Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
It is also a waste of time trying to educate some older people as well.
That's about as polite as I can put it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
It is also a waste of time trying to educate some older people as well.
That's about as polite as I can put it.
We all know it's a waste of time trying to educate liberals... they only believe what they want anyway and don't want to be confused by things like facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
By the "facts" do you mean something like the fact that forced sterilization was discredited as being racist and based on a belief in pseudo-science. Are these the types of facts you are talking about?
THe FACT that Obamacare is a disaster... the FACT that Global warming has always bneen nothing but a hoax based of faulty logic tailored to get a certain result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
You really like going off on tangents don't you?
I never go off tangent. You said, "We should start by sterilizing the dumb kinds around the time they are old enough to procreate".Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The issue at hand is straight forward. Do you stand by this racist statement?
How about you going back and reading it all for once... including the other posts following it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Also how about the world stop feeding people that breed like flies that can't even feed themselves... the problem will self correct... That's the Natural Order after all. Its been that way since the first life on this planet. But I gues the natural order is Racist as well...
By full quote you means this?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I have not resorted to selective quoting. Unless you can show how the full quote changes the sterilization aspect.
In what way do subsequent quotes change or modify your statement of sterilization? They don't.
If I were you I'd rethink these pseudo science views on race. The whole nasty business in modern times was started by the so called, "natural order of things".
Maybe your fellow countryman can explain it to you, the one I was talking with... if you find yourself standing in a hole... stop digging. So put the shovel down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
To your credit you realize this is a good option.
I'm on top of a hill, you are standing in the hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You gave yourself the opportunity to stop digging, but for some strange reason you seems to want to further the discussion. The longer it goes on the worse it looks for you.
In recognition of the fact that climate change didn't happen the Australian government today sacked the Climate Change Commissioner and the Climate Change Authority
Can your Prime MInister talk with our Demi-god and try to talk sense into him... I know its an exercise in Futility... since he hates Americans so much (meaning Obama not your prime-minister))... maybe he'd listen to an outsider.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
They are on the opposite side of politics, we had an election and removed the idiots from power, no more photoops, no more policy on the run and climate change is officially on the back burner, with them went their fellow travellers and lackeysQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...919-2u2l6.html
We had an election too Clete, and totally rejected the rich guy and his ideas, and the right has been crying foul ever since. They cried foul at his first winning election and can't believe he won again.
And their power and influence continues to diminish.
And so far you've gotten what you deserved, shame the rest of us have to suffer because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You can continue tqalking with yourself... I was't talking to you then... and you still don't get it... and I'm not talking with you about it either since you don't want to go back and read the conversation...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
We have another three years and 3 months and a few days of this idiot to suffer through...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Thank god he can't constitutionally steal another election. Pretty sad when that's the only good thing that can be found to say about an elected official.
In our election one of the rich guys got elected, well almost, we will know tomorrow and guess what, he wants to oppose everything. I think it goes with money, the my way or the highway approach, no matter what your political persuasionQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You see we don't have the problems you do because the guy who has the most seats in the house runs the government, doesn't always mean he gets his way, but Obamacare could not have happened under our system without majorities in both the house and the senate, what is called representative democracy, unfortunately you live in an autocracy and so you have these difficulties
Just to inform you of the facts, Obama Care passed the house and senate because he did indeed have the votes, so again stop pretending you know what you talk about when it comes to OUR government. SHHEEEEESH, all you had to do was Google it before you rattled on.
Way I heard it he passed it by Presidential decree when the House and the Senate couldn't agree on which version should go forward and took a holiday. You have been bleeting about it over there ever sinceQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It never got a vote on the Senate floor after it went to committee, and was rammed through without a vote on a technicality under the pretext it was a budget issue (which it could) and not a law... (which it can't).
They did that because Scott Brown got elected and would have prevented a super-majority.
The president cannot decree law, emperor or not. Doesn't work that way here. The house and senate passed it simultaneously, within parliamentary rules and it was ruled constitutional (the mandate part) By SCOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
They have been bleating over it and it was a BIG deal during the campaign with Romney's vow to repeal it, but he lost, and still they bleat. Except we call it SQUEALING (as in pigs), but bleating (as in sheep) is as good.
But they have every right too.
I though bleating was the appropriate term as that is what sheep do when they are shorn and this appears to be a tax and therefore shearing of the sheepQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Okay it's a tax, to help pay for health care as a collective. Not as bad as the right making it harder for poor people to eat.
I didn't say I'm against the approach. Our Medicare has worked well even though it took a while to get used to the changes and it has been through some interations, including our Labor government, its instigators, pushing private health insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
In our system the poor people don't pay the levy (tax) and the idea is if you are privately insured you don't either. What happens is people get caught in the middle, no money, no insurance and very long waits for electives. But it doesn't impact on their income
Now I can see your system would hit some people very hard
Actually it's a tax deduction for people who opt into the state exchanges but what will hit some who don't get insurance and pay what appears to be a fine of 100 bucks a year will be hit with some pretty hefty medical bills for emergency room visits or any prescription they may need.
As for employers who choose to make everyone part time workers to avoid providing insurance, they lose tremendous leverage in getting a better rate from existing insurance carriers since they too can make use of these exchanges as well. Many businesses are already exploiting this option, and find that they can expand with the added competition and have options they never had before.
The sad part here Clete, is the naysayers and repeal crowd who already have insurance don't want the ones who don't to have it. They are the ones who are too lazy to read the darn thing and its been available online for almost 4 years. Sure there is room for improvements and changes, its an ongoing process, but the tax/fine thing isn't one of them.
The real fear is that in time people will actually embrace the options and opportunities that ACA will afford them and those that holler repeal will be shouted down and look pretty silly for their obstruction attempts. That's why the emperor was re elected decisively and with a clear majority of voters.
It seems someone thought you need a big stick to make people comply but $100 doesn't seem a big stick. I thought the impact was greater with the complaints of much higher insurance costs and penalties for no insurance. The whole thing is poorly engineered if it interferes with the employer/employee relationship but then I always thought the pushing employers to insure employees a difficult path
Nice fiction Reid et al "deemed "it passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And yet the emperor has more than once rewritten key provisions of the law ;illegally delayed implementation , granted exemptions ,and unilaterally changed the tax status of individuals in states that opted out of setting up their own exchanges. (the subject of the next cout challenge to Obamacare making it's way through the courts )Quote:
The president cannot decree law, emperor or not. Doesn't work that way here. The house and senate passed it simultaneously, within parliamentary rules and it was ruled constitutional (the mandate part) By SCOTUS.
IRS Rewrites Obamacare To Increase Taxes, Center For Individual Freedom
But this is a debate that should be on the Obamacare op.
Solar activity drops to 100-year low, puzzling scientists - The Times of IndiaQuote:
Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.
Is this affecting climate ? Could we be going into another mini-ice age ? Hmmmmmm...
Rebuttal to post #189.
Tom all due respect but the IRS has rewritten nothing since the law gives the states flexibility to cross state lines and partner with other entities in the management and consolidation and certifications of both QHP (qualified healthcare plans) and the consumers that enroll in them.
This also goes to exemption for plans to be grandfathered that already meet the federal criteria for certification and allows for any changes that are negotiated through HHS for those that don't. I will also point out that some who do not lose some credits and subsidies through the tax code unless they make some modifications that are clearly defined but not written in stone and have some flexibility in their continuing to provide insurance to some group coverages. An example of this are those plans that have a multi state consumer base that have different taxing systems but a central taxing jurisdiction.
So lets not take contrary over simplified blog food as accurate on its face.
That will be decided in court . When the constitution says that executive branch decides who can be taxed then the moves made by the emperor will comply with constitutional law. I don't particularly care what wording the Dems added to the 2,000 + word law they shoved down our throats .
Not who, what is taxed. Do you think an employer who bears PARTS of the cost of providing insurance for it's employee should pay the same taxes as those who make part time work and no insurance?
Why should employers be taxed or not based on the benefits they provide ? I don't get the left . They jack up taxes in areas with high unemployment thinking that those decisions will increase employment...
The mechanics of the situation is if they make more money they pay more tax, I though you liked the situation where the capitalist screwed the little guy and made more money, something about the myth of job creators, well now they are creating part time jobs, sort of sharing the joy aroundQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The left isn't interested in what works, they are totally invested in a government panacea, i.e. they believe in fairy tales.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yup U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7: But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
This was not done with Obamacare because Ted Kennedy had just been replaced by Scott Brown, who voted Nay to the conference committee bill in the Senate. Reid and Madame Mimi "deemed" it to have been done.
Because benefits are a part of a compensation package to get a worker to work for you. Take away the benefits and replace it with money. Naw, you guys think you can take away the benefits and replace it with less hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What would you do if your boss did that to you?
What are you talking about ? If an employee gets a benefit then it's the employee who should be taxed for the "income "... not the employer who gives it.
Then keep your benefits, and give me cash and I will benefit myself. How about that? Well spoken by a fellow that has benefits already right? And of course YOU pay taxes on those benefits too right?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 PM. |