ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%

  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
UK till Death said:
Oh boy...



Can someone who has followed this drama explain WTF is going on here? :popcorn:

Also: where's LEK's apology for being mean to all the evil white Devils ITT?:weary:

Also: DON'T LEAVE, LEK!!!!!! Your unintentional humor will be sorely missed. :okay:
Click to expand...
Cowardly ymmot threatened to post real life information on him.
 
Sad? No offense if you are letting some BS run you off the go on!

I honestly can't imagine leaving here BECAUSE of other posters mean words. I do take breaks because I'm grown and spend too much time here.

LEK be better!
 
cat_in_the_hat said:
If the goal remains to provide comprehensive insurance all people, then I think you are correct. There is no functioning market where the marginal cost of going to a doctor is artificially low because of insurance and there is no competition between providers. As I said in an earlier post, all that does is raise the demand for services and since there is no functioning market, there will not be a corresponding supply side response like you see in a market. The goal of universal insurance is a stupid one and doomed to failure. If politicians don't have the stomach to get back to market forces where the cost of routine care is based on an arms length transaction, then the quality of service, or price, or both, will suffer. It's basic economics.
Click to expand...
There has never, ever been competition between providers for basic health care...EVER!
I agree with you in part...the goal of universal private insurance is doomed to fail simply because it adds billions of dollars of cost (profit for the insurers) to the healthcare system without providing any care. It also allows healthcare cost to continue to rise as long as insurers can raise rates and continue to pass on ever higher costs to consumers. The free market will always seek the point where the most profit is made, not where the most people are served.
Why not do the same with the public drinking water? Turn it over to private interest and let it find the point where it is most profitable. So what if 20% of the population is left to fetch water from the rivers and streams. They can boil it and make it safe to drink. I mean it wasn't until the last century where people could expect to have running water in their home. While we're at it we can do the same with all public utilities. /sarcasm

The genie is out of the bottle. The introduction of widespread employer provided insurance in the late 50's and into the 60's and Medicare for the elderly changed the healthcare market. It created a pool of billions, trillions of $$ that allowed the healthcare industry to evolve to what it is today. Cures were discovered, instruments of care were invented and propagated so that they were available to most everyone, everywhere. Drugs were developed... Of course the problem with all of this is that it is very expensive. Without insurance or shared responsibility for cost only the very wealthy could ever afford to be sick. I've mentioned my wife is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and has accumulated > $100,000 in costs. How many people do you think could pay for that care out of their pocket? The median family income in the US is $57K...so for half of the families in this country a fight with cancer would cost them 2x+ their annual earnings.

I'll let you have the job telling most people who come the emergency rooms and doctors offices that if they can't pay for care then the provider is going to turn them away. No more free care! We've got to let the free market find its equilibrium...you know that's not going to happen. We'll also have to develop a system so we know who and who not to transport to hospitals in cases of accidents. Perhaps we can have a chip placed on the back of the neck that has our financial ability to pay information. No sense transporting some bum that can't pay.

That is why the single payer system, a national health system is and will be the ultimate result. To claim that we are "doomed" is just plain silly. The rest of the industrialized world uses that model and they are all doing alright. They are healthier than are we.
 
fuzz77 said:
There has never, ever been competition between providers for basic health care...EVER!
I agree with you in part...the goal of universal private insurance is doomed to fail simply because it adds billions of dollars of cost (profit for the insurers) to the healthcare system without providing any care. It also allows healthcare cost to continue to rise as long as insurers can raise rates and continue to pass on ever higher costs to consumers. The free market will always seek the point where the most profit is made, not where the most people are served.
Why not do the same with the public drinking water? Turn it over to private interest and let it find the point where it is most profitable. So what if 20% of the population is left to fetch water from the rivers and streams. They can boil it and make it safe to drink. I mean it wasn't until the last century where people could expect to have running water in their home. While we're at it we can do the same with all public utilities. /sarcasm

The genie is out of the bottle. The introduction of widespread employer provided insurance in the late 50's and into the 60's and Medicare for the elderly changed the healthcare market. It created a pool of billions, trillions of $$ that allowed the healthcare industry to evolve to what it is today. Cures were discovered, instruments of care were invented and propagated so that they were available to most everyone, everywhere. Drugs were developed... Of course the problem with all of this is that it is very expensive. Without insurance or shared responsibility for cost only the very wealthy could ever afford to be sick. I've mentioned my wife is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and has accumulated > $100,000 in costs. How many people do you think could pay for that care out of their pocket? The median family income in the US is $57K...so for half of the families in this country a fight with cancer would cost them 2x+ their annual earnings.

I'll let you have the job telling most people who come the emergency rooms and doctors offices that if they can't pay for care then the provider is going to turn them away. No more free care! We've got to let the free market find its equilibrium...you know that's not going to happen. We'll also have to develop a system so we know who and who not to transport to hospitals in cases of accidents. Perhaps we can have a chip placed on the back of the neck that has our financial ability to pay information. No sense transporting some bum that can't pay.

That is why the single payer system, a national health system is and will be the ultimate result. To claim that we are "doomed" is just plain silly. The rest of the industrialized world uses that model and they are all doing alright. They are healthier than are we.
Click to expand...
Why did Rq switch to his mult?
 
fuzz77 said:
There has never, ever been competition between providers for basic health care...EVER!
I agree with you in part...the goal of universal private insurance is doomed to fail simply because it adds billions of dollars of cost (profit for the insurers) to the healthcare system without providing any care. It also allows healthcare cost to continue to rise as long as insurers can raise rates and continue to pass on ever higher costs to consumers. The free market will always seek the point where the most profit is made, not where the most people are served.
Why not do the same with the public drinking water? Turn it over to private interest and let it find the point where it is most profitable. So what if 20% of the population is left to fetch water from the rivers and streams. They can boil it and make it safe to drink. I mean it wasn't until the last century where people could expect to have running water in their home. While we're at it we can do the same with all public utilities. /sarcasm

The genie is out of the bottle. The introduction of widespread employer provided insurance in the late 50's and into the 60's and Medicare for the elderly changed the healthcare market. It created a pool of billions, trillions of $$ that allowed the healthcare industry to evolve to what it is today. Cures were discovered, instruments of care were invented and propagated so that they were available to most everyone, everywhere. Drugs were developed... Of course the problem with all of this is that it is very expensive. Without insurance or shared responsibility for cost only the very wealthy could ever afford to be sick. I've mentioned my wife is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and has accumulated > $100,000 in costs. How many people do you think could pay for that care out of their pocket? The median family income in the US is $57K...so for half of the families in this country a fight with cancer would cost them 2x+ their annual earnings.

I'll let you have the job telling most people who come the emergency rooms and doctors offices that if they can't pay for care then the provider is going to turn them away. No more free care! We've got to let the free market find its equilibrium...you know that's not going to happen. We'll also have to develop a system so we know who and who not to transport to hospitals in cases of accidents. Perhaps we can have a chip placed on the back of the neck that has our financial ability to pay information. No sense transporting some bum that can't pay.

That is why the single payer system, a national health system is and will be the ultimate result. To claim that we are "doomed" is just plain silly. The rest of the industrialized world uses that model and they are all doing alright. They are healthier than are we.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have said repeatedly that insurance is for catastrophic events, so I wouldn't expect only the wealthy to be able to pay for cancer treatment. It's a nice argument you are making, but unfortunately, no one argued the opposite point.

Insurance, in my opinion should not cover routine care. That is where a functioning market could exist, and did exist. I grew up in a small town in Kentucky in the 60s and 70s. We had very good Blue Cross insurance, but it did not pay office visits, pharmacy, etc. When we went to the doctor, we paid the office visit and when we got medication, we paid the pharmacy. There were no copays. The insurance covered catastrophic events, such as cancer treatment. There was a functioning market among providers because people would shop doctors based on quality of care/cost of office visits. To suggest otherwise is pure BS.

The rest of the industrialized world does have free, or subsidized health care, but it is not the great thing you suggest. In most of those countries, there are waiting periods to get surgeries, etc. You can say anything you want, but basic economics will prevail, no matter what governments do. When there is no interaction between supply and demand that creates a market clearing price, supply and demand will not match up with each other. In the case you describe, demand will outpace supply and there will be shortages of supply which causes waiting periods to receive services. That is the case in Canada, and pretty much every where else that offers free health care. It's the profit that brings in new suppliers, which ultimately lowers profits and balances supply and demand. In a system with regulated profit, the industry won't attract enough qualified people to meet the demand. Now the government may recruit marginally qualified people to take those open jobs, but then quality suffers. We have the best health care system in the world. Our problem is that a portion of our citizens can't afford treatment because they can't afford insurance. I question whether it's worth dismantling our system in order to cover everyone. I think there must be a better way to approach it, because basic economics tells you what will happen under universal health care.

Finally, it does not matter what the rest of the industrialized world does, or doesn't do. Comparing us to them, is like comparing apples and oranges. Every other industrialized nation has a different form of government than we do, and most, if not all, lean toward socialism instead of individual liberty. Trying to justify what you want here based on those other counties is absurd.
 
UK till Death said:
Oh boy...



Can someone who has followed this drama explain WTF is going on here? :popcorn:

Also: where's LEK's apology for being mean to all the evil white Devils ITT?:weary:

Also: DON'T LEAVE, LEK!!!!!! Your unintentional humor will be sorely missed. :okay:
Click to expand...

We can only hope Cats Illustrated deported him back to a third world message board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky, the nail at the foul line, UK till Death and 1 other person
Have we considered putting something like crocodiles, lions and pits of snakes near the border wall? Make it like a big Indiana Jones booby trap. If there's way to put some type of monster there, let's consider that too.

[laughing]
 
  • Like
Reactions: UK till Death
YourPublicEnemy said:
Have we considered putting something like crocodiles, lions and pits of snakes near the border wall? Make it like a big Indiana Jones booby trap. If there's way to put some type of monster there, let's consider that too.

[laughing]
Click to expand...
What about Rosie and Whoopi? Chain em to the wall, once they miss a few meals, no Mexican will dare breach our defenses
 
cat_in_the_hat said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have said repeatedly that insurance is for catastrophic events, so I wouldn't expect only the wealthy to be able to pay for cancer treatment. It's a nice argument you are making, but unfortunately, no one argued the opposite point.

Insurance, in my opinion should not cover routine care. That is where a functioning market could exist, and did exist. I grew up in a small town in Kentucky in the 60s and 70s. We had very good Blue Cross insurance, but it did not pay office visits, pharmacy, etc. When we went to the doctor, we paid the office visit and when we got medication, we paid the pharmacy. There were no copays. The insurance covered catastrophic events, such as cancer treatment. There was a functioning market among providers because people would shop doctors based on quality of care/cost of office visits. To suggest otherwise is pure BS.

The rest of the industrialized world does have free, or subsidized health care, but it is not the great thing you suggest. In most of those countries, there are waiting periods to get surgeries, etc. You can say anything you want, but basic economics will prevail, no matter what governments do. When there is no interaction between supply and demand that creates a market clearing price, supply and demand will not match up with each other. In the case you describe, demand will outpace supply and there will be shortages of supply which causes waiting periods to receive services. That is the case in Canada, and pretty much every where else that offers free health care. It's the profit that brings in new suppliers, which ultimately lowers profits and balances supply and demand. In a system with regulated profit, the industry won't attract enough qualified people to meet the demand. Now the government may recruit marginally qualified people to take those open jobs, but then quality suffers. We have the best health care system in the world. Our problem is that a portion of our citizens can't afford treatment because they can't afford insurance. I question whether it's worth dismantling our system in order to cover everyone. I think there must be a better way to approach it, because basic economics tells you what will happen under universal health care.

Finally, it does not matter what the rest of the industrialized world does, or doesn't do. Comparing us to them, is like comparing apples and oranges. Every other industrialized nation has a different form of government than we do, and most, if not all, lean toward socialism instead of individual liberty. Trying to justify what you want here based on those other counties is absurd.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, you can't have it both ways. The utilization of capacity here is a fraction of what it is in Canada. If you want everything on demand, there's a price to be paid. Having to wait on a knee replacement is an inconvenience, not a medical emergency. If you need 3 multi-million $$ MRI machines because you want to have them all performed between 8am-4pm that's a luxury that you're paying a premium whereas if you had one that was operated 24hrs/day you could service the same number of people. You're paying for 3x the machines, 3x the building space.

I work for a health care plan. One of our divisions does nothing but government sponsored care...Medicare/Medicaid, special needs, etc. We receive a fixed number of $$ per member and from that must pay for all of their medical care. So it is inherent to us that we keep our members as healthy as possible. Guess where we spend the most money? Making sure that each and every member sees their physician on a regular basis, making sure that they take their medication. The old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is very, very true. We send people out to pickup members and take them to their appointments, we have nurses and physicians who make house calls. We do all of that because we know it is a hell of a lot less expensive to care for someone in that way than to just wait for them to go to the ER when they've gone into a diabetic comma because they weren't taking their medication. We try and remove every excuse for them to not get the care they need. Bottom line, paying for primary care + critical care is less expensive than paying for only critical care. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be spending millions to make sure our members get that primary care. Your insurance company doesn't care if you get your primary care or not. They can simply raise their rates. We can't do that.

I like a lot of people have a high deductible healthcare plan. Other than annual exams I have to pay the first $5000 of care. It doesn't cover office visits or pay for drugs until I reach my deductible. I'm not too sure that most have that $5000 to cover that deductible. Still that policy between me an my employer is $13,566 that covers me and my wife. If you removed any coverage for office visits, annual exams, drugs, etc you might get that down to $12,000. But then as the frequency of catastrophic care increases because you don't get your prostate checked, your wife doesn't get her mammogram and instead of dealing with stage 1 or 2 cancers they are dealing with stage 3 and 4 which are even more expensive that rate climbs at a rate faster than what it has already risen.

Insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive. It is the cost of care + profit for the insurance company. It isn't that $300-$500 annual checkup that is driving rates up, it's $100,000+ cancer treatments, $250,000+ heart attack and stoke patients. $50,000 ACL repairs. The purpose of a healthcare system is to provide healthcare. Every measure of care shows that universal care systems cost less and produce better outcomes.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "free healthcare". Healthcare premiums or taxes for healthcare...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
fuzz77 said:
Respectfully, you can't have it both ways. The utilization of capacity here is a fraction of what it is in Canada. If you want everything on demand, there's a price to be paid. Having to wait on a knee replacement is an inconvenience, not a medical emergency. If you need 3 multi-million $$ MRI machines because you want to have them all performed between 8am-4pm that's a luxury that you're paying a premium whereas if you had one that was operated 24hrs/day you could service the same number of people. You're paying for 3x the machines, 3x the building space.

I work for a health care plan. One of our divisions does nothing but government sponsored care...Medicare/Medicaid, special needs, etc. We receive a fixed number of $$ per member and from that must pay for all of their medical care. So it is inherent to us that we keep our members as healthy as possible. Guess where we spend the most money? Making sure that each and every member sees their physician on a regular basis, making sure that they take their medication. The old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is very, very true. We send people out to pickup members and take them to their appointments, we have nurses and physicians who make house calls. We do all of that because we know it is a hell of a lot less expensive to care for someone in that way than to just wait for them to go to the ER when they've gone into a diabetic comma because they weren't taking their medication. We try and remove every excuse for them to not get the care they need. Bottom line, paying for primary care + critical care is less expensive than paying for only critical care. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be spending millions to make sure our members get that primary care. Your insurance company doesn't care if you get your primary care or not. They can simply raise their rates. We can't do that.

I like a lot of people have a high deductible healthcare plan. Other than annual exams I have to pay the first $5000 of care. It doesn't cover office visits or pay for drugs until I reach my deductible. I'm not too sure that most have that $5000 to cover that deductible. Still that policy between me an my employer is $13,566 that covers me and my wife. If you removed any coverage for office visits, annual exams, drugs, etc you might get that down to $12,000. But then as the frequency of catastrophic care increases because you don't get your prostate checked, your wife doesn't get her mammogram and instead of dealing with stage 1 or 2 cancers they are dealing with stage 3 and 4 which are even more expensive that rate climbs at a rate faster than what it has already risen.

Insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive. It is the cost of care + profit for the insurance company. It isn't that $300-$500 annual checkup that is driving rates up, it's $100,000+ cancer treatments, $250,000+ heart attack and stoke patients. $50,000 ACL repairs. The purpose of a healthcare system is to provide healthcare. Every measure of care shows that universal care systems cost less and produce better outcomes.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "free healthcare". Healthcare premiums or taxes for healthcare...
Click to expand...
Words!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moopyj, morgousky and ymmot31
YourPublicEnemy said:
You have got to be kidding me. You nuts have harassed and followed rallies attacking and destroying, blocked freeways, rioted, shut down any speech and have done this several times to just innocent people.
Click to expand...
or....Abortion advocates that chastise and verbally abuse my daughter and her friends that simply stand beside the sidewalk and ask girls if they'd like information about abortion.....
 
-LEK- said:
True, Jesus was known for restricting borders, insulting his enemy, and generally not letting things go. Almost eerie how similar they are.
Click to expand...
Jesus did not insult His enemies, though He was not accepting of their wrongs. As for immigration, I'd say His teaching would be similar to teachings such as Numbers 9 when Israel is directed to treat two classes of "strangers": those passing through and those wanting to live among God's people. The implication of the teaching is that there is one law for both natives and aliens. The law included abiding by the Law....which had cultural implications, implications for work and being productive, implications for ASSIMILATING into the culture.

Any immigrant that wants to move here, work and contribute to society, esteem the USA more highly than their native land and its laws, customs, religion; commit to defending the USA against all enemies, eetc....IMO, should be permitted to come here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JumperJack
-LEK- said:
Yeah, its ok to not like everything someone does. In fact, its quite normal. They can be very pro-Trump and not like everyone of his policies.

Thought the commercial was great. Make it personal. Even 84's tweet said to become a legal citizen. Powerful. I dont know where I stand on immigration, I am ok with the 7 nation temp ban, but America was built on immigrants. And we do offer a chance no other country does. I get people hate the subsidies, but maybe cut subsidies.

I havent been put in a position to really know where I stand on the issue.
Click to expand...
Not
-LEK- said:
Maybe so. A lot on here genuinely hate immigrants and have spewed such. I mostly ignore, because I dont have a stance. What little research I have done, the founding fathers agreed with "controlled" migration.

Building a wall really isnt the same thing as Ellis Island and Statute of Liberty, 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Pretty much the opposite, really. I think that commercial showed the unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
LEK, there is a significant difference between refugees and typical immigrants. Refugees are not necessarily seeking a different culture or lifestyle, only safety. The immigrant that chooses to come here because he wants to adopt our culture, abide by our laws, participate productively in capitalism, become self-sufficient, and defend our nation, etc...should be met with open arms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat, mdlUK.1 and Moopyj
fuzz77 said:
There has never, ever been competition between providers for basic health care...EVER!
I agree with you in part...the goal of universal private insurance is doomed to fail simply because it adds billions of dollars of cost (profit for the insurers) to the healthcare system without providing any care. It also allows healthcare cost to continue to rise as long as insurers can raise rates and continue to pass on ever higher costs to consumers. The free market will always seek the point where the most profit is made, not where the most people are served.
Why not do the same with the public drinking water? Turn it over to private interest and let it find the point where it is most profitable. So what if 20% of the population is left to fetch water from the rivers and streams. They can boil it and make it safe to drink. I mean it wasn't until the last century where people could expect to have running water in their home. While we're at it we can do the same with all public utilities. /sarcasm

The genie is out of the bottle. The introduction of widespread employer provided insurance in the late 50's and into the 60's and Medicare for the elderly changed the healthcare market. It created a pool of billions, trillions of $$ that allowed the healthcare industry to evolve to what it is today. Cures were discovered, instruments of care were invented and propagated so that they were available to most everyone, everywhere. Drugs were developed... Of course the problem with all of this is that it is very expensive. Without insurance or shared responsibility for cost only the very wealthy could ever afford to be sick. I've mentioned my wife is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and has accumulated > $100,000 in costs. How many people do you think could pay for that care out of their pocket? The median family income in the US is $57K...so for half of the families in this country a fight with cancer would cost them 2x+ their annual earnings.

I'll let you have the job telling most people who come the emergency rooms and doctors offices that if they can't pay for care then the provider is going to turn them away. No more free care! We've got to let the free market find its equilibrium...you know that's not going to happen. We'll also have to develop a system so we know who and who not to transport to hospitals in cases of accidents. Perhaps we can have a chip placed on the back of the neck that has our financial ability to pay information. No sense transporting some bum that can't pay.

That is why the single payer system, a national health system is and will be the ultimate result. To claim that we are "doomed" is just plain silly. The rest of the industrialized world uses that model and they are all doing alright. They are healthier than are we.
Click to expand...
Do you ever post in short? You must be one boring person in person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moopyj
fuzz77 said:
Respectfully, you can't have it both ways. The utilization of capacity here is a fraction of what it is in Canada. If you want everything on demand, there's a price to be paid. Having to wait on a knee replacement is an inconvenience, not a medical emergency. If you need 3 multi-million $$ MRI machines because you want to have them all performed between 8am-4pm that's a luxury that you're paying a premium whereas if you had one that was operated 24hrs/day you could service the same number of people. You're paying for 3x the machines, 3x the building space.

I work for a health care plan. One of our divisions does nothing but government sponsored care...Medicare/Medicaid, special needs, etc. We receive a fixed number of $$ per member and from that must pay for all of their medical care. So it is inherent to us that we keep our members as healthy as possible. Guess where we spend the most money? Making sure that each and every member sees their physician on a regular basis, making sure that they take their medication. The old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is very, very true. We send people out to pickup members and take them to their appointments, we have nurses and physicians who make house calls. We do all of that because we know it is a hell of a lot less expensive to care for someone in that way than to just wait for them to go to the ER when they've gone into a diabetic comma because they weren't taking their medication. We try and remove every excuse for them to not get the care they need. Bottom line, paying for primary care + critical care is less expensive than paying for only critical care. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be spending millions to make sure our members get that primary care. Your insurance company doesn't care if you get your primary care or not. They can simply raise their rates. We can't do that.

I like a lot of people have a high deductible healthcare plan. Other than annual exams I have to pay the first $5000 of care. It doesn't cover office visits or pay for drugs until I reach my deductible. I'm not too sure that most have that $5000 to cover that deductible. Still that policy between me an my employer is $13,566 that covers me and my wife. If you removed any coverage for office visits, annual exams, drugs, etc you might get that down to $12,000. But then as the frequency of catastrophic care increases because you don't get your prostate checked, your wife doesn't get her mammogram and instead of dealing with stage 1 or 2 cancers they are dealing with stage 3 and 4 which are even more expensive that rate climbs at a rate faster than what it has already risen.

Insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive. It is the cost of care + profit for the insurance company. It isn't that $300-$500 annual checkup that is driving rates up, it's $100,000+ cancer treatments, $250,000+ heart attack and stoke patients. $50,000 ACL repairs. The purpose of a healthcare system is to provide healthcare. Every measure of care shows that universal care systems cost less and produce better outcomes.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "free healthcare". Healthcare premiums or taxes for healthcare...
Click to expand...
Nobodies going to read this. Do all your posts have to be a GD novel? You can't sum all of that up in a couple of paragraphs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music, YourPublicEnemy and Moopyj
ram1955 said:
Not

LEK, there is a significant difference between refugees and typical immigrants. Refugees are not necessarily seeking a different culture or lifestyle, only safety. The immigrant that chooses to come here because he wants to adopt our culture, abide by our laws, participate productively in capitalism, become self-sufficient, and defend our nation, etc...should be met with open arms.
Click to expand...
I have had a few soldiers over the years who with their parents migrated here and adopted our way of life. They were some of the best soldiers I ever worked with. They embraced the American way and were proud to be here. That is the way it should be. If you come here to change us or leach off of us, I for one will oppose you and support any candidate that does the same. Plus if needed, would mobilize to help kick your butt out of here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ram1955
warrior-cat said:
I have had a few soldiers over the years who with their parents migrated here and adopted our way of life. They were some of the best soldiers I ever worked with. They embraced the American way and were proud to be here. That is the way it should be. If you come here to change us or leach off of us, I for one will oppose you and support any candidate that does the same. Plus if needed, would mobilize to help kick your butt out of here.
Click to expand...
IMO, many of the refugees don't give a rat's arse what country accepts them. They just want out of war zones. And that's the problem...they are not making a decision to adopt our ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdlUK.1 and Moopyj
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeff Drummond

Football ***** UK Football Fan Day Open Practice Notes *****

Replies
134
Views
7K
The House of Blue
Tskware
T
DraftCat

2024 Official Draft Day Thread

Replies
346
Views
10K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
Katonic
K
SemperFiCat
  • Poll

Lebron a 25 time All-Star?

Replies
40
Views
3K
The Paddock - General Discussion Forum
LineSkiCat14
LineSkiCat14
G

Some takeaways from 1760 mile drive cross country

Replies
57
Views
3K
The Paddock - General Discussion Forum
CaptainBoogerBuns
CaptainBoogerBuns
Random UK Fan
  • Poll

Poll: Your Vote For The Next HC

Replies
19
Views
2K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
FtWorthCat
FtWorthCat
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back