Palin On Health Bill

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nahhh, not convinced. i like that they regulate the air i breathe and water i drink and how much lead is in my paint and so on and so forth.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
yes, the overall and the substantive part. but it seems you are not trying to argue that her geography gives her any substantive foreign policy experience. i think we are on the same page...sure it gives her some experience, nothing substantial like she was trying to bill it as though.

excuse me for a while as i laugh at your characterization of that as gotcha journalism...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :razz:
That's precisely what that interview was.

I would have loved to have seen the look on Obama's face if someone had asked him which newspapers he read each day. In an era when Newspapers are going under because nobody reads newspapers any more. There would have been a string of stammering all the way into the commercial break.

Or if someone had asked him about his lack of foreign policy experience, and then followed up his answer with a cheeky question about his overall foreign policy experience. Couric would not have done that to the Chosen One.

he was clearly referring to the taxes you pay at the end of the year. he even enumerated them: income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes.

besides, like the cigarette tax, it's a tax you can choose not to pay.

i bet next you'll argue that tanning in the sun is tax evasion. :)
Nope, that's not what he said. He said if you make under $250K, your taxes would not go up.

what, you don't think health insurers deserve a little demonization? they clearly favor their own profits over the health of the people they insure.

de·mon

   /ˈdi
mən/ Show Spelled[dee-muh
n] Show IPA
–noun 1. an evil spirit; devil or fiend.

2. an evil passion or influence.

3. a person considered extremely wicked, evil, or cruel.

yep, i would consider their well-documented practices of dropping people once they get sick to be extremely wicked, evil, or cruel. too bad they can't do that anymore, thanks to the messiah (god it cracks me up how you guys refer to him that way....still).

in germany, they bar health insurers from making profits, yet they are still extremely competitive.

health insurers not only do all sorts of despicable practices, they also price gouge no matter what. can you name anything else that doubled in cost over the last 10 years? anything?
Yes, because health insurance should be free! Like bunny farts and rainbows.

Gasline prices have doubled since 2005. FIVE years!

In the interest of equity shouldn't there be ObamaGas, too?

Fuck it. Everything should be free! :-P
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Yes, because health insurance should be free! Like bunny farts and rainbows.

Fuck it. Everything should be free! :-P
never said it should be free, quit putting ridiculous words in my mouth and caricaturizing me.

i just want it to be fair.

i would understand the cost of premiums doubling in 10 years if they ran on gas. that is not the case.

now i shall caricaturize you, in the name of fairness...

health insurers should be able to charge whatever they want and arbitrarily raise rates and decrease services at will. if you get sick and cost them too much money, they may drop you like a sack of shit. they should be able to change the lifetime cap at will if you become unprofitable. they must reserve the right to not insure you if they feel you are not profitable, as they are a business designed to make money, not insure your health or anything

also, buying cigs from russia for $20 a carton and getting a tan in the sun are both tax evasion:)
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
never said it should be free, quit putting ridiculous words in my mouth and caricaturizing me.

i just want it to be fair.

i would understand the cost of premiums doubling in 10 years if they ran on gas. that is not the case.

now i shall caricaturize you, in the name of fairness...

health insurers should be able to charge whatever they want and arbitrarily raise rates and decrease services at will. if you get sick and cost them too much money, they may drop you like a sack of shit. they should be able to change the lifetime cap at will if you become unprofitable. they must reserve the right to not insure you if they feel you are not profitable, as they are a business designed to make money, not insure your health or anything

also, buying cigs from russia for $20 a carton and getting a tan in the sun are both tax evasion:)
Well, Buck. It's a damn shame I can't apologize for lampooning your position. But that would be dishonest.

Because I enjoyed it so much.

I really did.

Peace, Brother.
 

BudMcLovin

Active Member
commerce clause. they are regulating an economic activity.
So under the commerce clause the government can require you to buy something? “The individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented.” LINK
Maybe the next mandate the government makes will be that only GM cars and trucks can be sold in the United States. Maybe everyone has to paint their house pink.

bla bla bla...if you don't want the gubbmint confiscating your "personal property" with they' big ol' guns, then go move to warlordville, africa. we are all part of a society, we all pay taxes, we are all in this together.
James Madison said it better than I ever could.”By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.” LINK

Here’s a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson that apply to today’s political climate.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." LINK
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
So under the commerce clause the government can require you to buy something?


yep.

...James Madison...Thomas Jefferson...My reading of history...
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla......*yawn*

i remember in a hazy and stoned state of half consciousness hearing someone say the constitution is like a note of rules your parents stuck on the fridge before they left on vacation. but they died on that vacation, years have passed, you're now 30, and if you want eat some ice cream or have some friends over, you can.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Well, Buck. It's a damn shame I can't apologize for lampooning your position. But that would be dishonest.

Because I enjoyed it so much.

I really did.

Peace, Brother.
glad you had fun. didn't bother me because i never said it.

got the shower op running today, it is quite a thing of beauty. 500 watts in air cooled reflectors and enough room for 8 plants. total cost: $181

my point: i fucking rock.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member

i remember in a hazy and stoned state of half consciousness hearing someone say the constitution is like a note of rules your parents stuck on the fridge before they left on vacation. but they died on that vacation, years have passed, you're now 30, and if you want eat some ice cream or have some friends over, you can.
now THAT is a poor metaphor. the only reason we got this far is because of that constitution. your just sayin this shit to piss people off. jews...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
now THAT is a poor metaphor. the only reason we got this far is because of that constitution. your just sayin this shit to piss people off. jews...
i would like to think you threw in that jab at the end in an attempt to do piss me off, but i have read your posts, and i can't be so sure. :-(

but i am dead serious about the analogy (not metaphor). i see the constitution as amendable over time. i'm pretty sure the founding fathers could never imagine what our society would be like today. that is why they allowed us the ability to amend and change the damn thing, don't you think?

continuing the analogy, if we stuck with the rules our parents left on the fridge, blacks, women and 18-21 year old people would not be able to vote (ie have some friends over). how poor is that analogy now?

are you of the opinion that blacks, women, and 18-21 year old people should not be able to vote?
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
tamatoes tomatoes...what about this
[video=youtube;IwlLs9J9oW0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwlLs9J9oW0[/video]

yea its just for sng's.

no im of the opinion that if i need a damn license to drive a car, a permit to build on my own property, license to have a business, why not license all essential liberties? stop cherry picking somethings then have the most important one open to just any blithering idiot. so lets go ahead and require people to have a license to vote, have kids, have pets, go to school...
i digress. yes the constitution was a different time. but it was the best of time, and is the only reason why we've made it this far. and no they couldn't foresee todays problems, which is why we can amend it. disregarded the constitution is not an option. i don't see how any american could even think it.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i digress. yes the constitution was a different time. but it was the best of time
sure was. you could own a black man as your property, split up their families at auction such that a 6 year old kid would ever see his/her parents again, live to the ripe old age of 45, no safety net for the elderly, women couldn't vote and half the population was illiterate (the poor half). good times*

i actually do think requiring a license to have kids or pets would not be an entirely bad idea, some people are shitty fucks...but i digress. it would never happen and i would never advocate for it.

in any case, our parents left some good rules on the fridge, we shouldn't throw them out, but we ain't 16 anymore.

footnote *: 'good times' was meant entirely in sarcasm and should not be construed to mean we should live by the same primitive standards enjoyed by our founding fathers and envied by people who lack perspective.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
you should especially love the constitution. no constitution, no america. no america, no u.n. no u.n. no israel. see where this is going? while we're on the subject of "obsolete" documents, lets talk tanakh. what does it have to say about slavery? concubines? incest? talk about parents leaving rules on the fridge...you still liking that metaphor?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
you are talking to an atheist humanist jew. your appeal to the tanakh depends on assumptions and is thus fucked. anything else you want to assume while you're at it?

as far as your slippery slope of constitution = israel...also fucked. all the refugees left after the holocaust had to go somewhere, u.n. or not.

still wish to defend 1789 america as 'the best of times'? you seem to have abandoned that entirely.
 

blazin256

Well-Known Member
i get it. you really put the ish in jewish then. say what you want about the time, but atleast they never had recessions, depressions, welfare, etc. only one man worked and there was zero debt. now the whole household works with god knows how much debt they have. yea good times we live in i tell ya.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i'm sorry, are you upset that there are different types of jews? boo freaking hoo

how can you claim 'only one man worked'? do you mean to say one man owned slaves who did all the work for them?

and how the fuck do you claim 'zero debt'? are you ignoring (ie ignorant of) indentured slaves? try telling them they had no debt.

age expectancy of 45, no literacy for half the population, women and blacks couldn't vote, and recessions/depressions if the crops didn't grow.

fuckin'-a man, you are dense if you think that was the best of times.
 
Top