 |
Dude, I watch Fox, usually in the mornings and almost without fail they have both left and right guests to debate an issue. I'd be willing to bet no other network provides as much balance as Fox does, which is why I KNOW without a doubt that the rhetoric is ridiculous. You can dismiss that all you want, but the facts are on my side. The spin, is on yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yea, I've heard all about their puppet "left" guests. Haha.
More fun reading: Public Policy Polling: Our Second Annual TV News Trust Poll
As opposed to say... THe Huffington Post... or CBS... who don't even bother to put up an opposing viewpoint to their leftist propaganda.
I was hoping like Hell the trouble makers got a hold of Katie Couric and knocked the hell out of her... when she was in Cairo... if in fact she ever really was. What a poor excuse for a news achor that witch is.
So like the people who trust Fox less now you don't actually WATCH Fox News, you're just going with what you've 'heard.' No surprise there.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Ok, if that's what you want to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Fox allows opposing views .The only time I've seen opposing views on MSNBC is on the Chris Matttews show . That is why he is on my list of shows to watch and Keith Overbite wasn't . I think I've seen more segements of 'Hardball' than any other show on cable (except maybe Jon Stewart) .
Dude, it's what you said, "I've heard all about their puppet "left" guests."Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I've watched, you obviously haven't but you have "heard about" Fox News.
This is clearly an attempt to play on the ignorance and the fear associated with the health care legislation. It is an absolute disgrace. If such antics were to appear on any of the Australian networks then 'all hell' would come down upon them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I can't comment on the other American networks, but if you were to tell me they operate in the same manner I would not be surprised. I can only comment on the vision that was in front of me and I suggest that Fox is playing a dangerous game.
For the average person who is probably not familiar with the legislation then this type of reporting would no doubt cause fear and mistrust in the government ( generally not a problem). My concern is for the extremely tiny minority of 'unstable' individuals who can be influenced by such nonsense as to take it upon themselves to take some drastic action.
Is the Fox motto, "No care, no responsibility?"
Tut
This is a joke right? You are aware that the people that wrote the legislation didn't even know what was in it right? How in the world could the average person know until it is released and read over in its true form. By now everyone has heard of it or some variation on it. (in America)Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
The left didn't read it, and the right did, but lied about it. Something for everybody to be proud of.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Hi Dad,
I wish I was joking, but I'm not. It is not necessary to know what is in the legislation. All that matters is what is perceived or presented as being in the legislation. What is presented may have absolutely nothing to do with reality. For example, 'doing gaol time' for those who don't buy health insurance. I don't know anything about the legislation but I do know that 'doing gaol time' would be false. You do live in a democratic country don't you? It is clearly an attempt to create fear and anxiety.
Tut
There is a provision in the bill that does state that if you CAN afford the insurance and you don't buy into it. Then you can be fines up to $250,000 and / or face up to 5 years in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
That is where the commentators are making the play for jail if you don't pay.
Hi Dad,Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Apparently these are not penalties for not buying health insurance. If you don't buy health insurance you are subject to tax penalties. If you avoid the tax then you are subject to what you have stated above.
Nothing new here. Avoiding taxes in Australia also results in fines and/or gaol. It seems that these penalties are not part of the bill itself but are provisions existing within the Department of Internal Revenue.
Tut
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I looked and couldn't find it... Maybe you can link me to where it says that.
excon
Hi Ex,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I got my info from
Imprisoned for Not Having Health Care? | FactCheck.org
Seems like accurate information
Tut
They call it a tax. But its not a tax until you don't purchase the insurance the government says you must. To me it's a fine and the taxation is the collection process they are using.
Call it what you will. There is no choice in the matter when it comes to buying into the program.
Hi Dad,Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that, "If you don't buy health insurance you will do gaol time" is a ploy. These types of statements made by the network(s) are false and misleading.
Regards
Tut
No taxation without representation but you have representation so taxation in any form is the go. Get used to it. Some of you are just going to have to pay your share. This is the tme for shearing the sheep and keeping the bleeting to a minimum. We understand this principle so much better than you do. It comes from hearding sheep
That buy in mandate has been declared unconstitutional by 2 Federal District judges. The judge in Florida went further and said that since the whole system concocted is dependent on the mandate to fund it ;that the whole Obamacare aka the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act' is unconstitutional .
This will now work it's way up through the court system to be finally decided by the US Supreme Court .
Most people believe that the case will be decided in SCOTUS by a 5-4 vote with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote.
But there is an interesting twist to the plot . New SCOTUS justice Kagan was the Solicitor General of the United States during the time that Obamacare was being decided . The Solicitor General argues the government's cases before SCOTUS.
She has already recused herself from about half the cases on the docket because of her role in the Obama Administration.
As Solicitor General ,Kagan participated in meetings with the Obama administration about the soon to be healthcare law. Kagan left the Obama Administration in August after the healthcare overhaul became law.
Clearly her participation in a SCOTUS decision on Obamacare would be a conflict of interest.
The Solicitor General is the third ranking official at the Justice Dept, and its senior expert on Constitutional issues. It's unlikely and improbable that she wouldn't have been asked about a Constitutional challenge to Obamacare during the debate of the bill.
Under federal law (28 U.S.C. 455(b)(3)), judges who have served in government must recuse themselves when they have "participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy."
Also ,during her Confirmation hearing ,she expressed that she believed in an amazingly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause to include "anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce."
This is taking the Commerce Clause where it has never gone before. SCOTUS has allowed restricting the selling of goods and services. Never before has it said that the government ,under justification of the clause, can force someone to purchase a good or service.
Indeed ,the intent of the Founders as written in Federalist Papers 11,42 and 45 make the opposite case. The Commerce Clause intent was to prevent States from making restrictions on interstate commerce ;it did not give the Federal government expansive powers to make laws . Federalist Papers #45 makes this point clear.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced last week he would like to bypass an Appeals Court Decision and have the Supreme Court hear the 2 cases that were joined by roughy half the States in the Union against Obamacare.
If Kagan does the proper thing and recuse herself(as Senator Orrin Hatch has openly suggested ) because of the conflict of interest ,then there could be a possible 4-4 SCOTUS decision.
In that case ,whatever the lower court decided is affirmed .
You mean like if you like your current plan you can keep it? Or it will reduce the deficit? Or it's going to cover everyone? Or that cutting Medicare won't affect anyone? At least Pelosi was honest, we wouldn't know until it was was passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Obamacare Waivers Mount, Still
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 PM. |