Affordable?

[schuylaar]

3k/month = 36k/yr. 36k/100k = 36%. The math is not that hard.

$36k+/annually after i'm retired.

 

[Red1966]

$36k+/annually after i'm retired.

I thought you WERE retired.

 

[ChesusRice]

You don't want debate, you want a soapbox to stand on. If we weren't here to poke fun of you, who else is going to read your nonsense? Face it, buddy, you NEED us.

Nope

 

[schuylaar]

I thought you WERE retired.

no, red, i'm not retired.

now that i don't work for kushy fortune 500 anymore 60-80 hours weekly..guess you could say i'm SEMI-retired

 

[nitro harley]

nitro,

premiums rose about 3.6% the last 3 years, which is about half the rate they grew in the 20 years before obamacare.

that is a fact, no matter how much you might cry about it, you dumb vagina.

regards,

unclebuckley

Buck.

When you get a little older you will understand where I am coming from. Savor the moments.

 

[UncleBuck]

Buck.

When you get a little older you will understand where I am coming from. Savor the moments.

many people get wiser as they get older, they don't become paranoid delusional fact haters like you.

premiums are rising slower now than they did in the 20 years before obamacare. the rate of growth has been cut in half.

that's a fact.

 

[Rob Roy]

you mean, kick people out based on skin color, as you advocate for?

that's called a private club, and no one is forced to open one of those either. that's also a voluntary choice, like opening a store that serves the public.

I'll add voluntary to the long list of words that you abuse and have no idea of the proper meaning. You are not alone though, the entity that wears the boots you love to lick has problems with word definitions too. Imagine that, you and the prohibitionists using the same tactics? Amazing huh?

The nature of property and the relationship an owner has with it implies certain conditions exist. The most essential defining characteristic of property ownership is control of said property. Without that characteristic as part of the understanding, ownership is incomplete, abridged or removed. If you don't agree with that, please draw all .0003 watts of your brain power forth and refute that statement. I'll assume you won't, because you can't and I'll continue pointing out the flaws in your thought process.

A voluntary choice requires a choice of all the options available. Therefore if a person already owns a given piece of property, one of those choices that they could exercise is the decision of how to use said property. If an outside influence (non owner) uses force to direct the owners choices or limit them, what follows is not "voluntary".

If a person must open a "private club" in order to ensure control over property that they already own, one could conclude that some of their rights of property are being taken.

When a persons rights are taken, using the term voluntary in that instance, is incorrect.


Whether we like what a person does with their property or not does not mean that the meanings of words can be changed now does it?

Conclusion = You should put your crayons down and improve your word comprehension.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'll add voluntary to the long list of words that you abuse and have no idea of the proper meaning. You are not alone though, the entity that wears the boots you love to lick has problems with word definitions too. Imagine that, you and the prohibitionists using the same tactics? Amazing huh?

The nature of property and the relationship an owner has with it implies certain conditions exist. The most essential defining characteristic of property ownership is control of said property. Without that characteristic as part of the understanding, ownership is incomplete, abridged or removed. If you don't agree with that, please draw all .0003 watts of your brain power forth and refute that statement. I'll assume you won't, because you can't and I'll continue pointing out the flaws in your thought process.

A voluntary choice requires a choice of all the options available. Therefore if a person already owns a given piece of property, one of those choices that they could exercise is the decision of how to use said property. If an outside influence (non owner) uses force to direct the owners choices or limit them, what follows is not "voluntary".

If a person must open a "private club" in order to ensure control over property that they already own, one could conclude that some of their rights of property are being taken.

When a persons rights are taken, using the term voluntary in that instance, is incorrect.


Whether we like what a person does with their property or not does not mean that the meanings of words can be changed now does it?

Conclusion = You should put your crayons down and improve your word comprehension.

does the government own you and your property by not allowing you to pay children for sex on a voluntary basis within that property?

 

[Rob Roy]

does the government own you and your property by not allowing you to pay children for sex on a voluntary basis within that property?

I see that you failed to reply on topic with any kind of refutation. I WIN again!!!

Also, the nature of what people voluntarily agree to, has no bearing on whether or not the agreement was voluntary now does it?


Isn't it time for you to crawl back into your coffin now....the sun will be up in a few hours.

 

[UncleBuck]

the nature of what people voluntarily agree to, has no bearing on whether or not the agreement was voluntary now does it?

let's suppose the nature of what two people voluntarily agreed to was pedophilia.

now tell me how that has no bearing on whether or not the six year old child voluntarily agreed to be fucked in the ass by 67 year old robroy.

 

[Rob Roy]

let's suppose the nature of what two people voluntarily agreed to was pedophilia.

now tell me how that has no bearing on whether or not the six year old child voluntarily agreed to be fucked in the ass by 67 year old robroy.

I'm afraid you have mixed two things again. It almost seems like you are trying to imply that if a person understands what voluntary agreements are, that it automatically means they agree with what others have agreed to.

You aren't that dumb are you? (That was a rhetorical question by the way)

Now, I can understand that you might make a voluntary agreement for the bad man to put a gerbil in a place of your chosing, but that doesn't mean I endorse it or would engage in the same kind of behavior.

I've been alive in parts of 7 decades, but you're off by a few years kid.

 

[Rob Roy]

I like my world were I can freely walk into any store and shop. In order for us to have the word like you want it, we would still need force for it to apply. My way works best. I WIN

I agree that it would be a better world if all people could get along. However forcing people to interact doesn't achieve that. In fact due to the element of offensive force being present it is impossible. In order for two people to get along, the interaction must be consensual. Logic insists that is so.

If some people don't get along, is it better to force them to associate or to respect their right to be left alone?

People that get along make love. Rapists use force to ensure an interaction don't they?

Do you understand the differences between initiated force, defensive force and indifference? I'm not sure you do.

All kidding aside, I want to ensure you know that because I advocate for the right of a property owner to determine the use of their own body and their property, that doesn't mean I would use my property or body in the same way. If I had a store, race would not be a determining factor in exclusion, floor shitting in the bathroom would however.


I like a world where rapist tactics are lower on the scale of riteousness than simply leaving others alone.

Please explain how in "my" world, force is required. Is it defensive force or initiated aggression or indifference?

 

[Rob Roy]

You are not forced to stay. This government was here before you. If you don't like it you may leave. If you stay you will play like everyone else.

You are supplying more evidence AGAINST your previous argument where you said government wasn't force.

Have you been huffing laundry detergent again?

 

[Rob Roy]

i don't answer loaded, incomplete, or completely bullshit questions. i correct them.

when did you stop paying small children for sex who "voluntarily" agreed to let you fuck them in the ass for X amount of money?

I think you don't answer some questions because your capacity to do so, is limited. Also to answer them would reveal your cognitive dissonance.

Your last line is an attempt to smear me, and take the conversation into a realm of idiocy, where you do have some skills and experience.

So please explain what the word consent means?

What does voluntary mean?

Please correct me if I have used them erroneously.

 

[Dr Kynes]

many people get wiser as they get older, they don't become paranoid delusional fact haters like you.

premiums are rising slower now than they did in the 20 years before obamacare. the rate of growth has been cut in half.

that's a fact.

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
~Albert A. Bartlett

the exponential curve of medical insurance premium growth is slower now because "disposable income" has become something like a unicorn, and can only bee seen by virgins and blessed lunatics?

and this happened "Because Obama...."

so why do you specify "20 years" rather than "Since Obamacare Passed"?

cuz premiums were flat for a long time, then "Because Obama..." the premiums started Hoping and Changing their way to new heights? nope. that turd wont float.

also, it's funny but i never see this claimed "slowing in the rate of growth" you so often insist is happening.

(cuz everybody loves a shitload of graphs from unnamed websites, which may or may not be accurate...)

(bonus parenthetical aside: these graphs are actually from reputable sources, unlike the graphs bucky likes to toss around, from lefty blogs and other wildly prejudiced sources)

 

[londonfog]

I agree that it would be a better world if all people could get along. However forcing people to interact doesn't achieve that. In fact due to the element of offensive force being present it is impossible. In order for two people to get along, the interaction must be consensual. Logic insists that is so.

If some people don't get along, is it better to force them to associate or to respect their right to be left alone?

People that get along make love. Rapists use force to ensure an interaction don't they?

Do you understand the differences between initiated force, defensive force and indifference? I'm not sure you do.

All kidding aside, I want to ensure you know that because I advocate for the right of a property owner to determine the use of their own body and their property, that doesn't mean I would use my property or body in the same way. If I had a store, race would not be a determining factor in exclusion, floor shitting in the bathroom would however.


I like a world where rapist tactics are lower on the scale of riteousness than simply leaving others alone.

Please explain how in "my" world, force is required. Is it defensive force or initiated aggression or indifference?

No one is being forced to interact. If you don't want to associate with certain people,don't open a business that is open to the public.
In your world we would still need force to stop people from interacting with those who did not want to associate.
Sorry but I refused to fight the fight that could lead once again to segregation. Property rights do not trump civil rights. If you make your property private, you can dictate who you want to deal with. Open to the public, means just that.

 

[ginwilly]

No one is being forced to interact. If you don't want to associate with certain people,don't open a business that is open to the public.
In your world we would still need force to stop people from interacting with those who did not want too associate.
Sorry but I refused to fight the fight that could lead once again to segregation. Property rights do not trump civil rights. If you make your property private, you can dictate who you want to deal with. Open to the public, means just that.

You can still discriminate, let's not forget that. You just can't discriminate against parties that have a long history of discrimination against them before most of us here were born.

How long do we have to wait until everyone is treated the same under the law?

 

[londonfog]

You are supplying more evidence AGAINST your previous argument where you said government wasn't force.

Have you been huffing laundry detergent again?

Once again not force when you agree.

 

[ginwilly]

Once again not force when you agree.

Your agreement is that the force is applied and you accept it, not that you agree with it. Geez London, why can't you just admit that you like some force and not others. I can. I actually like that they've cracked down on drunk boaters on my lake, I don't fear decapitation while knee-boarding as much anymore.

 

[londonfog]

Your agreement is that the force is applied and you accept it, not that you agree with it. Geez London, why can't you just admit that you like some force and not others. I can. I actually like that they've cracked down on drunk boaters on my lake, I don't fear decapitation while knee-boarding as much anymore.

I thought I already stated that some things about my government I love and somethings I would like to change. In fact I'm sure I said it. I don't think you were paying attention.

Steelers without Bell...decision decision..

I think I still like Steelers.