So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?
You're asking the communist that?
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.
You can find her on Twitter.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
1) I’m not on twitter
2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet.
1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......
2) You have a weird definition of "tangent."
Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not.
You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur.
I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist
Or someone who can read.
I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?
I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate.
Yet another deflection. Congratulations
How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?
It was you who accused some of us of not being able to read and what name did I call you?
He has said he thinks it's the best option...but...not everyone wants it AND Bernie can;t pay for it. He said in the last debate that a medicare for all who want it plan would first and foremost ensure everyone has coverage (which is the important part no?) and create the public option. And if it's as good as bernie says and he thinks, people will choose it over time.
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?
You're asking the communist that?
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.
You can find her on Twitter.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
1) I’m not on twitter
2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet.
1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......
2) You have a weird definition of "tangent."
Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not.
You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur.
I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist
Or someone who can read.
I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?
I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate.
Yet another deflection. Congratulations
How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?
It was you who accused some of us of not being able to read and what name did I call you?
You called me an SJW--that's a pejorative term.
Unless Steven Wilson's middle initial is J.
Then its the ultimate complement.
Bernie: Heartattack In A Layby Biden: Lazarus Pete: A Smart Kid Warren: Cheating The Polygraph Yang: Last Chance To Evacuate Planet Earth Before It Is Recycled Tulsi: Russia On Ice Klobuchar: Don't Hate Me Bloomberg: Four Chords That Made A Million
He has said he thinks it's the best option...but...not everyone wants it AND Bernie can;t pay for it. He said in the last debate that a medicare for all who want it plan would first and foremost ensure everyone has coverage (which is the important part no?) and create the public option. And if it's as good as bernie says and he thinks, people will choose it over time.
This is so rational and the argument I've made for quite a while. If medicare offers comparable services at a better cost, it will choke out private insurance OR force private to lower its premiums. It's a great strategy and proof of concept. M4A presumes that every American prefers that gov't driven insurance. I support choice.
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?
You're asking the communist that?
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.
You can find her on Twitter.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
1) I’m not on twitter
2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet.
1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......
2) You have a weird definition of "tangent."
Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not.
You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur.
I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist
Or someone who can read.
I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?
I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate.
Yet another deflection. Congratulations
How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?
It was you who accused some of us of not being able to read and what name did I call you?
You called me an SJW--that's a pejorative term.
Unless Steven Wilson's middle initial is J.
Then its the ultimate complement.
Bernie: Heartattack In A Layby Biden: Lazarus Pete: A Smart Kid Warren: Cheating The Polygraph Yang: Last Chance To Evacuate Planet Earth Before It Is Recycled Tulsi: Russia On Ice Klobuchar: Don't Hate Me Bloomberg: Four Chords That Made A Million
He has said he thinks it's the best option...but...not everyone wants it AND Bernie can;t pay for it. He said in the last debate that a medicare for all who want it plan would first and foremost ensure everyone has coverage (which is the important part no?) and create the public option. And if it's as good as bernie says and he thinks, people will choose it over time.
This is so rational and the argument I've made for quite a while. If medicare offers comparable services at a better cost, it will choke out private insurance OR force private to lower its premiums. It's a great strategy and proof of concept. M4A presumes that every American prefers that gov't driven insurance. I support choice.
Stuck between no choice Republicans and no choice democratic socialists.
He has said he thinks it's the best option...but...not everyone wants it AND Bernie can;t pay for it. He said in the last debate that a medicare for all who want it plan would first and foremost ensure everyone has coverage (which is the important part no?) and create the public option. And if it's as good as bernie says and he thinks, people will choose it over time.
This is so rational and the argument I've made for quite a while. If medicare offers comparable services at a better cost, it will choke out private insurance OR force private to lower its premiums. It's a great strategy and proof of concept. M4A presumes that every American prefers that gov't driven insurance. I support choice.
Stuck between no choice Republicans and no choice democratic socialists.
Exactly.. it's very frustrating.. and when a candidate like Pete offers a real choice for us, he gets smeared from the left because Bernie and his crew knows what's best for me. I can't be trusted to make such an important decision for my family.
I heard "It's only Love" from Bryan Adams and Tina Turner on Classic Rewind this morning. First time I've heard that song in 25 years, easy. And I still remembered the lyrics.
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?
You're asking the communist that?
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.
You can find her on Twitter.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
1) I’m not on twitter
2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet.
1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......
2) You have a weird definition of "tangent."
Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not.
You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur.
I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist
Or someone who can read.
I thought you SJW didn’t look down your noses at the rest of us?
I'm beginning to think the penultimate line of your signature isn't accurate.
Yet another deflection. Congratulations
How am I supposed to respond to your name-calling?
It was you who accused some of us of not being able to read and what name did I call you?
You called me an SJW--that's a pejorative term.
Unless Steven Wilson's middle initial is J.
Then its the ultimate complement.
Bernie: Heartattack In A Layby Biden: Lazarus Pete: A Smart Kid Warren: Cheating The Polygraph Yang: Last Chance To Evacuate Planet Earth Before It Is Recycled Tulsi: Russia On Ice Klobuchar: Don't Hate Me Bloomberg: Four Chords That Made A Million
He has said he thinks it's the best option...but...not everyone wants it AND Bernie can;t pay for it. He said in the last debate that a medicare for all who want it plan would first and foremost ensure everyone has coverage (which is the important part no?) and create the public option. And if it's as good as bernie says and he thinks, people will choose it over time.
This is so rational and the argument I've made for quite a while. If medicare offers comparable services at a better cost, it will choke out private insurance OR force private to lower its premiums. It's a great strategy and proof of concept. M4A presumes that every American prefers that gov't driven insurance. I support choice.
Stuck between no choice Republicans and no choice democratic socialists.
Exactly.. it's very frustrating.. and when a candidate like Pete offers a real choice for us, he gets smeared from the left because Bernie and his crew knows what's best for me. I can't be trusted to make such an important decision for my family.
Would you give up your choice if it meant everyone had healthcare?
Comments
I don't think this is right, but it's funny.
phony.
Unless Steven Wilson's middle initial is J.
Then its the ultimate complement.
He has said he thinks it's the best option...but...not everyone wants it AND Bernie can;t pay for it. He said in the last debate that a medicare for all who want it plan would first and foremost ensure everyone has coverage (which is the important part no?) and create the public option. And if it's as good as bernie says and he thinks, people will choose it over time.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Biden: Lazarus
Pete: A Smart Kid
Warren: Cheating The Polygraph
Yang: Last Chance To Evacuate Planet Earth Before It Is Recycled
Tulsi: Russia On Ice
Klobuchar: Don't Hate Me
Bloomberg: Four Chords That Made A Million
Fan!
Stuck between no choice Republicans and no choice democratic socialists.
(Listened to the Tina Turner song from the movie today in the car from Norway to Sweden. What are the odds)
Donald Trump is probably the presidential candidate with the most in common with Mel Gibson. Maybe Bloomberg or Biden or Mayor Pete after that?
Fury Road would be Warren, yes?
KLOBBERING
TIME!
(I had forgotten about the comb story. Haha.