:

The absurdity of denying this event occurred is incredible.

I wont be dragged into a sterile debate.

I don't consider myself a fact checker and don't believe anyone with closed eyes.

I don't know where you read that i said the event with horses did not occured? It was shown extensively and we all know it's a fact that this event occured and we are all happy it did not turned out to be tragic. I simply wrote that Fox News reported that a woman died which was a lie.

Please don't twist what I wrote.

[Montana St Alum]

LOL. when you need to invoke Bill fucking Maher to make your point, you've already failed. I bet Joe Rogan or maybe Tuckkker Carlson must have some brilliant insight as well.

EVEN Maher, a committed leftist. Viewing Trudeau through the lense of fascism was becoming universal. The other points may have been too complicated.

Here's how restricting "muh rights" works to hurt the people while enriching elitists.

Do Black parents have a "right" to send their children to good schools? Every attempt to attach funding to students, which would allow that, is shot down by groups with financial interests against the proposition.

Do any parents have a "right" to see what their children are being taught? We have graduates from high school who cannot read. Do those children have "rights"?

The CDC just reduced its measure of childhood development because young children, after being masked in school are unable to meet the measures of development in social and vocabulary skills. Do they have to worry about "muh rights"?

In March of 2010, "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was signed into law. The name elicits all sorts of visions of helping the downtrodden. But it forced people to buy a product they didn't want. Do you have a right not to buy a product if you don't want it?

I actually read as much of the bill as I could stand. If government forces people to buy a product that they don't want, that provides substandard insurance (high deductibles and poor coverage) it was clear that the insurer's stock would explode in value.

On the day that it was passed UHC stock was $42 a share. Obviously, a deal, I thought. Today, after pulling back because of the news cycle, it's at $453 a share. Think about it. The money people were forced to spend (violating their rights) went into increasing the wealth of the insurers by almost 1100%. That's money from people's pockets, to corporations, to politicians - repeat. That wasn't an accident, that was by design, and it goes on all the time because people are not even aware of their rights being abrogated (repealed or done away with).

Governments are bought off, and it's only what we insist to be a set of inherent rights that protects us from them.

[connyro]

LOL. when you need to invoke Bill fucking Maher to make your point, you've already failed. I bet Joe Rogan or maybe Tuckkker Carlson must have some brilliant insight as well.

EVEN Maher, a committed leftist. Viewing Trudeau through the lense of fascism was becoming universal. The other points may have been too complicated.

Here's how restricting "muh rights" - a cogent argument if you've ever presented one - works to hurt the people while enriching elitists.

In March of 2010, "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was signed into law. The name elicits all sorts of visions of helping the downtrodden. But it forced people to buy a product they didn't want. Do you have a right not to buy a product if you don't want it?

I actually read as much of the bill as I could stand. If government forces people to buy a product that they don't want, that provides substandard insurance (high deductibles and poor coverage) it was clear that the insurer's stock would explode in value.

On the day that it was passed UHC stock was $42 a share. Obviously, a deal, I thought. Today, after pulling back because of the news cycle, it's at $453 a share. Think about it. The money people were forced to spend (violating their rights) went into increasing the wealth of the insurers by almost 1100%. That's money from people's pockets, to corporations, to politicians - repeat. That wasn't an accident, that was by design, and it goes on all the time because people are not even aware of their rights being abrogated (repealed or done away with).

Governments are bought off, and it's only what we insist to be a set of inherent rights that protects us from them.

Your "Universal lense [sic] of Trudeau's fascism" declaration is hilarious. It's absolute bullshit if you step outside your echo chamber. Hardly a "cogent" argument. Neither is your use of Bill Maher as a bastion of liberal thought. The man is an attention whore and laughingstock for anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

The ACA is a bad thing? Your perspective is obviously malformed. From the perspective of someone who actually uses the ACA for health insurance subsidies, it's about providing cost relief for basic health care for people who are low income earners. Those of us without health insurance provided by a business or the state/feds are left without any coverage unless we can cough up $700+ a month for the premiums without gov assistance. For a policy with $4900 deductible. Would you prefer "the poors" be denied access to healthcare altogether? Would that make things a little bit easier and fair for you?

[Montana St Alum]

[/quote]
The ACA is a bad thing? Your perspective is obviously malformed. From the perspective of someone who actually uses the ACA for health insurance subsidies, it's about providing cost relief for basic health care for people who are low income earners. Those of us without health insurance provided by a business or the state/feds are left without any coverage unless we can cough up $700+ a month for the premiums without gov assistance. For a policy with $4900 deductible. Would you prefer "the poors" be denied access to healthcare altogether? Would that make things a little bit easier and fair for you?
[/quote]

It would make it easier and fair if the money went to the poor and not to the corporations and politicians.
It would make it easier and fair if powerful interests, such as teacher's unions, didn't stand in the way of education.
It would make it easier and fair if we could believe in the institutions that direct our lives.

There are two separate ACA issues. One is subsidizing people who want care and can't afford it. Medicare and CHIP existed before the ACA.
Another is forcing people who don't want insurance or want only catastrophic insurance to buy it without subsidies.

The corporations that got wealthy off the ACA did it on the backs of people who were forced to buy insurance without the benefit of subsidies. Allowing them to determine their own needs would not have impacted the subsidies you receive.

[connyro]

The ACA is a bad thing? Your perspective is obviously malformed. From the perspective of someone who actually uses the ACA for health insurance subsidies, it's about providing cost relief for basic health care for people who are low income earners. Those of us without health insurance provided by a business or the state/feds are left without any coverage unless we can cough up $700+ a month for the premiums without gov assistance. For a policy with $4900 deductible. Would you prefer "the poors" be denied access to healthcare altogether? Would that make things a little bit easier and fair for you?

It would make it easier and fair if the money went to the poor and not to the corporations and politicians.
It would make it easier and fair if powerful interests, such as teacher's unions, didn't stand in the way of education.
It would make it easier and fair if we could believe in the institutions that direct our lives.

There are two separate ACA issues. One is subsidizing people who want care and can't afford it. Medicare and CHIP existed before the ACA.
Another is forcing people who don't want insurance or want only catastrophic insurance to buy it without subsidies.

The corporations that got wealthy off the ACA did it on the backs of people who were forced to buy insurance without the benefit of subsidies. Allowing them to determine their own needs would not have impacted the subsidies you receive.

Don't you have insurance through either your previous job or through the military? Who do you think pays for that? If you get insurance from your previous job, that cost comes from somewhere, likely passed down to the consumer. If you get it through the military, it's all of us who pay for that too, just like ACA. Except that doesn't fit your narrative.

Also, I was one of those that was "forced to buy insurance without the benefit of subsidies" even though I already had a plan that worked for my situation and I was very reluctant to give up. At the time, I gained too much income to qualify for subsidies. It was not ideal, but I didn't throw a fit on a ski forum over it. Now that I don't have much income, due to starting a small business recently, the subsidies save my ass. Not everything needs to be made "easier and fair" for the benefit of rich white people. Based on your recent rants, it seems like you don't think things through with any attempt to see the full spectrum of the issue. Your schtick sounds spoon-fed directly and exclusively from "conservative" media.

[Montana St Alum]

The ACA is a bad thing? Your perspective is obviously malformed. From the perspective of someone who actually uses the ACA for health insurance subsidies, it's about providing cost relief for basic health care for people who are low income earners. Those of us without health insurance provided by a business or the state/feds are left without any coverage unless we can cough up $700+ a month for the premiums without gov assistance. For a policy with $4900 deductible. Would you prefer "the poors" be denied access to healthcare altogether? Would that make things a little bit easier and fair for you?

It would make it easier and fair if the money went to the poor and not to the corporations and politicians.
It would make it easier and fair if powerful interests, such as teacher's unions, didn't stand in the way of education.
It would make it easier and fair if we could believe in the institutions that direct our lives.

There are two separate ACA issues. One is subsidizing people who want care and can't afford it. Medicare and CHIP existed before the ACA.
Another is forcing people who don't want insurance or want only catastrophic insurance to buy it without subsidies.

The corporations that got wealthy off the ACA did it on the backs of people who were forced to buy insurance without the benefit of subsidies. Allowing them to determine their own needs would not have impacted the subsidies you receive.

Don't you have insurance through either your previous job or through the military? Who do you think pays for that? If you get insurance from your previous job, that cost comes from somewhere, likely passed down to the consumer. If you get it through the military, it's all of us who pay for that too, just like ACA. Except that doesn't fit your narrative.

Also, I was one of those that was "forced to buy insurance without the benefit of subsidies" even though I already had a plan that worked for my situation and I was very reluctant to give up. At the time, I gained too much income to qualify for subsidies. It was not ideal, but I didn't throw a fit on a ski forum over it. Now that I don't have much income, due to starting a small business recently, the subsidies save my ass. Not everything needs to be made "easier and fair" for the benefit of rich white people. Based on your recent rants, it seems like you don't think things through with any attempt to see the full spectrum of the issue. Your schtick sounds spoon-fed directly and exclusively from "conservative" media.

All the time I got insurance, the value of health care and medical stocks never skyrocketed.
These programs aren't for people, they're for corporate enrichment.
When I was in the military, health care was paid for through taxation. In the airlines, it was paid for through my employer. The cost of my employment was paid for by passing that on to consumers, of course, but none of those consumers were forced to pay my compensation.

For every story of someone who enjoyed being forced to buy insurance there are a dozen stories from those who did not. People I know. The cost associated with your coverage is not being covered by people made to buy insurance. Do you not understand that? The cost is being covered by taxes. Covering your costs with taxes is fine. Penalizing people just to enrich corporations is not. They are two separate issues.
You are focused on what you think are my motives, not on my arguments.

[connyro]

ok then. What's your solution?

[Montana St Alum]

ok then. What's your solution?

If the ACA had only expanded Medicaid and CHIP, it would have been fine. I think they could have expanded it more broadly, had that been the target of the legislation and though it would have required more in taxes, it would have been less of a drain on the other group of people in need, even after tax increases.

Also, I know verys successful small business owners who did not expand above a certain number of employees because they didn't want to trigger government mandated costs associated with the ACA. They could have been more successful and created more jobs and opportunities but didn't.

I was involved to some extent at my airline in a "suit" capacity as a Line Check pilot and there were serious costs associated with legislation. That's fine, as far as it goes. Programs cost money. But we had a stellar profit-sharing program and those profits were reduced. That's not a complaint, but it is a result. Employees made less money as a result.

It's not just the health care arena.

I was in the Navy for 20 years and proud of my service, but "Defense" has also been corrupted. There only have to be a small number of "bad apples". A very large number of people above the rank of O-7 (General, Admiral) is focused on what their careers will be when they retire. Below that the vast majority take service (and the protection of those below them in rank) seriously. Now, retiring Generals go on to work in the defense industry. It's much easier to get those jobs if you have been - well, let's say, "sensitive to the needs of industry" - while you were serving. It's very difficult to not view some of their advice (as in the JCOS) with serious suspicion. The waste is outrageous (though I'm a supporter of the F-35 program for tactical and strategic reasons, even though it is outrageously expensive, so there's contradictions, for sure).

In education, there is an awful lot of money that seems to specifically go to legislators for the sole purpose of preventing Black families from sending their children to schools that perform better. If money follows the child, rather than going to failing schools, it makes that easier. These are people who are in inner city gulags. I don't see why pointing these things out makes me racist.

[martin2007]

Yes, when disgruntled right-wing zealots determine that the likes of Bill Maher are the standard-bearers of "the left" I suspect it's time to either pack my bags and leave for Walden Pond (no, not THAT one, the one in Northern Ontario!), or instead, just give a friendly shout-out to someone here who has the patience, the energy, and the knowledge to engage in counter-argument. And that, when lesser mortals might conclude that it just ain't worth the bother... OK, maybe not always the patience, but hey, keep in mind what happened to Job before he finally said enough is enough and went on an ass-kicking rampage that folks are still talking about. (On second thought, maybe I'll leave for Walden after the NBA regular season and the playoffs have ended. I want to stick around long enough to watch Ben Simmons redeem himself and silence the haters!) So then I guess I'll be leaving right in the thick of black fly season! Before departure, though, I will murmur a timid prayer to the Creator of the Universe, HE who saw fit in all HIS wisdom to create, nurture, and indulge the immoral antics of churlish right-wing zealots and angry folks worldwide. I will pray that my new neighbours, those of the aforementioned Walden Pond, Ontario, will NOT be preaching the same old tired litany of right-wing grievances that are of late surfacing on this thread, as well as here, there, and everywhere the poor misunderstood "muh rites" folks can be spotted, cavorting with their like-minded brethren, seeking safe haven in which to engage in fluffy-bearded bro-love, drink cheap beer, and splash around in coal-fired hot tubs. Hats off to you, Connyro, for not allowing Telemark Talk to be a safe haven for people whose clouded sense of moral outrage seems to entitle them to free passes to relay incorrect information.

Upon re-reading this, I am willing to make a concession to the outraged patriot(s) that I may have, by accident or by brutish clumsiness, offended: only some of the freedom-lovin' convoy's hot tubbers' hot tubs were, in fact, coal-fired. Most just burned propane.