A Look At Sarah Palin

[Kate]

Irreligious wrote

Then shut the fuck up about abortion, bitch. It totally undermines your credibility, because obviously you don't really give a fuck about other people's "boo-boos," at least, not after they're born.

Ridiculous, off-topic assertion that has no intellectual value-- only emotional value. And it is a lie.

Your attitude speaks for itself, you demented clod. Did your ass know better when you "almost" got knocked up?

Yes.

Save them empty platitudes for someone who ain't read thousands of examples of your mean-spirited tripe on this forum.

This is the difference between a fool liberal and a realist. You consider expecting people to take responsibility for themselves mean-spirited. Most of us know it is the only way a free society can stay free.

Speaking with forked tongue again? You've linked to a half-dozen or more sites arguing that "Obamacare" is not the answer all to say that millions of Americans without access to what you obviously take for granted is not a problem?

Only someone on the Democrapic payroll could say something this stupid. I have never denied that there is a problem. What I have emphatically denied is that Obamacare is any sort of solution.

Mmm-hmm. You are quite the heiress, Paris Hilton, ain't ya? Born with a silver spoon to go with that silver foot in your mouth. With apologies to the late Ann Richards

There you go again. My grandparents were lower middle class children of immigrants who worked hard and managed to have a reasonably comfortable life. They lived their whole lives in a row house in South Philly--hardly the Hilton. My father entered the military at 17 to take one burden off them, then worked his butt off to support us. I was the first person in my family to go to college. Take that silver spoon of yours and place it where the sun doesn't shine.

Ignorance, especially when coupled with self-righteousness is ugly, unproductive and the enabler of evil.

[Kate]

Lily wrote

Ignorance, especially when coupled with self-righteousness is ugly, unproductive and the enabler of evil.

[ghoulslime]

I used to think Lily was just a batty old loon. It has become quite clear that she is an evil old witch with a black heart and withered soul.

Sometimes I wish there were a great big righteous judge in the sky. I suppose Lily's self-imposed misery will have to be her only just dessert.

[Kate]

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

Ridiculous, off-topic assertion that has no intellectual value-- only emotional value. And it is a lie.

Mmm-hmm.

Lily wrote

... Why should I or any other tax payer pay for her boo-boo? That is her responsibility and the responsibility of her family.

Now I contrast the above statement with this platitude of yours from the A Moral Question to Atheists thread:

Lily wrote

I have an idea! Let's welcome all children; educate them properly and allow them to be adopted into loving homes, if their biological parents can't provide for them materially and emotionally.

Best plan!

It was made in response to dogpet's assertion that, maybe, everybody can't bear the burden of allowing their "boo-boos" to hatch into babies. Obviously, adoption was your answer to this quandry. So, I ask: How many babies have you welcomed into your home over the years? And I don't mean kittens. You haven't taken on that responsibility. You don't even want you taxes going to support these "bastards." So how am I wrong in my assertion that you don't really care about other folk's boo-boos once they've been "birthed?"

Lily wrote

Yes.

But you spread 'em, anyway.

Look, I ain't judging you, but why must you judge others for having done what you, yourself, did? You got away with it, so to speak. You got your cochie but you didn't get pregnant. Nor did you have to face struggling with the consequences of having gotten pregnant without a supportive husband in tow. And, if you had been knocked up under that scenario, you claim to have also had a proud, working-class family with the means to keep you out of the free clinics and emergency rooms should you or your baby have required expensive medical treatment that you, very considerately, wouldn't have wanted to pawn off on the taxpayers.

But what if you didn't? Would you really have forgone the cochie in the heat of that moment?

Lily wrote

This is the difference between a fool liberal and a realist. You consider expecting people to take responsibility for themselves mean-spirited. Most of us know it is the only way a free society can stay free.

No, fool. I expect honest, working people not to have to fork over as much as two-thirds of their annual salaries to pay for the privilege of having access to basic health care, something that you and I both possess. That seems sane and civilized to me. And I honestly don't see how my freedom would be imperiled by them having that. The not-so-well-off among our neighbors to the north have that and , I don't know, but they still appearto be enjoying their freedom.

Lily wrote

Only someone on the Democrapic payroll could say something this stupid.

An allegedly wise woman once posed this question to me:

Lily wrote

When are you going to wrap your head around the fact that there is no blessed difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? When?

I suppose I can now answer: When she, herself, wraps her head around this alleged fact.

Lily wrote

I have never denied that there is a problem. What I have emphatically denied is that Obamacare is any sort of solution.

And all you've offered is tort reform as a solution, as if it's the only solution. Is tort reform going to be enough to help that guy earning $22K-a-year without employer-provided health insurance be able to afford to buy some for himself, so that he, his wife and their two little ones are all covered?

What else you got in the way of a plan? Because this guy needs help and you claim to care. You don't have to mention free clinics and emergency rooms again, because we already got those.

Lily wrote

There you go again. My grandparents were lower middle class children of immigrants who worked hard and managed to have a reasonably comfortable life. They lived their whole lives in a row house in South Philly--hardly the Hilton. My father entered the military at 17 to take one burden off them, then worked his butt off to support us. I was the first person in my family to go to college. Take that silver spoon of yours and place it where the sun doesn't shine.

Sweetness, I already know the drill. You've shared it before. I was merely responding to your claim that these salt of the earth folks would come rushing to your rescue and would eschew any government help on your behalf. It sure doesn't sound like they would be in any position to do that, but if you insist they could cobble up those resources needed to pay for your kid's annual dental check ups or treating any chronic illnesses he may have had if you couldn't, well, you might as well be in the same leagues as Miss Worry-Free Hilton.

Lily wrote

Ignorance, especially when coupled with self-righteousness is ugly, unproductive and the enabler of evil.

So you know it's evil? Then why, for the love of your imaginary god, do you promote it so vociferously on this forum?

[dogpet]

Irreligious wrote

No, fool. I expect honest, working people not to have to fork over as much as two-thirds of their annual salaries to pay for the privilege of having access to basic health care, something that you and I both possess. That seems sane and civilized to me. And I honestly don't see how my freedom would be imperiled by them having that. The not-so-well-off among our neighbors to the north have that and , I don't know, but they still appearto be enjoying their freedom.

The car parking parable covers this: If the poor man gets a ticket his family might not eat that week; but the rich man may park with relative impunity, monopolising our collective resources cheaply in his terms.

In a million years, I will not be able to get through. If only you would think about what is best for society in the long and short term! It just isn't all about you. When will you get that through your head?

Irreligious wrote

So, I ask: How many babies have you welcomed into your home over the years? And I don't mean kittens. You haven't taken on that responsibility. You don't even want you taxes going to support these "bastards." So how am I wrong in my assertion that you don't really care about other folk's boo-boos once they've been "birthed?"

Because you haven't framed the question correctly, nor have you bothered to try to understand the view point of someone who thinks welfare is degrading and doesn't want to see the nation sucking at the teat of government. I don't want us to turn into a 3rd world country or a half-enslaved mess like Britain.

Look, I ain't judging you, but why must you judge others for having done what you, yourself, did? You got away with it, so to speak.

It has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with moral judgement. It has to do with you explaining why anyone who fails to make good choices should expect to be bailed out by tax payers. It has to do with expecting free people to take responsibility for their choices. It has to do with not infantilizing a nation. Maybe it would make more sense to you if I cast it in these terms:

How sorry do you feel for the aging hippy who wakes up one day to find he has nothing? He has never held a real job in his life but has spent it trying to be a rock star or a revolutionary, or whatever, while his brothers and sisters grew up to become productive members of society. I know a fair number. How about you? How about the professional student- a type I have seen too many of,. He never graduates he just gets loan after loan or assistantship after assistantship put never gets past it and puts that education to work? What do tax payers *owe* such as these?

And, if you had been knocked up under that scenario, you claim to have also had a proud, working-class family with the means to keep you out of the free clinics and emergency rooms should you or your baby have required expensive medical treatment that you, very considerately, wouldn't have wanted to pawn off on the taxpayers.

Nonsense. By the time I was old enough to get pregnant, my father had worked his way into prosperity. He would have given me holy hell and made me regret the day I was born. Then he would have gotten over it and helped while expecting me to do my share. As much as one can say 40 years later, I am pretty sure I would have given the child up for adoption.

I expect honest, working people not to have to fork over as much as two-thirds of their annual salaries to pay for the privilege of having access to basic health care, something that you and I both possess. That seems sane and civilized to me. And I honestly don't see how my freedom would be imperiled by them having that. The not-so-well-off among our neighbors to the north have that and , I don't know, but they still appearto be enjoying their freedom.

They aren't allowed to pay for private care out of their own pockets. That doesn't sound very free to me. Why do you suppose a cottage industry for getting Canadians here for medical care has sprung up? Besides which you continue to frame this as a question of denying help to honest, working people. It is not. I reject Obamacare because it is an unashamed takeover of a huge segment of our economy by the government who will tax your coke and your twinkies, tell you what you can eat, drink, smoke, what conditions you can have treated, how and for how long. All for a price we cannot afford.

What else you got in the way of a plan? Because this guy needs help and you claim to care. You don't have to mention free clinics and emergency rooms again, because we already got those.

This is tiresome. Really tiresome. I don't have to have a plan. There are experts who have already offered improvements and solutions who will be glad for the chance to put them into practice.

[dogpet]

Lily wrote

How sorry do you feel for the aging hippy who wakes up one day to find he has nothing? He has never held a real job in his life but has spent it trying to be a rock star or a revolutionary, or whatever, while his brothers and sisters grew up to become productive members of society. I know a fair number. How about you? How about the professional student- a type I have seen too many of,. He never graduates he just gets loan after loan or assistantship after assistantship put never gets past it and puts that education to work? What do tax payers *owe* such as these?

Think of it as uni for proper rock stars. You know, anyone you like. Billy Joel or something.

[nkb]

Lily wrote

I never used the word suicide, did I? Don't let that small matter stop a good, off-topic interruption.

Let's try this again (and I know that you know exactly what you did or implied, and are just being the usual, dishonest bitch).

This is what you highlighted in the letter to Waxman:

It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen who resides in New York State or anywhere in the United States of America should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.

So, once again, please point out where the health bill does this. There are only a few outcomes that I can see:
1. It really does say that, and it would be trivial for you to quote the bill, and explain your interpretation for us.
2. It actually doesn't say that, and you admit that you were either regurgitating what you found from a conservative source, or were just fear-mongering, as usual.
3. You do what you've been doing all along, waving your hands, vaguely referencing the health bill, and all your "experts" that claim it encourages seniors to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise), in which case you are conceding defeat just the same, just a lot less graciously.

[nkb]

Here is the gist of the Lily-plan:

If a woman becomes pregnant, she is not allowed to make her own decision on her pregnancy, and she has to carry it to term.

Once she has given birth, there are two choices:
1. Give up the baby for adoption.
2. Keep the baby, but, fuck you, you are on your own, unless you happen to have family that has the means to support you.

There doesn't appear to be any other options.

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

In a million years, I will not be able to get through. If only you would think about what is best for society in the long and short term! It just isn't all about you. When will you get that through your head?

So it's "best" for society in the long and short term to have millions of uninsured working people running around without the means to afford the exorbitantly high costs of a basic health insurance policy? And, if I think that is shameful, I'm being selfish? Even when my employer is already paying for my health insurance, the same as yours?

Check.

Lily wrote

Because you haven't framed the question correctly, nor have you bothered to try to understand the view point of someone who thinks welfare is degrading and doesn't want to see the nation sucking at the teat of government. I don't want us to turn into a 3rd world country or a half-enslaved mess like Britain.

Well, thanks for that info. I honestly had no idea they were offering welfare in "3rd world countries" now! Is that why Mother Teresa spent all her time in Calcutta instead of handing out government cheese in Detroit?

And I also am flummoxed to learn that you(!) had such intimacies with the degradation of welfare. My, how the mighty have risen! I suppose you must have spent many a day, somewhere in your past, without a job or prospects for a meal, a place to live and no other immediate means of support, but you forged on ahead, because you didn't want to be degraded by having anything that you couldn't fashion from your own immaculate hands.

I also didn't realize we talking about folks that down and out. I was thinking that, hypothetically, we were talking more about a woman your age, unmarried, childless and who has worked all her life, like you, but not as prosperously, perhaps, and who was still unable to afford a 5 grand-a-year, personal health insurance policy. But I suppose it is better for society to have that deadbeat restricted from having access to a regular pap smear and annual breast exam, the same as you. Sounds like she hasn't been degraded enough, even though she probably made some very poor life choices to have wound up in her predicament.

Lilyh wrote

It has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with moral judgement. It has to do with you explaining why anyone who fails to make good choices should expect to be bailed out by tax payers. It has to do with expecting free people to take responsibility for their choices. It has to do with not infantilizing a nation. Maybe it would make more sense to you if I cast it in these terms:

How sorry do you feel for the aging hippy who wakes up one day to find he has nothing? He has never held a real job in his life but has spent it trying to be a rock star or a revolutionary, or whatever, while his brothers and sisters grew up to become productive members of society. I know a fair number. How about you? How about the professional student- a type I have seen too many of,. He never graduates he just gets loan after loan or assistantship after assistantship put never gets past it and puts that education to work? What do tax payers *owe* such as these?

Well, hippies are communists, by definition, so it's best not give them what they want, which is government handouts.

But, surely, you are not implying that everyone who can't afford health insurance is a shiftless, aging hippy or a dunderheaded, dreamy-eyed professional student, are you? And I know you aren't saying that all poor working folk are the egregious perpetrators of poor life choices who deserve to be priced out of the market when it comes to basic health care. You care way too much for people to even suggest anything like that. So what are you saying?

Lily wrote

Nonsense. By the time I was old enough to get pregnant, my father had worked his way into prosperity. He would have given me holy hell and made me regret the day I was born. Then he would have gotten over it and helped while expecting me to do my share. As much as one can say 40 years later, I am pretty sure I would have given the child up for adoption.

Well, for that harrowing experience, you deserve to keep every dime you earn right in your own, dear pockets. It's really quite admirable that despite your, um, youthful indiscretion, you still had the foresight to pick the right dad and the ability to know 40 years hence exactly what you would have done had you been so blessed to bear a child that you could give up for adoption.

Lily wrote

They aren't allowed to pay for private care out of their own pockets. That doesn't sound very free to me. Why do you suppose a cottage industry for getting Canadians here for medical care has sprung up? Besides which you continue to frame this as a question of denying help to honest, working people. It is not. I reject Obamacare because it is an unashamed takeover of a huge segment of our economy by the government who will tax your coke and your twinkies, tell you what you can eat, drink, smoke, what conditions you can have treated, how and for how long. All for a price we cannot afford.

Well, according to Wiki, Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers. So, it sounds to me like they're free to buy , supplementary, private health insurance.

Eh, but, that's only Wiki, and how reliable are they, anyway? Some communist (I'll bet it was Obama) probably tossed that false information in there just to fool a dupe like me.

Besides, we can't have you being inconvenienced just because some folks (millions of 'em) can't afford the private stuff that your employer buys for you. Those folks made the unfortunate choice of being poor. Will they ever learn to make good choices like you have? Besides it's only the dishonest ones who can't afford to buy their own health insurance.

Lily wrote

This is tiresome. Really tiresome. I don't have to have a plan. There are experts who have already offered improvements and solutions who will be glad for the chance to put them into practice.

Oh relax, honeychile. You don't need to come up with a plan for those folks who made poor life choices and decided to become poor while simultaneously employed. The important thing is that you are already covered, and that is what is best for the nation. As long as you're healthy and strong, we're all healthy and strong.

All that hot air and irrelevant blather and yet you couldn't answer a very simple question-- what do tax payers owe fools who get themselves in trouble by making one stupid decision after another? What?

[Philboid Studge]

Lily wrote

All that hot air and irrelevant blather and yet you couldn't answer a very simple question-- what do tax payers owe fools who get themselves in trouble by making one stupid decision after another? What?

Answer: nothing. Question: stoopid.

Taxes were never intended to pay off debts owed to fools. The uninsured (and underinsured) cost US taxpayers $45 billion a year. Maybe taxpayers owe it to themselves to fix that. It would be cheaper, more efficient, and BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYBODY if Merkins could adopt a single-payer system in which no one is denied coverage.

I know these words mean nothing to you because your head is so far up your ass you can see Jesus, so why don't you ask some really important questions for which you are better equipped to address, such as 'Where did I come from?' and 'How many bilious douchebags can dance on the head of a pin?'

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

All that hot air and irrelevant blather and yet you couldn't answer a very simple question-- what do tax payers owe fools who get themselves in trouble by making one stupid decision after another? What?

In all that so-called blather, you didn't notice the relevant parts? I answered: Nothing. You don't owe anybody a damn thing, Miss Taxpayer, because-- as you just now put it-- the poor are fools.

So, now you've got one hand free to guard your pocketbook against your inferiors and the other to pat yourself on the back for being such a wise decision-making Christian with impeccable moral standards.

Yep, you can have your cake and choke on it.