Congressional report says that repealing Obamacare would cost $100 billion over the next decade. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006428]How? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] It's okay to joke about killing people for having different opinions? Is that the view of the left? Is that being progressive?[/QUOTE] I think everyone understood 2 pages ago that people can have different opinions on things.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48006504]Well, I'm sure you're ok with it. After all, it's my opinion. You gotta respect, accept, and tolerate my opinion, right? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] No problem with any of that. After all, those are all opinions~! Also I would presume that calling someone a bigot is rude.[/QUOTE] I do tolerate it, but I can disagree with it, and so I openly do so. But that's at the cost of you saying you're a bigot, and you're right that's fine with me. Saying someone is a bigot isn't derogatory. Calling someone dumb or a robot is though.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006428]How? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] It's okay to joke about killing people for having different opinions? Is that the view of the left? Is that being progressive?[/QUOTE] I don't know about it being the 'view of the left' (which I don't ascribe myself to), but it's definitely okay to joke about killing people for having different opinions.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48006532]I think everyone understood 2 pages ago that people can have different opinions on things.[/QUOTE] I just think it's interesting that Facepunch, being a liberal forum and its members promoting equality and such would spin around and say it's okay for people to not have their equal share in views.

[QUOTE=Rocket;48006544]"Bigot" is much more insulting than "dumb" or "robot" when it's completely unwarranted.[/QUOTE] Except he's literally a bigot. Dumb is an insult, bigot is a factual term that people [I]don't[/I] like to be called.

[QUOTE=Rocket;48006554]Facepunch isn't really liberal. But you're just misrepresenting people so you can act superior.[/QUOTE] Yes it is. And I'm not trying to act superior, all I have to do is quote you guys to make my point.

[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54123195/rating.png[/img] so whatever happened to not being rude eh

[QUOTE=Rocket;48006559]He's literally a bigot if you only use dictionary definitions, because you're a robot.[/QUOTE] So you get to make up your own definitions? Really? Well, "robot" isn't an insult but the context you're using it in is. The context I'm using "bigot" in is to prove he is intolerant. If you find that offensive, okay how about this one instead. He's intolerant. But wait, he referenced George Carlin! [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWBvB4U-cA[/url] [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48006574][img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54123195/rating.png[/img] so whatever happened to not being rude eh[/QUOTE] I think he made no point whatsoever, and presented himself to be a bigot. I think you made an effort to state your point. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Also, you got me! It took 3 pages! Where as I've been called dumb, a robot, and yelled at since the beginning of the thread. You're right, we're not perfect.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006579]So you get to make up your own definitions? Really? Well, "robot" isn't an insult but the context you're using it in is. The context I'm using "bigot" in is to prove he is intolerant. If you find that offensive, okay how about this one instead. He's intolerant. But wait, he referenced George Carlin! [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWBvB4U-cA[/url] [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I think he made no point whatsoever, and presented himself to be a bigot. I think you made an effort to state your point. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Also, you got me! It took 3 pages! Where as I've been called dumb, a robot, and yelled at since the beginning of the thread. You're right, we're not perfect.[/QUOTE] I'm just going to say, you're calling people names, and calling them dumb, and demanding that they can't do the same to you. Just another example of how your internal logic is highly flawed. But anyways, after that 19 page argument with flameon, i'm not wasting time on arguments that are obviously stalled a few posts in.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005679]No one is ignoring anyone here.[/QUOTE] man I love your ability to read other peoples posts oh wait [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006351] No, you're dismissing being rude to me, which wouldn't be a problem if... you weren't rude to me. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] So what I've gotten so far out of this is that some members of Facepunch are okay with being bigots, saying not all people are entitled to their own views, and that it's even okay to insult and name call people when having discussions about politics. [/QUOTE] Well, you are dumb, so, there you go. I'm not even going to bother joining the argument. Stop taking everything so literally.

I'm calling people bigots, which they are in every case I use it. If you don't like, stop being a bigot. I'm sorry you find it offensive but it's factual and I'll consider just saying intolerant in the future. But that's the context I'm not trying to insult. Others are. You say my logic is flawed as a result because you actually choose to ignore it, which is what you say I do! [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] yeah saying something doesn't make it true though

tbh the Republican party SHOULD die and so should the democratic party our government shouldn't even have a party system any more, that's simply a waste. We need more options than "The two least awful people, and then the least awful of the two"

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006727]I'm calling people bigots, which they are in every case I use it. If you don't like, stop being a bigot. I'm sorry you find it offensive but it's factual and I'll consider just saying intolerant in the future. [/QUOTE] I'm calling you dumb, which you are in every case I use it. If you don't like, stop being dumb. I'm sorry you find it offensive but it's factual and I'll consider just saying unintelligent in the future.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48006727]I'm calling people bigots, which they are in every case I use it. If you don't like, stop being a bigot. I'm sorry you find it offensive but it's factual and I'll consider just saying intolerant in the future. But that's the context I'm not trying to insult. Others are. You say my logic is flawed as a result because you actually choose to ignore it, which is what you say I do![/QUOTE] What even is this argument about anyways it sounds like a convoluted mess are you actually arguing anything other than the fact that you took shit literally? Just back off and admit you took them literally. Stop arguing semantics and [I]how people WORD things.[/I]

sad knowing republicans would be fine with spending anything to remove obamacare, which would plummet us even worse into our national debt. this country would benefit without a party system at this point, imho.

and the republicans aren't hated because of their opinions, they are hated because they treat their opinions as objective fact. This is hating someone for something far bigger than being pro/anti-nuclear, this is hating someone for having an entire ideology about EVERYTHING. same goes for many democrats and libertarians and everyone else, screw em all.

[QUOTE=J!NX;48006781]and the republicans aren't hated because of their opinions, they are hated because they treat their opinions as objective fact.[/QUOTE] you just criticized me for reading, and half the thread is about the people here saying opinions can be factually wrong, so [I]clearly[/I] this is [I]not exclusive to republicans.[/I] in fact everything you said implies you didn't read the discussion, so maybe you should do that first if you want to take part in it... but you don't? you're right though, you can have it one way or the other it's a fact or its an opinion you can have a hypothesis, or an opinion about something you think might be factual, but you can't disclaim all opinions for some distant claim that wasn't even made in the original opinion that was a big part of the argument saying "i think x will turn out to do y" is more of a hypothesis than an opinion, whereas "i think people should do z" is just an opinion much of the argument made here was that opinions are actually hypotheses and that people are not entitled to those hypotheses once they are factually incorrect but that's not how people actually vote because not everyone has every last detail known about these topics in reality, you form opinions based on views, and people cast votes on those opinions. people do the best to be informed on the matter, but more often than not, vote on opinion, not hypothesis and people are entitled to their opinions, but further more, their views, which are how people establish opinions. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;48006737]our government shouldn't even have a party system any more, that's simply a waste. We need more options than "The two least awful people, and then the least awful of the two"[/QUOTE] yes

Dont you all have better things to do than argue with strangers on the internet? Nobody's opinion is getting changed here, there is no resolution. Its pointless

[QUOTE=Exho;48007001]Dont you all have better things to do than argue with strangers on the internet? Nobody's opinion is getting changed here, there is no resolution. Its pointless[/QUOTE] That's like 99% of Sensationalist Headlines imo

[QUOTE=Exho;48007001]Dont you all have better things to do than argue with strangers on the internet? Nobody's opinion is getting changed here, there is no resolution. Its pointless[/QUOTE] I wanted to make my point, so I did. I get tired of all the pointless banter about oh this party is so bad, that party is evil, it's a joke. All different types of people have opinions, you can't eliminate people's opinions.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005525]Yes, an entire political party should no longer be in existence because its members have differing opinions than that of another political party. And then what, create a new political party? Stop being politically active? Or assimilate into the group they disagreed with?[/QUOTE] Hey I am sorry but politics is not a fashion show. If I get involved in politics and have a view I try to push, it's because I think that's the one true ideal approach and no, there's no space for other views and it would be ideal if they were not influencing the politics of the state. Obviously it's completely wrong to attempt to surpass the views through force or other kind of foul play, but there's nothing wrong with wishing that political ideologies that are as far as I understand misled and undesirable would die out. Politics aren't (or, well, shouldn't be) a popularity contest, nor a religion. If I am convinced something is right and other options are wrong, then I want the other options gone, not something that should just float around because that's nice.

Yes, but that one party isn't going to be right about everything will they? Saying an entire party should be gone as a result is shortsightedness. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] It's roughly the same mentality that in general, outside of politics, other people's ideologies other than your own should die out. And for countless years in my country, people have fought for equality, so that's a bullshit point of view as far as I'm concerned. Everyone gets a voice or no one does. You can't be selective about it.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48007146]Yes, but that one party isn't going to be right about everything will they? Saying an entire party should be gone as a result is shortsightedness.[/QUOTE] Well as an independent observer, if I was really concerned about America, I would see getting rid of Republican party a step in the right direction, even though the American Democratic party would be very quick second to follow if that was also an option. Honestly I don't think the rigid party system has much value and ideally individual independent representatives would be preferable over parties which would make choosing who's worth voting for (and who would be the best to get rid of) much easier. Still, tho, yeah, Republican party should ideally go, nothing changes about that.

That might fly in the Czech Republic, but not where I live. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48007163]Well as an independent observer, if I was really concerned about America, I would see getting rid of Republican party a step in the right direction, even though the American Democratic party would be very quick second to follow if that was also an option. Honestly I don't think the rigid party system has much value and ideally individual independent representatives would be preferable over parties which would make choosing who's worth voting for (and who would be the best to get rid of) much easier. Still, tho, yeah, Republican party should ideally go, nothing changes about that.[/QUOTE] Sure, but realistically then the statement "the Republican party should ideally go" is saying "the Democratic party should ideally go," "the Green party should ideally go," and so on, since "the rigid party system [doesn't have] much value."

Not really necessarily because at some point the limited benefits of parties start outweighing the issues, there's a tangible threshold and specifically the republicans are by far the ones who are way over it.

Everyone who has said this before you though, every time, without failure does not seem to understand Duverger's law [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law[/url] Here's also a somewhat relevant video, [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/url] [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48007206]Not really necessarily because at some point the limited benefits of parties start outweighing the issues, there's a tangible threshold and specifically the republicans are by far the ones who are way over it.[/QUOTE] So then the original question from page one, what's the alternative? When you get rid of that one party but keep the rest, do you really think one similar to it would not arise?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005489]Yes, lets defend the unreasonable opinion that repealing obamacare is for the best. On every metric possible, we can tell that it's a bad idea to repeal it even though it's crippled as it is now(Thanks to republicans who crippled it so they could repeal it on one of the last attempts at bipartisanship that the republicans took advantage of and essentially spit in the face of the american people) so yes, it is a bad opinion to hold.[/QUOTE] This again? This keeps coming up and keeps being refuted. If you want someone to blame try blaming the authors of obamacare (which would be health insurance lobbyists) or the group that voted for the bill the lobbyists wrote (that is to say- democrats). There was nothing bipartisan about the bill the democrats passed. The democrats did not include republicans in any part of the process. In fact, democrats didn't even include themselves in much of the process. Nancy pelosi admits no one had actually read the bill before the vote. Not one republican (house or senate) voted for this bill. Democrats are going to have to just admit they pandered to insurance companies and sold out their constituents. Not to say that obamacare is "all" bad. There are select parts that are a step forward. The bill as a whole though badly needs amending. Something the insurance companies (and democrats) refuse to consider.

I have one question: How much will not repealing obamacare cost over the next decade?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;48010060]I have one question: How much will not repealing obamacare cost over the next decade?[/QUOTE] I have another question. What are these costs that the government will supposedly have to pay? Obamacare is largely private insurance- which costs them nothing. It also expanded Medicare and set up subsidies for illegal immigrants. How does not expanding Medicare and not paying for illegal immigrants insurance cost money?

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;48010015]This again? This keeps coming up and keeps being refuted. If you want someone to blame try blaming the authors of obamacare (which would be health insurance lobbyists) or the group that voted for the bill the lobbyists wrote (that is to say- democrats). There was nothing bipartisan about the bill the democrats passed. The democrats did not include republicans in any part of the process. In fact, democrats didn't even include themselves in much of the process. Nancy pelosi admits no one had actually read the bill before the vote. Not one republican (house or senate) voted for this bill. Democrats are going to have to just admit they pandered to insurance companies and sold out their constituents. Not to say that obamacare is "all" bad. There are select parts that are a step forward. The bill as a whole though badly needs amending. Something the insurance companies (and democrats) refuse to consider.[/QUOTE] You replied to a comment about whether or not a bill had been undermined by republican lawmakers after the fact with an accusation that democrats were not "bipartisen" enough in their lawmaking process. That isn't a relevant response when the idea being put forward is that the affordable care act's current success is a measure of the bill's own merits.