~ archived since 2018 ~

The worst liberal hypocrisy

reereeeees · 2018-10-12T17:07:45+00:00

The worst liberal hypocrisy139 points•22 comments•submitted 1 year ago by TheGrandTrinketRoads are a social...

reereeeees

October 12, 2018

147 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	The worst liberal hypocrisy
Author	reereeeees
Upvotes	147
Comments	27
Date	October 12, 2018 5:07 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/9nm36p/the_worst_liberal_hypocrisy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/the-worst-liberal-hypocrisy.476788 https://theredarchive.com/post/476788

Comments

[–]DWShimoda21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]rebuildingMyself5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminists made sure to get ObamaCare to force equal premiums between men and women first, THEN started pushing for more freebies. God forbid women pay more for their more expensive healthcare.

The chief goal of Obamacare was to attempt to cajole, trick, arguably even force young single guys (who statistically speaking are VERY low cost/low risk) -- and/or their employers -- to buy/provide ANY "health insurance" at all.

It didn't work. Neither part of it.

Other than idiot liberal "pajama boy" types who are either -- (A) still in school (well into their mid 20's; in which case they were "gifted a freebie" rider on their parents' policies: ergo they ain't BUYING coverage) -- or (B) working some government, quango or corporate office job (in which case they already HAD "benefit" package health insurance {and thus were ALREADY effectively subsidizing women & old married employees*}, and thus also aren't buying "new" coverage)...

Everyone else -- all the rest of the young single guys -- basically just got their hours cut (below the 30 hour threshold); or else had their employer "reorganize/split" the company down into smaller legally separate entities (below the min employee count threshold). End result is that they would need (were ostensibly "required") to buy insurance on their own; but the changes made "catastrophic" policies (the only kind they really needed) illegal, and made "standard/full" policies so expensive that they can't afford them... (especially not on reduced hours).

But most did the math... and figured out paying the "penalty/tax" was cheaper; and the "risk"of going without was worth taking -- plus the penalty/tax has (at least for the present) been "waived"... which proved their choice (forced or not) to go without to be correct.

* BTW this is the other "consequence" of the (concurrent) push for "moar women in the workplace" (and similarly the push to NOT hire young single males, particularly white males) -- is that women\ are manyfold times more expensive to insure than young single male employees -- and the LIMIT of how many women could be effectively subsidized by those males had already long ago been reached & surpassed. Adding & providing coverage for MOAR women cannot/will not therefore be able to be cost-shifted onto the remaining single males... instead the cost for ALL employees (including older women, married men & women) has gone WAY up... so that too "backfired."

OOPS.

** And arguably likewise with other "minorities"-- at least if they are "above the table" statutory employees.

Sort of a second OOPS.

[–]rebuildingMyself0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mountainbass 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

AND... they usually end up doing a host of other things as well: like stealing money from employers, friends & relatives, particularly their spouse, parents and yes even their own children.*

* Kids get money gifts from relatives for Christmas or Birthday or some other special event (various "graduations," etc), parent commandeers it -- ostensibly to (sometimes even telling the "gift giver" that it will be**) put it into the kids "college fund/savings account" -- and only years, possibly decades later (if ever) does the kid learn that the account is empty/non-existent (or at best contains a fraction of the amount it should have, given the total amounts that WERE ostensibly supposed to have been deposited... but which somehow just never quite made it into the account).

** Why the "college fund" ruse? Simple, that way the gift giver will not, indeed CANNOT ask the child "What did you buy with your birthday/Christmas/graduation money?" And they will never be the wiser (What are they going to do? Demand to see the passbook or entire history of statements on the kids' college funds? Even if they did, how would they -- or anyone -- determine if ALL or only SOME of the "gift" monies had been deposited?)

[–]balancedben 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]misandrists_hate_him6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link