Jump to content

Question for our new "Centrist"


stevenash

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Remmus said:

If you believe that ALL these killing were the result of young men that had it coming, you're probably not being as objective about the issue as should be.  Just my two cents.

No one ever said that. The bigger problem is the ones who believe that ALL of them were murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Come on man, gimme a hug...lol.  Yeah, I agree.  Only level heads can really make progress to solve the issue. 

And who are the level heads? Some people think that socialized healthcare is the "level-headed" way to go, which I think is preposterous and beyond consideration. In fact, I find it childish, simple minded and deplorable. So who is level headed? To make progress on this issue, maybe we need to define what is considered level-headed. And there lies the conundrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Englebert said:

And who are the level heads? Some people think that socialized healthcare is the "level-headed" way to go, which I think is preposterous and beyond consideration. In fact, I find it childish, simple minded and deplorable. So who is level headed? To make progress on this issue, maybe we need to define what is considered level-headed. And there lies the conundrum.

I think people who trust the private sector to manage health care are not level headed or rational (ON THIS TOPIC, not all topics) especially after all the evidence of the private sector diminishing care and not improving.  Also we have companies playing games with part time vs full time status to avoid adding people to company plans.  This was before "Obamacare."  One reason we don't have universal health care is the wealthy in this country (in particular) are scared to death of a new entitlement that will increase taxes.  Plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with quality of care.  Those death panels were used to manipulate the sheeple to buy the conservative line.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Remmus said:

I think people who trust the private sector to manage health care are not level headed or rational (ON THIS TOPIC, not all topics) especially after all the evidence of the private sector diminishing care and not improving.  Also we have companies playing games with part time vs full time status to avoid adding people to company plans.  This was before "Obamacare."  One reason we don't have universal health care is the wealthy in this country (in particular) are scared to death of a new entitlement that will increase taxes.  Plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with quality of care.  Those death panels were used to manipulate the sheeple to buy the conservative line.  

Again, there lies the conundrum. You stated earlier that level-headed people can make real progress on an issue. But the definition of "level-headed" is just in the eye of the beholder. So what you are saying seems to be "only like minds can progress on an issue". Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Again, there lies the conundrum. You stated earlier that level-headed people can make real progress on an issue. But the definition of "level-headed" is just in the eye of the beholder. So what you are saying seems to be "only like minds can progress on an issue". Is that correct?

No.  When I disagree with you please don't push the red button.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Remmus said:

ok.

I'm guessing here, but I think you might have taken my earlier remarks for more than I meant. I said that I find the thought of socialized healthcare childish, simple-minded, deplorable and some other things. I actually don't believe that, I was trying to make the point that people can be far separated in their beliefs. Who is considered level-headed is probably going to fall with the one whose beliefs best matches "the beholder". It was not meant to be a personal jab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm guessing here, but I think you might have taken my earlier remarks for more than I meant. I said that I find the thought of socialized healthcare childish, simple-minded, deplorable and some other things. I actually don't believe that, I was trying to make the point that people can be far separated in their beliefs. Who is considered level-headed is probably going to fall with the one whose beliefs best matches "the beholder". It was not meant to be a personal jab.

Thanks for clarifying.  We liberals...I mean, Centrist can be sensitive....LOL!  And I'm not SuperSupremeEnlightenedHandJob.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Thanks for clarifying.  We liberals...I mean, Centrist can be sensitive....LOL!  And I'm not SuperSupremeEnlightenedHandJob.  

I should have clarified better that I was creating a hypothetical, but wanted to be semi-vague for my follow-up. I got the follow-up in but can see how it was confusing.

I'm starting to gain real confidence you're not ECO. He would have already blown up by now and revealed his true colors. Plus your spelling, punctuation and grammar are far superior (not that I care about that, just noticed the difference).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,207
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined


  • Posts

    • That should tell everyone something pretty clearly. Does anyone really think BH is recruiting elementary kids, to get them to transfer in Jr. high? Seriously? Here is the "dirty little secret" about BH: Most people move to the district for a quality living environment to raise their young family, and benefit from the outstanding acedemics at BH. Even If all athlectics suddenly disappeared from BH, people would still want their kids in the district. If thats not enough to convince anyone, and BH really was determined to recruit, first step would be to have open enrollemnt. It is closed.        Yes, I get it, no one ever wants to give BH the benefit of the doubt on anything. Some of the accusations are beyond ridiculous though. This paranoia the BH critics are afflicted with is not just sad, its flat out laughable.     
    • Opting is always an option. Are they considering any BC assistants? Highly qualified after that season they put up. 
    • Be that as it may, only time will tell. Hide and watch. Don’t be surprised if the next HC hire uses his own recipe. That happens more than not historically. I am not arguing the point that Hooks & CT had a winning combination that could’ve been carried over. I’m saying that finding someone to do that is not going to be as easy as one might think. Tell me again why Saban’s replacement, who even has Saban’s assistance if he wants it, just lost another game to an unranked team and has taken the Tide out of playoff contention? Why wouldn’t he just follow the success of possibly the greatest college football coach ever lived? 
    • We've acknowledged having 2 HOF coaches hasn't been like most other schools. So why everyone jumps to the conclusion it wouldn't work here is beyond my comprehension. I see it carry over with these other hires. Gilmer, Aledo, North Shore, Austin Westlake. Next man up that continues the system in place has instant success. Matter fact there was 2 rookie HC that won the state championship the same year we handed over the keys. Same book. Same recipe. Better ingredients.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...