quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I wonder if these Medicaid cuts affect seniors in supported living situations?

Almost certainly

Most folks in nursing homes, smart ones like Trump, destitute themselves through estate planning to pay for nursing home through Medicaid.

Otherwise, they and their families cannot last. The nursing home admits them, then gets s judgment lien against their reality for the bill. The affect bring they and their families lose everything.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I wonder if these Medicaid cuts affect seniors in supported living situations?

Almost certainly

Sodomize with w broken whiskey decanter everyone who voted for this.

That includes Lisa Murkowski who voted for it while going on tv telling the House not to pass it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Most folks in nursing homes, smart ones like Trump, destitute themselves through estate planning to pay for nursing home through Medicaid.

Otherwise, they and their families cannot last. The nursing home admits them, then gets s judgment lien against their reality for the bill. The affect bring they and their families lose everything.

This is entirely correct... when my mother passed, she had "nothing" so her allegedly great government pension would cover home nursing aid 2x per week. She had all the stuff after 35 years of government service, and had to be a pauper to qualify. Though, truth be told, her only assets were her car and her beading supplies.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Please point out one incorrect fact, just one. Further question, had the dems voted yes, would it have passed ?

I didn't bother to dispute the facts you stated. ....

I'm about done arguing with you on this.

Because you can't.

To be truthful, you should have used ... instead of . .... to indicate that you left out part of my post, in drawing your conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Please point out one incorrect fact, just one. Further question, had the dems voted yes, would it have passed ?

I didn't bother to dispute the facts you stated. ....

I'm about done arguing with you on this.

Because you can't.

To be truthful, you should have used ... instead of . .... to indicate that you left out part of my post, in drawing your conclusion.

Thanks for the incorrect grammar advice. 4 dots indicates (omited) 3 dots indicates one part of a sentence was omited but carries on. Clearly shows you finished a sentence and the rambling was omited. And to think one would ever expect real-world experience from a dude that didnt not what "acting" in a role is or was fooled by an SNL sketch

You didnt answer my question as to source of your condition

quote:

4 dots indicates (omited)

Again, you are partially correct:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Four dots are often used to indicate omitted words in writing, but it's specifically used when the omission occurs at the end of a sentence.

If you are omitting words within a sentence, you use three dots

=======================================================================

Also, again, your conclusions are wrong.

And you intentionally missed the point with "Clearly shows you finished a sentence and the rambling was omited". [sic]

Yes. that sentence was finished with a period. And your interpretation of "rambling" was really the "because" sentence. It's important to omit that to distort the meaning, which is your intent.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

4 dots indicates (omited)

Again, you are partially correct:

....

Yes. that sentence was finished with a period. And your interpretation of "rambling" was really the "because" sentence. It's important to omit that to distort the meaning, which is your intent.

Literally what I said. And omitted your rambling and babbling. Dang man... I am leaning to substance abuse as your root cause.

I've seen wheelbarrow used to clean out stalls least full of "stuff"

So, sonny, its time you just admitted your were wrong and correct. What was it you said? "Man up" wasn't it?

quote:

Literally what I said.

No.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Literally what I said.

No.

You are laughable, Mr SNL. Was the no to substance abuse on your part? You won't admit you are wrong, by your own standards? Silly thing. Junior has a saying "you aren't a serious person " and you aren't. FFS you are dumb, aren't you?

The use of the periods is irrelevant. It has no substantive distinction in this conversation.

That is my saying.
Funny thing grass level rights, moderates, and lefts here are in agreement w Rand Paul in result. This bill is a no. The House has it now, and I’ll bet folks are going to get the ACA in competitive areas like with the ACA.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The use of the periods is irrelevant. It has no substantive distinction in this conversation.

That is my saying.
Funny thing grass level rights, moderates, and lefts here are in agreement w Rand Paul in result. This bill is a no. The House has it now, and I’ll bet folks are going to get the ACA in competitive areas like with the ACA.

The series of periods is known as an ellipsis. There two kinds, 3 and 4 dots. I figured you learnt this in first year of law school.

The bill, even without dem defeated amendments, will pass. The sad thing is, we still haven't had an actual budget in 16 years.

quote:

The use of the periods is irrelevant. It has no substantive distinction in this conversation.

The relevance was jeffe's intent to distort my post by leaving out part. In such case it was whole sentences.

And that was consistent with his post which I corrected, where again he left out some of the facts and reached the wrong conclusion.

The relevance is whether facts matter.

What's not relevant is whether the parts he omitted were tied to three dots or four.

Jeffe has a knack for distorting the truth and discussions. I was pointing out another example.

It's amusing how he twists and spins and can't accept being corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

The use of the periods is irrelevant. It has no substantive distinction in this conversation.

The relevance was jeffe's intent to distort my post by leaving out part. In such case it was whole sentences.
.... can't accept being corrected.

Nah, bruv, it was to sort the tiny bits of wheat from the mounds of chaff -

and yes, you can't accept being corrected -- well, other than the SNL kit, as that was bloody obvious

1: stop projecting your malfunction on others
2: so, is your condition congenital or drug/substance induced? are you shots making it worse?

you are a pathetic "opponent".. i mean, not the worst even here, but you remind me of gerald from clarkson's farm ... only not as articulate

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 02 July 2025 04:17

You're just to friggin dense.

I was doing fine reading today.

The HIV initiatives that President Bysh pushed through that have been works changer have been cut by this bill.

Priorities.

How I miss “compassionate conservatives.” Conservatism anchored in real Christian charity and morals. That has been replaced by fake Joel Osteen, mega church, Political Evangelical Christianity.

Yep, health care gutted to put more money in the pockets of corpos.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 02 July 2025 04:17

You're just to friggin dense.

little girls stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and scream nahnahnah ...

oh, hi maggie

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I was doing fine reading today.

The HIV initiatives that President Bysh ... .. the pockets of corpos.

yeah, reading might be great, but there's signs..
1: bush
2: corpus ...

when you try to be superior, DO TRY to actually be superior ..

ain't the first, or even 10th, time

No, I chose corpos on purpose. Sound it out.

Corpos generally refers to characters or individuals associated with large corporations,

Trump is showing he’s not conservative.

He is boosting spending in some areas with his views of populism.

He is cutting others, again in his populistic fashion.

I could certainly agree with the overall statement that the government is way too large and needs a drastic trimming.

But that is an overall statement and frankly there is no area that could not use a substantial increase in efficiency. The military? We could use a heck of a lot fewer generals and admirals, a top down revision of how they award contracts, get rid of this incestuous system of once folks have served they end up on the private side defense contracts making exponentially more than they did when they were serving, and having the defense forces become some sort of government laboratory for every social theory that comes down the pipe.

Republican thinking is “defense spending GOOD!” Conservative thinking is strong defense is essential. How do we get there the most efficiently?

There are things that government is needed to have. Unfortunately both parties think we need more than is necessary and as a result the government has gradually bloated over the years to this amorphous mass that really should be redone top to bottom.

No.

This is not populism. This is cooperate welfare.

Populism was the reformed that came from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.

Populism would be expanding Medicaid.


If we want to talk historical conservatism and defense spending, let us revisit Eisenhower when it comes to defense speeding.

I consider money spent on Israel and Ukraine to be defense speeding of good order. I have lost that debate.

July 9 tariffs are set to go up 50 percent on some countries. Countries that have no geopolitical-political conflict with the U.S.