Self-righteous faggot sucks Obama dick now begs for help

You missed the key word 'just'.

So you're saying if we troll castle back we'll get warned/banned?

I'm not sure how that's unlike what El Chup said.

Dayton would love such troll protection.

No, Castle would get warned too.

I thought you lawyers were sticklers for detail.

We are.

You're saying that castle will get warned for trolling in the red room and that anyone else will get warned for trolling/flaming back?

This is the detail we're fixed on.

Suck it useless cunt.

Heritage was only about catastrophic.

Nixit. Stupid useless cunt.

Oh good, a reasoned argument. Surely this will rectify the injustice that has been brought down upon you.

Are you having a fucking stroke, fella?

Polite rebuffs gain no traction. Have gained no traction. Apparently will never gain traction. So will amuse myself with escalating verbal atrocities, as before, when my patience is thin. Or up the quality on the dope to help just ignore the shrewish hag. How you doing? Still into those gay ponies bud.

So in this scenario, first Castle would be let back into Wordforge, and then Wordforgers will ignore him under threat of being warned?

See, I do get where you're coming from, but that only makes sense if you draw a reasonably clear line between sensible engagement with his posts and "trolling back", so that there's some grey area between ignoring Castle and becoming what you call "a usual suspect". Whereupon Castle will put all his energy into creating threads and posts that make it as hard as possible to draw that line; and he'll spend another ten years perfecting that manipulation if he needs to, just as he did before.

You can't force civility on people. If someone is intent on disrupting conversation, conversation will either end or eventually be disrupted.

Dude, I want what your smoking.

This, amongst other reasons, is why he isn't likely to be let back in.
My point though, is not issuing warnings/bans for merely trolling or flaming because Castle and his detractors got into yet another row; it's the fracking Red Room after all. But what would need to be defined is at what point does it become disruptive noise spam. See: Starguard, Aquehonga.

Ya know how I knew the OP was Skrain and not Castle? It was pithy and sensationalist enough to be mildly entertaining. Castle would have been wordier, flatter, and without any bite.


Sent from my iPhone while driving

So, basically Obamacare is failing...or at least not doing nearly as well as they hoped.

So now the left is trying to retcon Obamacare into really being Republicare?

Is that pretty much the jist of it?

What you just posted? The opposite.

Obamacare is based on the same Heritage Foundation plan as Romneycare. The reason for following such a plan was that it was thought to be more likely to gain some Republican support. That didn't happen, but it passed just the same. It is Republicans who have tried to retcon the source. At any rate, there are of course flaws in Obamacare. It is a compromise solution when what is required is something more complete, such as single payer.

Exactly. First of all, who gets to decide what constitutes "responding to Castle's trolls"? Is there a point system? Do you instruct other posters to "just ignore him"? Make it mandatory, effectively quarantining him? Appoint one mod per shift to monitor him the way TNZ did with Enterpriser?

Doesn't seem like an efficient use of staff time.

Repeating a fucking lie, gul, doesn't make it any less a lie.

If Obamacare only required catastrophic, many of my reservations would evaporate. I think many others feel the same way.

Tuttle will now explain what "lie" he's referring to.

Or just devolve into abusive incoherence again.

Castle v.2.

He can't prove it's a lie, since it isn't. But he'll continue down that path, it's all he has.

Mandating Catastrophic/Emergency coverage for all Americans would likely cost taxpayers far more than Obamacare does, because on-going, preventative medicine has always been cheaper than ER/Catastrophic care.

gul, I'll not tell you how to inform yourself properly, lose the diaper.

Either you've done the research, and you're a liar because you know why Obamacare and Romneycare aren't really from the Heritage plan.

Or you're a dupe of the propaganda, and couldn't be arsed to see for yourself how wrong the shit you're spouting as facts are.

Well that sounds like a load of horseshit and the complete opposite of Wordforge.

Two can play at this game. Either you've done the research, and you're a liar because you know why Obamacare and Romneycare are indeed based on the Heritage plan, or you'll continue to spout ignorant talking points because you want to believe.

Of course, that would mean a ping pong match, with neither one of us actually backing up a damn thing, so I'll do better than you. You will no doubt claim that politifact is lying, but here's there take on the claim, which they say is mostly true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/

It's true that Heritage was not the first to come up with the idea, but they certainly liked it:

But the question is whether they actually articulated such a plan as a policy recommendation. Yes, yes, they did. As I'm sure you know, they wrote several papers on the subject, many of them offering similar though not identical suggestions. No doubt they had an idea about catastrophic coverage, but they also wrote about more comprehensive plans. In the end, does the ACA perfectly match one of their papers? Of course not, legislation never does, but the Politifact article ends by quoting Daniel McCarthy, senior editor of the American Conservative magazine:

Your turn to post something substantive.

Or he's done the research, and just isn't a mother-fucking liar like you are.

Pretty much all of the major fact-checking sites agree that the ACA reflects, quite closely, all of the major parts of the Heritage plan, save the following three aspects:
1) ACA operates at the Federal Level, rather than the state-by-state level that the Heritage Plan espouses.
2) The Heritage plan mandates coverage of all Americans, including those who cannot afford coverage on their own, but provides no mechanism for achieving this, while ACA does (Medicaid expansion).
3) And as earlier stated, because of the vast saving of on-going preventative care over catastrophic/Emergency care, the ACA will likely cost taxpayers far less than the Heritage Plan.

In response to GUL's post. Few of the ideas in ACA originated in Heritage's plan, but both ACA and Heritage appear to have borrowed heavily from the 1993 HEART (Health Equity and Access Reform Today) bill, which was introduced by Rhode Island Sen Chafee (R) which had 20 Republican co-sponsors, but never came to a vote for some reason.

Yeah, Chafee deserves most of the credit. IIRC, 7 or 8 other big name Republicans co-sponsored that, Bob Dole among them.

Not at all. It's dramatically better than what we had before, but still not perfect.

Pointing out that most of the ideas originated with conservatives is just a way to highlight the ridiculousness of them now frothing at the mouth about the same things.

Can we carry this into the Obamacare thread, cuz I'd like not to see Quark in drag everytime this thread is bumped, please.