RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:Refund them what? Premiums went up quite some time ago. They've made money off the fucking thing.

No doubt.
I was working on the, probably naïve assumption, that if it's repealed, under contract law, those who have paid the premiums and not claimed would be entitled to a refund on the basis that the customer had fulfilled primary and secondary terms of the contract and the services were not delivered and no longer able to be delivered.

My understanding of contract law is 30 years out of date and it wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong.

Even 30 years ago you'd have been wrong.

rowan wrote:Trump's biggest ally in this election may well have been Obama. The incumbent ran on the promise of change but delivered mostly a continuation of the normal crap - at home and abroad. In some respects, he was even worse than his infamous predecessor. In regards to foreign policy he was more of a neo-con than a democrat, and that is exactly how Clinton was shaping up. For all the faults of their leadership, I've tried never to criticize the American people themselves too much, and today they have certainly gained my respect. They saw that Clinton was going to represent a continuation of these dreadful policies and they were fed up with it. Trump is an unknown quantity, but sometimes it's a case of better the devil you don't know.

As an English pal of mine wrote on Facebook:

"I suggest a preliminary choice on ballots before anybody can proceed to choose in elections/referendums.

1. I believe in democracy and all votes are equal. I understand that both sides have had the chance to put their case fully and that even if I don't agree with the result, I will respect it.

2. I only entered this because the pollsters told me we would win . Should we lose I reserve the right to whinge indefinately that people clearly intellectually inferior to what I am didn't understand the issue."

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:
No doubt.
I was working on the, probably naïve assumption, that if it's repealed, under contract law, those who have paid the premiums and not claimed would be entitled to a refund on the basis that the customer had fulfilled primary and secondary terms of the contract and the services were not delivered and no longer able to be delivered.

My understanding of contract law is 30 years out of date and it wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong.

Even 30 years ago you'd have been wrong.

No surprise there.
Is there not a no claims bonus under Obamacare..?. Surely that has some monetary value.

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Even 30 years ago you'd have been wrong.

No surprise there.
Is there not a no claims bonus under Obamacare..?. Surely that has some monetary value.

Think of the ethical minefield in what you have just said.

kk67 wrote:

rowan wrote:Trump's biggest ally in this election may well have been Obama. The incumbent ran on the promise of change but delivered mostly a continuation of the normal crap - at home and abroad. In some respects, he was even worse than his infamous predecessor. In regards to foreign policy he was more of a neo-con than a democrat, and that is exactly how Clinton was shaping up. For all the faults of their leadership, I've tried never to criticize the American people themselves too much, and today they have certainly gained my respect. They saw that Clinton was going to represent a continuation of these dreadful policies and they were fed up with it. Trump is an unknown quantity, but sometimes it's a case of better the devil you don't know.

As an English pal of mine wrote on Facebook:

"I suggest a preliminary choice on ballots before anybody can proceed to choose in elections/referendums.

1. I believe in democracy and all votes are equal. I understand that both sides have had the chance to put their case fully and that even if I don't agree with the result, I will respect it.

2. I only entered this because the pollsters told me we would win . Should we lose I reserve the right to whinge indefinately that people clearly intellectually inferior to what I am didn't understand the issue."

bbc did a 3 part documentary about Obama's reign. Some of his progressive policies have been quality. It's easy to forget any politicians successes because the media are so focused on dragging everyone down to their level.

rowan wrote:

kk67 wrote:

rowan wrote:Trump's biggest ally in this election may well have been Obama. The incumbent ran on the promise of change but delivered mostly a continuation of the normal crap - at home and abroad. In some respects, he was even worse than his infamous predecessor. In regards to foreign policy he was more of a neo-con than a democrat, and that is exactly how Clinton was shaping up. For all the faults of their leadership, I've tried never to criticize the American people themselves too much, and today they have certainly gained my respect. They saw that Clinton was going to represent a continuation of these dreadful policies and they were fed up with it. Trump is an unknown quantity, but sometimes it's a case of better the devil you don't know.

As an English pal of mine wrote on Facebook:

"I suggest a preliminary choice on ballots before anybody can proceed to choose in elections/referendums.

1. I believe in democracy and all votes are equal. I understand that both sides have had the chance to put their case fully and that even if I don't agree with the result, I will respect it.

2. I only entered this because the pollsters told me we would win . Should we lose I reserve the right to whinge indefinately that people clearly intellectually inferior to what I am didn't understand the issue."

bbc did a 3 part documentary about Obama's reign. Some of his progressive policies have been quality. It's easy to forget any politicians successes because the media are so focused on dragging everyone down to their level.

I'm no expert on America's internal politics, but I do know Obama's reign, contrary to campaign pledges, was a continuation of the Wall Street globalization process. Clinton would have done exactly the same. Trump - who knows? He may well appoint the same Goldman Sachs and big money interest stooges as Clinton would have, but we'll just have to wait and see. One thing's for certain - he'll need to watch his back. Last guy to buck the trend this much was JFK...

rowan wrote:
I'm no expert on America's internal politics, but I do know Obama's reign, contrary to campaign pledges, was a continuation of the Wall Street globalization process. Clinton would have done exactly the same. Trump - who knows? He may well appoint the same Goldman Sachs and big money interest stooges as Clinton would have, but we'll just have to wait and see. One thing's for certain - he'll need to watch his back. Last guy to buck the trend this much was JFK...

Lizard wrote:

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:

4 or 5 years ago there were rumors that California might break up in to 3 sep states, (northern, central, and southern). Have not heard much about it since. Maybe I misunderstood the question?

Don't be cute Cocoid.

Secede. A pinko liberal Texas.

Turns out there is one. http://www.yescalifornia.org/ #calexit

Coco wrote:

Lizard wrote:

morepork wrote:

Don't be cute Cocoid.

Secede. A pinko liberal Texas.

Turns out there is one. http://www.yescalifornia.org/ #calexit

Well, I'll be damned. Stuff like that has been ongoing for decades. I do not take it serious, and would not be surprised if it was headed by a bunch of brush smoking, anti-deodorant believing, hairy armpitted, granola eating tree huggers.

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:

Lizard wrote:
Turns out there is one. http://www.yescalifornia.org/ #calexit

Well, I'll be damned. Stuff like that has been ongoing for decades. I do not take it serious, and would not be surprised if it was headed by a bunch of brush smoking, anti-deodorant believing, hairy armpitted, granola eating tree huggers.

morepork wrote:America's weemin await your endorsement of their feminist credentials with shivering anticipation.

Lizard wrote:I think we need to reserve judgement on whether Trump is preferable, warmongery-wise, to Clinton until he has actually taken office and made some decisions about war. He has already advocated war crimes, so I wouldn't be making any assumptions based on zero data points so far.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:America's weemin await your endorsement of their feminist credentials with shivering anticipation.

I'll feckin endorse their feminist credentials............and they don't need to shave neither.

Coco wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:America's weemin await your endorsement of their feminist credentials with shivering anticipation.

I'll feckin endorse their feminist credentials............and they don't need to shave neither.

images-1.jpeg

kk, "Would you?"

Coco wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:America's weemin await your endorsement of their feminist credentials with shivering anticipation.

I'll feckin endorse their feminist credentials............and they don't need to shave neither.

images-1.jpeg

kk, "Would you?"

Lizard wrote:I think we need to reserve judgement on whether Trump is preferable, warmongery-wise, to Clinton until he has actually taken office and made some decisions about war. He has already advocated war crimes, so I wouldn't be making any assumptions based on zero data points so far.

Coco wrote:The tender little snowflakes are protesting, universities are having counselors brought in to help students deal with their emotional stress, professors are offering to allow students to skip mid terms if the election results have caused them too much emotional anguish. What the hell are these little darlings going to do in the real world?