# Obamacare causes prices to skyrocket



## P@triot (Mar 27, 2016)

Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much??? 

Thanks Obamacare: This Is What Americans Spent Most Money On In 2015


----------



## P@triot (Mar 27, 2016)

It has been proven in emails that the Obama Administration _knew_ that Obamacare would cause citizens to lose their coverage, lose their doctor, and cause prices to skyrocket. But they didn't care. It was all about _control_ and about getting as many people on the government plantation as possible so that they are beholden to government for their most basic needs.


----------



## Dale Smith (Mar 28, 2016)

Looks like I come across another "awake" poster......congrats. We only need 50 million more like ya.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 28, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> It has been proven in emails that the Obama Administration _knew_ that Obamacare would cause citizens to lose their coverage, lose their doctor, and cause prices to skyrocket. But they didn't care. It was all about _control_ and about getting as many people on the government plantation as possible so that they are beholden to government for their most basic needs.



Dear Rottweiler

If they don't care that this federal bill violates Constitutional principles and beliefs of the HALF of Congress who voted NO on behalf of constitutes, and HALF the Supreme Court also divided clearly by party, of course they have no regard for anything in the way of their political agenda.

You can't prove the results and impact on health care financially without getting into a debate.
But NO ONE disputes the FACT that the vote in Congress
was split with ALL REPUBLICANS VOTING NO
and the Supreme Court vote was also split
in half 5-4

Who voted for Health Care Reform (Obamacare)

Clearly this was divided by political belief.
So enforcing one belief while penalizing the other is unconstitutional,
and treating the belief in right to health care as lawful to establish by govt without consent of
citizens of dissenting beliefs, but treating right to life as barred from govt if people don't agree to that belief
is DISCRIMINATION by CREED.

There is no denying that people of dissenting beliefs
expressed this dissent and thus had the bill passed defended and enforced
without our consent and in violation of our beliefs which were clearly stated and KNOWN.

This is willful IGNORANCE if not incompetence and inability to
perceive of much less respect the equal rights and beliefs of others.
All because of political bias, belief and agenda.

So if this is how party politics is abused -- to collude to violate the equal
civil rights of others -- perhaps parties should be BANNED from pushing political beliefs through govt.

Just like religious beliefs are held to a Constitutional standard:
you can practice this freely as individuals but cannot abuse govt or public resources/institutions
to endorse, enforce, or impose a belief, especially if it conflicts or excludes the beliefs of other citizens,
but must have CONSENT of citizens if you are going to have such a policy in govt.

If people AGREE to a reference to God which is faith based, that can remain.
If people DISAGREE with references to prayers or crosses, those are removed.

So if people can demand to remove Christmas trees, Nativity scenes, Bibles etc.
Why is it attacked if people demand to remove homosexual references, same
sex marriage, and other personal choices from govt that not all people believe in.
And just keep that private.

Same with health care policies and let citizens choose what programs they want to participate in to cover health care. 

What crime have citizens committed to justify depriving us of our liberty and right to choose health care programs and our labor to pay for health care through free market means
instead of paying for insurance or govt penalties as a requirement?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 28, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> It has been proven in emails that the Obama Administration _knew_ that Obamacare would cause citizens to lose their coverage, lose their doctor, and cause prices to skyrocket. But they didn't care. It was all about _control_ and about getting as many people on the government plantation as possible so that they are beholden to government for their most basic needs.



Can you supply a link.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 29, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> 
> Thanks Obamacare: This Is What Americans Spent Most Money On In 2015



This has been explained to you people numerous times before, and you still don't get it.  But, hey, if Alex Jones says it, it must be true.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 29, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > It has been proven in emails that the Obama Administration _knew_ that Obamacare would cause citizens to lose their coverage, lose their doctor, and cause prices to skyrocket. But they didn't care. It was all about _control_ and about getting as many people on the government plantation as possible so that they are beholden to government for their most basic needs.
> ...


Certainly! Though very sad we have so many here who are completely unaware of something that made national headline news for months...

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare


----------



## P@triot (Mar 29, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> ...


I can only imagine what kind of absurd explanation you have for why it is ok for Obamacare to drastically increase the cost of healthcare when the entire premise for the unconstitutional disaster was that healthcare costs were too high...


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Keep banging your head, then, because the only absurdity in this thread is yours.  Get back to us when you're able to read original sources instead of premasticated regurgitated slop from the likes of Alex Jones.  You don't even know enough to put this in the correct forum.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Each article has it's own bent.

I had a YouTube video of John Stewart calling Obama "dishonest" when it came to "You can keep your plan...period".

Even the everworshipped Greenbeard admits it was a total screw up on Obama's part.

I just wanted something to talk from.

I had friends and family lose their insurance and go without because the Bronze plans are to expensive compared to what they had.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



It has not increased the cost of health care.

It has increased the cost of health insurance.

It has made insurance companies very profitable.

I can't see what you are addressing, but I know who you are....I've got them on ignore.  

But, I'll bet you don't get any kind of explanation at all.  You'll just get some stupidassed left wing answer.....


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 30, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You're really so desperate to get my attention, aren't you?

The "stupid-assed left-wing answer" is: There are dozens of threads explaining this _in the ObamaCare forum_.  You want information?  _Learn to read._


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 30, 2016)

Democrats lie.

You'd all be heartbroken if they didn't.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 30, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> Democrats lie.
> 
> You'd all be heartbroken if they didn't.



Not democrats....leftwingers.......

Big difference.

It's amazing how they can sit there and say.....no problem when a lot of people are having problems.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 31, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


"It has not increased the cost of healthcare - it had increased the cost of health insurance" 

First of all - health insurance costs _are_ healthcare costs. I pay for health insurance specifically for my healthcare.

Second - insurance costs go up to cover healthcare costs (which have gone up)

Third - Obama and the Dumbocrats said people couldn't afford health insurance and that was also why we needed Obamacare.

Epic fail by them. Epic fail by you to make excuses for their epic fail.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 31, 2016)

Liberal policy always ends in failure. It just keeps piling up...

Why Obamacare Premiums Are Climbing All Over US


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Epic fail by you for (A) not understanding the history of health insurance cost increases and reacting with  and (B) not understanding which side of the issue Sun Devil's on because you can't even bother reading any other thread in this forum or the ObamaCare one.

Keep going, though.  This is fun.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Not altogether true.

As CATO states, Obamacare made inexpensive insurance ILLEGAL.

Way to much garbage in the 10 essentials.

Insurance administration also costs money.

I know people who work at hospitals who say they've tripled the staff  they used to have to take care of of the Obamacare BS.

If you want to throwstones and the democrats go ahead.  The GOP had plenty of opportunity to address this issue (and it has been a huge issue for a long time) for many years so we would NOT have a a government solution.

Instead they started a bunch of wars.

Good job.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 31, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Well that is interesting. How could the GOP (representatives in government) "address this issue" (direct quote from you) and yet "*not*" be a "government solution"?

If if the GOP did _anything_ to interfere, then it is in fact a "government solution".


----------



## P@triot (Mar 31, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Great "logic" on your behalf. The statistical facts being reported in the media today are irrelevant and should be ignored because you _believe_ I haven't "bothered to read other threads in this forum".

Incidentally junior - how do you know what I've read and haven't read? Do you work for the NSA?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



You don't think that the GOP could have called the industry together and said....you figure out how to fix this ?

Yes they could.

You don't think the GOP could have led a discussion on what constitutes "good performance" when it comes to health insurance delivery. 

Yes they could.

And had they....we could have avoided these issues.

Or do you think legislators are not leaders too ?

IOW: The GOP could have made good use the "bully pulpit" to lead a good conversation on this topic.  Instead, they ignored it and we got Obamacare.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I can't see the quote which tells me that you've got someone in the reply I have on ignore.  

I would suggest you not waste your time.  

It's like talking to a Hillary-bot.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 31, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Are legislators "leaders"? Not.....at...._all_. They are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution (if we're talking federal), state constitutions, etc. as to what they can have their hands in and what they can't. The U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government with 18 enumerated powers and healthcare and/or health insurance is *not* one of them.

With that in mind, why in the world would the GOP waste their time addressing something that they are not legally permitted to be involved with while on the job? It doens't make any sense. They are not our "leaders" - they are our elected representatives.

The view of our government by today's Americans is downright bone-chilling frightening. Countries like North Korea refer to their "leaders". We have elected _representatives_. It's so tragic that we continue to hand over to them powers and titles which they shouldn't have and never did.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I can't think of anything more silly than this.

Elected representatives....high visiblity people who have access to information on issues.....can't comment or lead a discussion on health care.

That's just funny.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The statistical facts being reported in the media today are irrelevant and should be ignored ...



Is that the conclusion you draw?  It's worse than I thought.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 1, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Yeah....how silly that elected representatives should be legally bound to the law and have their powers restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

You know a person has lost the argument when their response is essentially "this is so silly....of course elected representatives are above the law".

By the way junior - we ALL have "access to information". We're a free society and in this day and age of technology, the entire world's information is at our fingertips.

You are incapable of making a rational argument on this one. Everything you've said is bizarre and flat out wrong. We all have "access to information" (I can't stop laughing about such a third grade attempt at making a weak argument) and it is literally _illegal_ for the federal government to engage in healthcare as it is not one of the 18 enumerated powers granted to them by the states in the Constitution.


----------



## Geaux4it (Apr 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> 
> Thanks Obamacare: This Is What Americans Spent Most Money On In 2015



I was suppose to save $2000 a year, right?

-Geaux


----------



## P@triot (Apr 1, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The statistical facts being reported in the media today are irrelevant and should be ignored ...
> ...


Sadly that is the weak argument that *you* made after the facts proved your position was _wrong_ and left you with no other direction to go in.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2016)

Dear Rottweiler dblack Dale Smith The Professor Geaux4it 
Thank you for posting and being here. It helps to have people who understand and think along the same
lines and know what each other is even saying!
I had gone through several months of what I call "political depression" when I first realized that
liberals had such engrained beliefs, they couldn't even recognize their own biases or see the
beliefs of others as valid. They believe those views are wrong just like atheists cannot see how
any concept of God could possibly be real. Their brains are just wired to think in secular terms,
and liberals only think in terms of rights coming through govt in order to be real. 

Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains - 2012 Presidential Election - ProCon.org

I appreciate being able to connect with likeminded people. It helps a lot to have consistent
support so that I can perfect how to spell out these points, where eventually the mainstream
liberals can grasp how they are abusing govt to infringe on the beliefs of others, instead of taking this for
granted or discrediting it in their minds.  

If I can organize a regular team of petitions to push, I'd like to campaign to have
Constitutionalism recognized as a political religion and push for equal protection of all beliefs
from infringement by govt.  Of course it is impossible to separate Constitutionalism from govt,
and that's the same problem liberals are having, unable to separate their beliefs about health
care and abortion rights from govt either.  If we cannot separate, then we need to unite on
points and policies of agreement, and agree to relegate areas we disagree to parties or
states outside of federal govt so we don't establish national mandates not all people believe in.

I am sick and tired of being harassed for my views, called a bigot, a racist, etc.

If I cannot get anyone to respect my views, I can at least start a campaign where I accept
responsibility for defending the beliefs of others, raising funds for restitution for damages
and costs incurred by ACA and other unconstitutional requirements (like fines imposed on
businesses for refraining from participation on gay weddings), and conflict resolution to
try to keep policies central and neutral and not biased one way or another, but respecting
equal inclusion under Constitutional standards and ethics.

I will ask public help to raise 10 million to set up a Constitutional center for outreach,
mediation and fundraising to cover these costs.

I am thinking the reason people don't want to think about change is the cost of
corrections and restitution if these violations were recognized.

So if I offer to help raise the money to pay the costs of corrections, maybe
that will attract interest and open minds to the process instead of refusing to consider.

I think it is too scary to consider the enormity of change involved across the
different institutions: the govt, the media, the schools and prisons, and economy.
Everything would shift if the control and funding of programs shifted back to
people and out of the backlogged bureaucracy our federal govt is tied up in.

Thank you again and I hope we can spell out how these
changes can take place logistically, invite all the R and D candidates
for office to join in shaping collaborate plans, organized in teams,
and quit this blindsighted bickering of pushing one agenda and cutting out the other.

A better way is right around the corner, when we
are ready to make that turn.  Thanks and God Bless!

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2016)

Geaux4it said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> ...



Dear Geaux4it 

This reminds me of how it would save people "more money"
by paying off debts sooner with bigger payments each month.

But if they can't afford that, it is still easier to pay less each month
and take longer with more interest. At least the other household costs
can be covered instead of dropping everything else to try to reduce that debt!

This business of deciding someone's ability to pay out of their income
does not account for other costs that have to come from that income.

And what price can you put on someone's freedom?

That part isn't even taken into account!

It is equally disturbing to me that since this set up does not cover
all health care costs for either covered people or those without insurance,
this means money will still need to be spent on "other means of covering health care."

So why fine people if "other means" are still needed anyway?
If those other means and choices are still needed, why are they being fined?

Never mind, I cannot think this way and just
have to be avoid being under this.  Please see other msg.
I am thinking to set up a fund to pay for memberships for
all other objectors who cannot be under this system without violating their rights and beliefs.

And just focus on saving our sanity, which is worth the cost
of buying everyone a membership in the cheapest health sharing ministry available.

That's cheaper than arguing in circles going nowhere
while no lawyers or legislators will take this on.

If that's the cheapest way to OPT OUT, I will launch a campaign
to assess the cost to buy everyone's freedom who wants out of this deal.
and charge the cost back to Democrats who signed for it,
because we certainly didn't agree to pay for all this!


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Please show me that I ever argued against that.

You are the one who is arguing they can't behave like citizens and lead a "conversation" on a topic.  

The NRC was totally absent from the conversation as was just about every other conservative or establishment group.

NO LEADERSHIP.

That's what both parties have....nothing.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> By the way junior - we ALL have "access to information". We're a free society and in this day and age of technology, the entire world's information is at our fingertips.



Well, dickweed....that got us what ?

Obamacare.  

Obama.

A public that does not care that the SCOTUS is all but running the place.

It also has a public that understands little about the Constitution.  

Good job with that information.

Bring on MSNBC, FoxNews, Drudge, DailyKOS.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 1, 2016)

Fella I knew actually did save $2,500 after the inception of Obamacare.

He died.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 1, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > By the way junior - we ALL have "access to information". We're a free society and in this day and age of technology, the entire world's information is at our fingertips.
> ...


No genius...the cancer known as liberalism got us Obamacare. Raising lazy generations who believe that other people owe them stuff got us Obamacare. People like _you_ who believe the Constitution doesn't matter and the ends justify the means got us Obamacare.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 1, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Read above...where you said over and over that they should "lead" a conversation about an issue in which they have absolutely zero authority to be involved. It's as absurd as stating that a Microsoft employee on the clock should "lead" discussions about diversity at Google. That is not their job and their employer would be pretty pissed off that they were wasting company time on something they were *not* hired to do. The American tax payer (those of us informed anyway - which apparently excludes you since I had to explain the powers and responsibilities of the federal government) are furious when the people we pay to do a job decide to do whatever they want on "company time".


----------



## Geaux4it (Apr 1, 2016)

Government dependence.. That's what this is about. 

They want us government dependent and are calling on many fronts. What I find striking is we have one of the biggest government programs in that of Social Security failing right before our eyes. All managed by our competent folks in the government. But things in SS are not fairing so well. The halls are ringing with calls to privatize SS due to mismanagement by the government. And so to goes Obamacare. I find it hard to understand how anyone could possibly believe that after seeing the demise of SS, and the calls to privatize, that Obamacare somehow will come out different

Really? 

-Geaux


----------



## P@triot (Apr 2, 2016)

Geaux4it said:


> Government dependence.. That's what this is about.
> 
> They want us government dependent and are calling on many fronts. What I find striking is we have one of the biggest government programs in that of Social Security failing right before our eyes. All managed by our competent folks in the government. But things in SS are not fairing so well. The halls are ringing with calls to privatize SS due to mismanagement by the government. And so to goes Obamacare. I find it hard to understand how anyone could possibly believe that after seeing the demise of SS, and the calls to privatize, that Obamacare somehow will come out different
> 
> ...


Actually, I can. Liberalism is the complete and total absence of intellectualism. It is entirely based on _feelings_. And so the liberal ignores facts and data for what _feels_ good to them. They won't feed the hungry or pay for the health insurance policy of someone else with their money (oh no, no, no - they are greedy hoarding capitalists when it comes to _that_) but they will pull a lever for communism because that makes them feel good. In their mind, they "cared" and "did" something for the less fortunate (even though what they did was put more people out of work, created a worse economy, and destroyed rights, freedoms, and the Constitution).


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Blah blah blah blah.....

So you can't really support your argument.....

1. Show me where I said the Constitution does not matter.

2. Liberalism is not the far left.

3. The GOP is just as responsible for Obamacare as Obama.

Your tattered little assault on the poor is of no value.  Many of them are conservative.  They are not lazy.

I got us Obamacare ?  You are a total moron.  I've been against it from the start...and you'll see that if you look at most of my posts.  

Idiot.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Government dependence.. That's what this is about.
> ...



That's the far left.

Liberals are great thinkers.

Obama isn't a liberal....he's the far left.

Your overgeneralization shows how little you value true education.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Yes, there is nothing that says they could not lead a discussio non it.

You are pretty dense...you don't need authority to take the bully pulpit and hold a discussion.

Or maybe I should explain....leading a discussion does not mean legislating it.

They are citizens....they have as much right to lead on an issue as anyone else.

Your analogy is worthless.

Companies always value employees who go above and beyond.  They were hired to legislate.  In the case of conservatives, the idea is to avoid legislating things.  You are the poor uninformed moron who does not realize that there are people like Rahm Emmanual out there who will use crisis' to push an agenda. 

Had the GOP been out in front with discussions on non governmental solutions (or in this case an effort stop propping up the insurance industry), they would have a avoided this.

Obamacare caught the GOP flatfooted, still recovering from a couple of stupid wars.

They are as guilty as Obama.

Sorry to ruin your hero worship.

And stop with your stupid talking points.  

I cite Federalist 45 more than anyone around here in defense of a limited federal government.  You, just can't wait to jizz your drawers posting your little self-righteous lectures.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 3, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


The fact that you don't even understand the political scale today shows how much you value true education.

The Democrat Party is entirely made up of marxists/socialists/communists today. Barack Obama admitted to being a marxist in his autobiography. Bernie Sanders is running as an admitted socialist. And both Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not articulate any difference between "being a democrat and being a socialist" when asked on national television. Both panicked and tried to change the subject.

The Republican Party is entirely made up of liberals. Kennedy-era liberals. George W. Bush greatly expanded the federal government with the Department of Homeland Security (Kennedy-era liberalism). George W. Bush greatly increased the federal debt from $6 trillion to $10 trillion (Kennedy-era liberalism). George W. Bush ignored the U.S. Constitution and the limitations of power when he pushed through the Patriot Act (Kennedy-era liberalism).

The only conservatives are the Tea Party. They advocate for Constitutional government. Nothing more. Nothing less.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 3, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


I'm enjoying watching you trying like hell to back track from your previous statements like a politician after you were proven wrong. You know damn well you believed that they should lead a national discussion on it in Congress. Now you're trying to pretend like you meant on their own time in their personal lives. Well, if that's the case, why are you bashing them? You can have lead that discussion. So could 300 million other American's. Furthermore, you have no idea what these people do in their private time, so how do you now they didn't do that?

Thanks for playing chief - but you've been exposed on this one. Would have been much classier to just admit you were wrong rather than trying to prevend you meant something else after I explained the Constitution to you.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 3, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



How does this relate, at all, to my post ?

I find nothing to argue against in what you posted with regard to the democrats and republicans (except the use of the term liberal and I find that in most cases...it is more a matter of definition....I think I know what you are saying and I agree).

I am totally disgusted with the GOP.  It has sold out big time.

I do disagree with your characterization of the Tea Party.  But, then again, it depends on which Tea Party you are referencing.

I tend to lean more libertarian.  

When it comes to health care, Obamacare is a "solution" to a "problem" that nobody ever defined.

This was the first failure of the GOP and the Tea Party hasn't been very visible either (and saying....well the the federal government can't do that.......does not work.  Guess what.....they did it (and as I said, I don't agree that they did....Madison was all to clear in Federalist 45.....the powers delegated to the constitution government are few and defined)....but right now Madison does not matter.......

And very few talk about the 10th amendment any more.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 3, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



You are full of crap.

I said they were citizens.  This was in response to your stupid statement about what they can and can't do.

They can do anything any citizen can do.  And they can have that discussion congress.  They can hold hearings.  That is plenty legitimate.  Holding a national discussion on health care would be great.

What I never advocated for was legislation on health care.

You clearly don't understand strategy.

If the GOP had gotten in front of the discussion they could have steered away from something like Obamacare.

And BTW: We should first be clear....I believe we do have a tremendous issue with the delivery of health care to the people of the United States.  The insurance industry is propped up by our governments and allows them to do bulls**t that is ridiculous.  

People say "The free market does not work in health care"  

I say "There hasn't been a free market since medicare hit".  

Or do you really believe government was not involved in health care prior to Obamacare ?

A congressman with balls would have stood and said....let's look at the barriers to a good delivery system...guess what ?

WE (Congress) created them.

So I really don't care if they hold it in a town hall meeting, on a blog, or in the halls of congress.....they should have done it and kept us away from the crisis driven mess we have now.

But, you'll sit back and say "Well the constitution says they can't......"  When they would have tried, I would have been interested (unless it was to get rid of their stupid regulations)....

And you kept us from Obamacare with your strategy....good job.

Oh wait.....I lost my doctor.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 4, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Dear Sun Devil 92 As even Ted Cruz recognized and state in public:
both parties are FULL of citizens who know what they want and don't want from govt,
but the career politicians in BOTH PARTIES have sold them for what plays in the media and swings elections and votes.
I give him credit for recognizing the Democrats within the party have valid plans, points and principles
but it's the politicized liberal politicians, similar to the party-killers in the GOP, who are holding up the progress.

We might as well be like AFRICA that has vast resources of mineral and natural wealth, diamonds and all kinds
of resources, but their people are STARVING and dying of disease genocide and poverty.

The people are organized by party but we're not tapping that wealth of ideas and people willing to invest in solutions and action.

The partisan campaigning zaps all our energy, focus and worst of all billions of dollars
we could be investing directing in solutions -- ENOUGH TO CREATE JOBS FOR EVERY CANDIDATE
to lead their part of the picture, if we worked as a TEAM and let each one, each leader and party address one program they could succeed in.

I hope this election cycle leads to realization and change.
I will be writing a resolution to my fellow Progressive Greens and Liberals,
fellow Constitutionalists and Christian independents from the prochoice and prolife sides,
and ask to set up better solutions working with both parties and possibly separating the programs and funding to quit fighting
and invest 100% directly into solutions that can be formulated to be uncontested if people ran them through their own parties and not govt.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 4, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



emilynghiem,

You'll get the help you work for.

One thing you should realize is that when you say "government" you need to qualify which one you are referencing.

The farther away they are, the more corrupt.

We need to get away from federal crap and get back to the kind of state/county control we should all have in our lives.

When this country was formed, there were roughtly six million people and they didn't want a central government homogonizing them in a single set of legislation.

Now, we have 320 million and we seem to think that homogenization is a better thing.

How do you write a health care law the benefits 320 million people....simply stupid.


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 4, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



There is no "United" States of America, just fifty little fiefdoms.  Any state willing to forego federal funding (it's always the Red States that give less in taxes than they take back) should be allowed to form its only little banana republic.  We'll see how long they last before they become third-world shitholes begging for help.  Q.v. South Carolina when the dams collapsed.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 4, 2016)

emilynghiem

Have you ever heard of the Free State Movement.

A very interesting study in how this country works.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 6, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> emilynghiem
> 
> Have you ever heard of the Free State Movement.
> 
> A very interesting study in how this country works.



Thanks Sun Devil 92 I found something online about a movement to get 20,000 people to move to NH.
Is that what you are referring to?
I've heard of people moving to Montana, and know people personally who move out to remote areas of Texas to set up their own shop.
with the ghost towns or abandoned businesses left by Wal-Mart and other economic shifts, the market is ripe for
people organizing investors or even crowdfunding to buy out these places and manage their own towns.

Have you heard of the independent currency coops that have helped whole towns create their own labor-based currency?
Introducing HOUR Money (also the time bank system in DC that uses a database to track and exchange barter credits based on hours worked)

It's not impossible to set up independent networks within the given system.
So all the secessionists in Texas yelling about this only need to organize, buy out land and build either
nonprofit schools, churches or LLC businesses that write expenses off their taxes and they can control their own domains.

You can basically secede financially by investing in your own development and writing the maximum off taxes,
depending which set up you use.  We are heading for this anyway, as the basis of people developing equal representation locally,
so might as well jump in and start learning how everyone else has been doing it.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 7, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem
> ...



The idea is that this is how federalism works.

The Libertarians figured out they didn't need to own the White House, just get involved in the government where they lived.  That way they get more of what they want.....

And it is working.

It's funny how left leaning NH which considers itself so freaking forward thinking.....hates these guys.  They call them the biggest danger to the state.

Translation: We are totally tolerant until you buck our left leaning system.....

Real open minded.

But it is working for them.  There are enough of them that they are getting onto city council, county boards, and even into the state house.

Go libertarians !!!!

Screw N.H. over.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 24, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem
> ...



emilynghiem 

That's not what I want.

This country should not be full of people running from the system.

That is just wrong.

We need a better system.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 25, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> There is no "United" States of America, just fifty little fiefdoms.  Any state willing to forego federal funding (it's always the Red States that give less in taxes than they take back) should be allowed to form its only little banana republic.  We'll see how long they last before they become third-world shitholes begging for help.  Q.v. South Carolina when the dams collapsed.



Ah yes....liberal "logic" at its finest. Tax people to _death_, collect $4 trillion in taxes (highest in U.S. history), unconstitutionally send _some_ of it back to the states, then dance and celebrate how unconstitutional, centralized control over the country is "proof" that liberalism "works".

If the federal government only took 10% from everyone (as they should), there would be plenty of money for each state to operate on their own without federal assistance. And all of them would flourish.


*“The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.” - Thomas Sowell*


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> More undeniable, indisputable evidence of failed liberal policy creating unemployment and high energy prices...
> 
> _The radical leftwing environmentalists took control. These are people who care more about the supposed rise of the oceans than the financial survival of the middle class. The industrial unions made a catastrophic decision to get in bed with these radicals and now they—and all of us—are paying a heavy price._
> 
> ...



Wrong forum?


----------



## P@triot (Apr 25, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > More undeniable, indisputable evidence of failed liberal policy creating unemployment and high energy prices...
> ...


Yes. Thank you


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> 
> Thanks Obamacare: This Is What Americans Spent Most Money On In 2015



Can we get back to Obummercare ?


----------



## P@triot (Apr 25, 2016)




----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> View attachment 72940



Fluked again.


----------



## strollingbones (Apr 26, 2016)

when the subsidies end in 2017 no one will be able to afford medical insurance...the rates are doubling....at least bcbs did in nc this year.....


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 26, 2016)

strollingbones said:


> when the subsidies end in 2017 no one will be able to afford medical insurance...the rates are doubling....at least bcbs did in nc this year.....



In all of this....I must have missed this.

The subsidies are ending ????


----------



## strollingbones (Apr 26, 2016)

New Obamacare Study Considers What Happens When Generous Government Subsidies End


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 26, 2016)

strollingbones said:


> New Obamacare Study Considers What Happens When Generous Government Subsidies End



Ouch....that seems like the end of Obummercare.


----------



## strollingbones (Apr 26, 2016)

i know i cannot afford the 1300 a month that it will run us with a huge ass deductible...


----------



## P@triot (Apr 26, 2016)

An the hits just keep on coming. Funny - Obamacare is doing the exact opposite of what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid "promised" it would do. Don't kid yourself - nobody is that stupid. It's impossible to calculate this horribly. They knew it would cause rates to skyrocket, and they knew it would cause people to lose their doctors and lose their plans (White House e-mails have already proved as much). What this was designed to do was give government power and control over the healthcare sector (which makes up over 17% of the entire U.S. economy).

ObamaCare premiums expected to rise sharply amid insurer losses


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 26, 2016)

strollingbones said:


> i know i cannot afford the 1300 a month that it will run us with a huge ass deductible...



Which has been my contention all along.....

1300/month.

Then the dumbass Aironhead shows up and says "you are not trying hard enough".

The fact is that if it is costing that much...it is costing that much.

TIme to own up to the fact we may need to ration health care in order to keep prices reasonable.

We spend a ton of money on end of life care.....

Most physicians I know say it is stupid.  We back end load the system and rob from the front end.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 27, 2016)

The legacy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid is crafting the most disastrous, controversial, _illegal_, and failed legislation in U.S. _history_...

4 Facts That Prove Obamacare Isn't Aging Well


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 27, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The legacy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid is crafting the most disastrous, controversial, _illegal_, and failed legislation in U.S. _history_...
> 
> 4 Facts That Prove Obamacare Isn't Aging Well



Hostility to Liberty isn't a "fact", it's a conclusion of sorts.

However, I found this interesting.....

For 2016, CBO initially estimated 21 million enrollees in the government-created exchanges. Today, that sign up number has been revised downward to 13 million and, the CBO now says, will more likely end up as 12 million.

Robert Pear, veteran health reporter of the New York Times, reports that, according to a new Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association study the newly insured under the Affordable Care Act were sicker, used more medical care, and had higher medical costs than those who already had coverage.

*******************

Does that mean we have 9 million more uninsured or did they jump ship to other plans ?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 5, 2016)

The catastrophic failure that is Obamacare continues to grow...

Obamacare's 13th Co-Op Is Closing. Why More Could Follow.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jun 5, 2016)

USMBNJ's: "WAAAAAAAAAAH!"

Normal Americans: "Cool!"


----------



## JBond (Jun 5, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Actually every attempt to fix Obama care was meet with derision by the leftists. They were he'll bent on having the insurance companies write the law hoping it would collapse so they could usher in a truly horrific plan to increase reliance on the masters running the show.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 6, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The catastrophic failure that is Obamacare continues to grow...
> 
> Obamacare's 13th Co-Op Is Closing. Why More Could Follow.



Ouch......

Continues to be a problem.

Can't help that we spend 8,500 per person per year.

Anyone thinking that Obamacare is doing something good is a fool.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 13, 2016)

It's amazing to me to see that people are still saying Obamacare is a good thing.


----------



## Windship (Jun 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> 
> Thanks Obamacare: This Is What Americans Spent Most Money On In 2015



Youd rather have your illness profited on and going into a multi millionaires pocket instead instead back into the tax base that is in big trouble?
Its ok with you for the rich to profit on your misfortune and illness? Youd rather have your health and life saving decisions made with profit as the main concern? Tell you what...next time your premiums increase, I want to see a thread...from you...sharing that info, just like you do when oblama cares premiums increase. Ur chicken shit.


----------



## Windship (Jun 14, 2016)

If it done right, its good. NO PROFIT FROM ILLNESS'. Its just not moral.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 14, 2016)

Windship said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> ...



They profit off of your healing.

And do you really want a low paid ER surgeon working on you when they wheel you in...?? Yes ?  Move to Mexico.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 14, 2016)

Windship said:


> If it done right, its good. NO PROFIT FROM ILLNESS'. Its just not moral.



Define right and who gets to chose ?

Moral ?  Who are you to decide ?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 26, 2016)

A good start to correcting the nightmare that is Obamacare....

5 Key Health Care Proposals From House Republican Plan


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> A good start to correcting the nightmare that is Obamacare....
> 
> 5 Key Health Care Proposals From House Republican Plan



The proposal recognizes the growing fiscal, demographic, and structural challenges facing the Medicaid program. The proposal begins with putting the Medicaid program on a budget to provide greater fiscal certainty to federal and state taxpayers and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. It expands flexibility to the states to allow more innovation.

******************

the fed is going to allow states to innovate ?

Yeah...you bet.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > A good start to correcting the nightmare that is Obamacare....
> ...


They _should_ do that. The Constitution says so. Will they? Not if liberals have anything to say about it.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> No genius...the cancer known as liberalism got us Obamacare.



Oh? For some reason I thought it was Heritage and Romey (you know, that guy you thought should be President instead of Obama) that blueprinted Obamacare...maybe I'm mistaken...maybe they had some totally different ideas they implemented exactly how Obamacare did.

And as to some claims about Administration knowing that millions of people would lose insurance...lets check in on that KNOWLEDGE:






Reality has that insidious liberal bias that makes it sooo tough to deal with! Constant fantasy crafting helps some.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > No genius...the cancer known as liberalism got us Obamacare.
> ...



Understandable since liberals are extremely slow and very limited mentally. But yes...you _are_ "mistaken". Romney addressed the desires of the constituents of his *state*. Perfectly legal. Obama and the Dumbocrats *unconstitutionally* forced Obamacare on the American people. Completely illegal.

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states and that is all. Healthcare is *not* one of those powers. In addition, no where does the U.S. Constitution grant the federal government the power to *force* the American people a good or service.

Let me know if you need any other lessons on the U.S. Constitution. I'll be here all week.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> And as to some claims about Administration knowing that millions of people would lose insurance...lets check in on that KNOWLEDGE:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see any "reality" there at all. For starters, *millions* _did_ lose their insurance. Then they had to go out and pay 4x's as much for half the coverage that they previously had (I thought Obamacare was supposed to "lower" healthcare costs?!?).

Also - Obama claimed over and over and over that 30 million people were uninsured and hence why Obamacare was so necessary. Funny that your chart shows a high of 18 million (or barely more than half of the wild claims). So either the Dumbocrats lied in 2009 _or_ your chart is a joke. Which is it?


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Understandable since liberals are extremely slow and very limited mentally. But yes...you _are_ "mistaken". Romney addressed the desires of the constituents of his *state*. Perfectly legal. Obama and the Dumbocrats *unconstitutionally* forced Obamacare on the American people. Completely illegal.
> 
> The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states and that is all. Healthcare is *not* one of those powers. In addition, no where does the U.S. Constitution grant the federal government the power to *force* the American people a good or service.
> 
> Let me know if you need any other lessons on the U.S. Constitution. I'll be here all week.



Let play a "who gets to say that" game:

_*Unconstitutional*_*...*US Supreme Court gets to say that and even with 5-4 conservative majority it has time and time again ruled that yes law is in fact constitutional (except Medicaid expansion requirement for the states). The Federal government has been granted the powers to tax, to spend, take care of the general welfare of this country . According to the Supreme Court those power cover ACA and it is a constitutionally sound law.

Yep, some of that liberal bias you can't just can't seem to deal with so you indulge your fantasies instead.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > No genius...the cancer known as liberalism got us Obamacare.
> ...



Like that graph is supposed to mean something.

Let's give everyone pilot's licenses too.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > And as to some claims about Administration knowing that millions of people would lose insurance...lets check in on that KNOWLEDGE:
> ...



Actually, he changed that number to 46 million.

And who knows how they are counting.

Of course, this was supposed to keep them out of the ER and hence drop costs.

We still spend the same amount.

Just wonderful.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Understandable since liberals are extremely slow and very limited mentally. But yes...you _are_ "mistaken". Romney addressed the desires of the constituents of his *state*. Perfectly legal. Obama and the Dumbocrats *unconstitutionally* forced Obamacare on the American people. Completely illegal.
> ...


Let's play "teach a liberal what the U.S. Constitution actually says and help them ease a step closer to the uncomfortable reality they dread so much". Mmmm....k?

Every power the federal government has is explicitly restricted to their 18 enumerated powers. They can't tax me to build themselves a mansion. They can tax me to send their children to college. And their tax powers do not extend to _forcing_ me to purchase a good or service.

Furthermore, the immature "general welfare" clause liberal talking point that you parrot is beyond absurd. The "general welfare" is within the context of their 18 enumerated powers _*only*_. Here is Thomas Jefferson stating as much very clearly (I've included the date so you can research for yourself for _once_):

“*Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare*, *but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

Thanks for playing junior! Like I said earlier, let me know of you need any other lessons on the U.S. Constitution. I'll be here all week.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 29, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Denial is not a river in Egypt and the graph shows a decrease in uninsured population ratio. That means claims about "people losing insurance!" is just another counter-factual rightwing fantasy.

And yes, it is just as ludicrous as claiming that people are losing pilot licenses while giving everyone a pilot license.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


So let's be clear here then - you _are_ admitting that Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats *lied* to get Obamcare pushed through?


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Maybe on the planet you reside on arguments you just made are not being laughed at but reality here on earth is that the righties have lost the constitutional challenges to Obamacare.

Come down and visit us, it's not so bad here


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



You need to quit smoking crack.

ACA was "pushed through" by means of legitimate process by duly elected representatives of the United States of America.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


So let me get this straight - I not only cite the U.S. Constitution itself but also provide original writings from our founders proving I was 100% right and you had no idea what you were talking about and the most intelligent response you can come up with is "you're certifiably out of your mind"? You're too immature to admit you were wrong? You certainly can't provide even the slightest argument that you weren't. You were at least bright enough to give up trying.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Here is straight - You have no fucking clue what you are rambling about. The basic errors in your thinking on this topic are so many, so detached from the real world jurisprudence of the last 100 years that it's tough to even begin to address it.

How about here - the powers are not unlimited obviously but are much more expansive than you seem to imagine them.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


You can't have it both ways junior. If your chart is accurate (as you want to claim), then Obama and the Dumbocrats *lied* about 30 million people being without insurance. If they told the truth, then your chart is completely inaccurate and thus unreliable as proof of _anything_.

Sooooo.....which is it? You tell us.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 29, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Bwahahahaha!!!! That's a pitiful excuse to turn and run tail. I've provided both the U.S. Constitution _and_ original writings by our founders. You've got *nothing*. Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about but were trying to sound like an "expert".


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




I'll tell you which it is - your silliness.

One is a count of people, while number in the graph is % ratio of uninsured to total population.

At the time of Obamacare going into effect 50+ million people didn't have insurance (18% of population), that number has now decreased by about 15 million....and yet there are still moon walkers on the right that to this day claim Obamacare caused loss of coverage! It's embarrassing.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

And as to the original article:

_"*Putting this in context*, a recent report from Freedom Partners Health found that health insurance premiums have increased faster than wages and inflation in recent years, rising an average of 28 percent from 2009 to 2014 despite the enactment of Obamacare, or rather “because of.” Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010, and Wednesday is the law’s sixth anniversary."_

Is pure BS. The true *context* of the matter is that 28% over 5 years is actually *LOWER* growth rate compared to prior growth rates:







Time and time again conservatives seem to prefer fantasy to facts.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Of course, this passes over your head.

Give everyone a license they can't utilize for anything.

That is what your graph shows.

If you really, in your little bubble world, think that this is an improvement, there are plenty of people who have property to sell you in the Mojave desert.

Insurance is worthless (worse than worthless) if you can't afford to utilize it.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> And as to the original article:
> 
> _"*Putting this in context*, a recent report from Freedom Partners Health found that health insurance premiums have increased faster than wages and inflation in recent years, rising an average of 28 percent from 2009 to 2014 despite the enactment of Obamacare, or rather “because of.” Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010, and Wednesday is the law’s sixth anniversary."_
> 
> ...



As has been explained in such a way that anyone with a brain can understand.....there are plenty of factors that impact these increases.  If you think at 26% increase is a good thing, please say as much.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



If you are referencing a net loss in coverage, you would be correct.

If you are saying people did not lose insurance because of Obamacare, you would not.

Which is it ?


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> If you are referencing a net loss in coverage, you would be correct.
> 
> If you are saying people did not lose insurance because of Obamacare, you would not.
> 
> Which is it ?



When we are talking about coverage we are DE FACTO talking about net, overall coverage changes - a difference between insurance lost and insurance gained in system where people always lose and gain insurance in a normal turnover cycle.

The fact that someone somewhere may have lost coverage or had to switch plans does not mean that Obamacare overall caused people to lose insurance. To try to present it that way, without mention of how many people GAINED insurance because of Obamacare is straight BS.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> [As has been explained in such a way that anyone with a brain can understand.....there are plenty of factors that impact these increases.  If you think at 26% increase is a good thing, please say as much.



26% increase is *comparatively* GREAT when we look at rate increases in the decade leading up to passage of Obamacare.

It doesn't seem you have enough neurons firing to understand that real improvement is always better than some imaginary rainbows and unicorns you have in your head about what successful policy looks like.

Obamacare never promised to fix all our healthcare problems, but to improve the situation and lay the groundwork for further reform.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> The fact that someone somewhere may have lost coverage or had to switch plans *does not mean that Obamacare overall caused people to lose insurance*. To try to present it that way, without mention of how many people GAINED insurance because of Obamacare is straight BS.


What an _absurd_ statement. Obamacare absolutely caused people to lose insurance. Millions received notifications that their policies were cancelled because of it. Just because they went out and got another policy (for 4x's the damn cost and half the coverage) doesn't mean they didn't lose their insurance. That's as stupid as saying if someone stole your automobile and you went out to purchase another one so you could get to work, then you didn't really have your automobile stolen. 

You know what else Obamacare did? It caused people to lose their jobs or lost tons of money. Millions has their job eliminated or the hours cut so the company could avoid the costly Obamacare requirements.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

P@triot said:


> What an _absurd_ statement. Obamacare absolutely caused people to lose insurance. Millions received notifications that their policies were cancelled because of it. Just because they went out and got another policy (for 4x's the damn cost and half the coverage) doesn't mean they didn't lose their insurance. That's as stupid as saying if someone stole your automobile and you went out to purchase another one so you could get to work, then you didn't really have your automobile stolen.



I can bring to the fact based well, I can't make you drink out of it.

The way you currently talk about this  adds up to* lying*. That's what this is, because by now you KNOW that overall people have gained insurance under Obamacare and yet what you say still conveys a message contrary to this fact.

Yes some people had to *switch* insurance, but also there were many more that have GAINED insurance and by not telling that part of the story you and conservatives like you are shamelessly lying.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Obamacare never promised to fix all our healthcare problems, but to improve the situation and lay the groundwork for further reform.



And therein lies the entire problem. It is *not* the responsibility of the federal government to "fix" _your_ perceived view that we have a healthcare "problem". We had the greatest healthcare in the _world_ before Obamacare. People from all over the planet would come to the U.S. for the finest care available.

And....even if we had the worst healthcare in the world, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to do anything about it. They are explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers *only* and for them to involve themselves in anything beyond those 18 enumerated powers is 100% unconstitutional (i.e. *illegal*).


----------



## P@triot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > What an _absurd_ statement. Obamacare absolutely caused people to lose insurance. Millions received notifications that their policies were cancelled because of it. Just because they went out and got another policy (for 4x's the damn cost and half the coverage) doesn't mean they didn't lose their insurance. That's as stupid as saying if someone stole your automobile and you went out to purchase another one so you could get to work, then you didn't really have your automobile stolen.
> ...


Again.....that's as stupid as saying someone who bought a new car to replace their stolen care never had their car stolen. It's absurd and you know it.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Again.....that's as stupid as saying someone who bought a new car to replace their stolen care never had their car stolen. It's absurd and you know it.



Obamacare stole stuff from people - gotcha.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Again.....that's as stupid as saying someone who bought a new car to replace their stolen care never had their car stolen. It's absurd and you know it.
> ...


As a matter of fact - it did. It stole their health insurance from them.

"If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance". Just one of the thousands of lies that Barack Obama tells on a regular basis (and you're dumb enough to actually believe )


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

P@triot said:


> As a matter of fact - it did. It stole their health insurance from them.
> 
> "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance". Just one of the thousands of lies that Barack Obama tells on a regular basis (and you're dumb enough to actually believe )



Obama was wrong, plain and simple. For fucks sakes, average insurance policy span is 2.5 years, so to say that all of sudden insurance changes would stop when Obamacare passes is silly.  And yes, some of the turnover was due to the reform itself...it wouldn't be an actual REFORM if nothing changed for anyone.

Though thankfully ACA's merits do not rest on what Obama says and if you think market disruption by Obamacare was unacceptable I just hope you don't get to witness the tidal waves it's repeal would cause, including 15 million people losing (unlike you I really do mean losing, not switching) insurance.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are referencing a net loss in coverage, you would be correct.
> ...



In whose world do you get to determine what is de facto ?  That is certainly not consistent.

Yes, you keep bleating about how people "gained" insurance.  Does everyone that had it six years ago have it now.  No.  I know people who lost coverage they had and can't afford to replace it.  That is not in dispute.

But, as your graph shows, more people can walk around with insurance cards than had them before.

Many, again, some I know, have been unable to do anything with it...hence, some had dropped it prefering to pay the fine.

As CATO stated so well: "Obamacare made inexpensive insurance illegal."


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > [As has been explained in such a way that anyone with a brain can understand.....there are plenty of factors that impact these increases.  If you think at 26% increase is a good thing, please say as much.
> ...



Funny you can even spell neurons.

What's even more funny is that you call Obamacare "real improvement".

I knew there was an issue starting in the early 90's and have followed the conversation for over 20 years.

Obamacare is a bust.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> In whose world do you get to determine what is de facto ?  That is certainly not consistent.
> Yes, you keep bleating about how people "gained" insurance.  Does everyone that had it six years ago have it now.  No.  I know people who lost coverage they had and can't afford to replace it.  That is not in dispute.
> 
> But, as your graph shows, more people can walk around with insurance cards than had them before.
> ...




Ok time to go to kinder garden level explanations of how the world works:

If I say to you - I lost money in Vegas, while my losses were $100 at one table and my wins were $500 at another, I would in fact be lying. Even though I did lose, I also won and we DE FACTO take statements to mean overall, net total.

You are lying by omitting people that gained insurance, just as I would be lying if I omitted $500 winnings in my description of what happened in Vegas.


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> What's even more funny is that you call Obamacare "real improvement".
> 
> I knew there was an issue starting in the early 90's and have followed the conversation for over 20 years.
> 
> Obamacare is a bust.



This is not real? Not improvement?







Look, I don't care what you politicos believe, but just to give you heads up - when you deny the obvious and say blatantly false things you just look like mindless rightwing tools.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 30, 2016)

Obamacare advisor thinks voters are 'stupid' (Opinion) - CNN.com


> The guy who thinks liberal voters are 'stupid'


 Conservatives knew that socialist medicine is a failure yet the liberal passed it anyway.  Boy were you liberals "stupid".

Remember what Obama said.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 30, 2016)

I just got a notice that the insurance for my employees is going up 14% next year
Right now we pay 90% but I think i'll have to drop it down to 80%


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> I just got a notice that the insurance for my employees is going up 14% next year
> Right now we pay 90% but I think i'll have to drop it down to 80%



Dang, that never happened before Obamacare got on the scene...right?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I just got a notice that the insurance for my employees is going up 14% next year
> ...



Not that much this is the single highest rate hike in the 10 years we've been in business


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



When was the last time it was raised?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



LAst time was 7% this time it's double

and I thought Obammycare was supposed to lower insurance costs


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



When was last time though?

ACA was not supposed to lower insurance compared to what was, it was supposed to slow the rate of growth compared to prior years (bend the curve down). As I've shown in historical comparison we certainly have had slower growth since Obamacare was passed (which is not the same as Obamacare-did-it, but some of the slow down is directly attributed to it)


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


So the hike doubled and you think that is slowing it down?

And it goes up every year but like I said this is the single highest increase in 10 years


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> So the hike doubled and you think that is slowing it down?
> 
> And it goes up every year but like I said this is the single highest increase in 10 years



Single biggest hike - gotcha... now about my question re. when was the last time you had an increase...

Single points are nice but most useful to us would be to consider average annual growth.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > So the hike doubled and you think that is slowing it down?
> ...


I just told you that it goes up every year

now most people with a brain would realize that meant last year


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



A little nasty aren't we?

So can you say if your since-Obamacare-passed average is above or below 5 year increases before that?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > In whose world do you get to determine what is de facto ?  That is certainly not consistent.
> ...



You need to find a better kindergartner to explain it to you.

I've not argued that less people have insurance.  You can see that in my post.  Hopefully, your 6 year old companion can point it out.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Obamacare advisor thinks voters are 'stupid' (Opinion) - CNN.com
> 
> 
> > The guy who thinks liberal voters are 'stupid'
> ...


 Sweep that one under the rug.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


above

it's been 7 or 8% annually this year it's 14

I really don't know how you can defend Obammycare because it certainly is not holding prices down and that's because people now have to pay for all kinds of extra crap they may not want or need

My policy covers eye and dental for kids up to the age of 12.  I don't have kids.  My policy covers ob GYN I am not a female.  My policy covers drug and alcohol rehab.  I'm not a drunk or an addict etc


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > What's even more funny is that you call Obamacare "real improvement".
> ...



Please pull you head out of your rear end.

That number is meaningless if the insurance is useless.

What part of that don't you understand ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yes, but you are helping to enable those addicts who want to so they can have their meth and get high too.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 30, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > What an _absurd_ statement. Obamacare absolutely caused people to lose insurance. Millions received notifications that their policies were cancelled because of it. Just because they went out and got another policy (for 4x's the damn cost and half the coverage) doesn't mean they didn't lose their insurance. That's as stupid as saying if someone stole your automobile and you went out to purchase another one so you could get to work, then you didn't really have your automobile stolen.
> ...



Speaking of the "fact-based well"....

Blue Cross of Minnesota Diminishes Under Obamacare


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> above
> 
> it's been 7 or 8% annually this year it's 14
> 
> ...



Your experience is noted but should it outweigh the general statistics across the country that show overall decrease in price growth?

As far as coverage mandates: It's nice that you don't have kids or substance problems but many do. You also don't have cancer maybe that coverage should be optional too?


----------



## AntonToo (Jun 30, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Yes, but you are helping to enable those addicts who want to so they can have their meth and get high too.



Are you seriously against drug addiction treatment coverage???


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > above
> ...


Yeah and if they do they can buy a policy that covers that shit I should not be forced to pay for shit I do not need


----------



## P@triot (Jul 1, 2016)

"There is no worse tyranny than to *force* a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert Heinlein


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but you are helping to enable those addicts who want to so they can have their meth and get high too.
> ...


As a matter of fact I am against drug addiction treatment, also HIV treatment.  Why should I pay for some fucktard who decided to go against the natural order of life.  I wasn't the one who decided to put my penis up Uranus, or poke a small hole in my arm and inject black tar(heroin) to FEEL better.  If someone wants to destroy themselves, then they should take the punishment for their actions, that is CHOICE.  You know where women go and execute their babies in the womb or out, and We the People have to pay for that.  God you stupid idiots, just keep on taking from those that work, give it to those who don't, then call it liberal compassion.  When the money runs out are you willing to eat Dog, till those are no longer available?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 1, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> As a matter of fact I am against drug addiction treatment, also HIV treatment.  Why should I pay for some fucktard who decided to go against the natural order of life.



Substance Addictions and STDs is what happens to people in this world, it is VERY natural order of life, unless again, you live out on the mars and I hope you don't get slapped with reality one day when your kid comes home with one of these. Though thankfully your insurance will help your family to deal with this without going bankrupt.

These are serious illnesses and people, not just rich people, need to have access to medical treatment for them.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > As a matter of fact I am against drug addiction treatment, also HIV treatment.  Why should I pay for some fucktard who decided to go against the natural order of life.
> ...


So instead of personal responsibility for their own actions, everyone else has to pony up for their diseases, while we who don't fudge pack, or needle push, pay more yet get less coverage.  Geez, your liberal compassion is real nice.  Once again, when the money is all gone, because everyone will be broke, like in Venezuela, are you willing to eat DOG, like Obama did while he was growing up?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 1, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> So instead of personal responsibility for their own actions, everyone else has to pony up for their diseases, while we who don't fudge pack, or needle push, pay more yet get less coverage.  Geez, your liberal compassion is real nice.  Once again, when the money is all gone, because everyone will be broke, like in Venezuela, are you willing to eat DOG, like Obama did while he was growing up?
> 
> View attachment 80025



Our money will be gone because we take care of people's healthcare needs without finger pointing and playing judge and jury? Nonsense.

And where does your aproach take us?
Should we deny coverage if you break a leg skiing? Because you are fat? Because you neglected to properly hydrate or get that skin bump checked out on time?

And what happens when your kid picks up a habit? Are you ready to mortgage the house to send him/her for therapy and rehabilitation(s)? It's all fun and games and self-righteous grandstanding for conservatives...until it happens to one of theirs.

This narrow-minded assholism pervasive in conservative circles is thankfully popularly rejected by Americans, that's not who we are, it's who you are.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 1, 2016)

P@triot said:


> "There is no worse tyranny than to *force* a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert Heinlein



Unqualified absolutisms rarely make anyone look smart.

The healthcare reform is no tyranny. You guys look like idiots without any sense of perspective when you say it is.

Now put that tired violin down and post something non-silly.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > So instead of personal responsibility for their own actions, everyone else has to pony up for their diseases, while we who don't fudge pack, or needle push, pay more yet get less coverage.  Geez, your liberal compassion is real nice.  Once again, when the money is all gone, because everyone will be broke, like in Venezuela, are you willing to eat DOG, like Obama did while he was growing up?
> ...


At one time before the liberals got their hands of the Federal Income Tax Withheld, people got all their money and at the end of the year, paid for their wants and needs along with taxes.  But then liberals figured out that they could steal more money away from people, because if the money got into the workers account, then at that point what difference did it make, if they made a lot or a little.  So business, decided to get the best people to work for them(not minimum wage ignorant liberals) they would provide perks, one of which was FREE healthcare(not a right, but a privilege).  But this so infuriated the liberals who didn't work hard, but still wanted what other people had, they decided to pass the Unaffordable Healthcare Act, saying that it would save $2,500 a family and Jonathan Gruber called you liberal voters "STUPID".  Which you are.  So why should I pay for some fudgepacker to put his Penis up another man's Uranus, and get HIV, or pay for some addicts drug use?  Why wont you help me pay for my AR-15 which is a constitutional right?  Hmmm.  Maybe if the government under Trump started FORCING everyone not a liberal criminal to purchase a gun or be thrown in Jail, would you be okay with that?  Tards voted for Obama the first time, Retards voted for Obama twice.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 1, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> At one time before the liberals got their hands of the Federal Income Tax Withheld, people got all their money and at the end of the year, paid for their wants and needs along with taxes.  But then liberals figured out that they could steal more money away from people, because if the money got into the workers account, then at that point what difference did it make, if they made a lot or a little.  So business, decided to get the best people to work for them(not minimum wage ignorant liberals) they would provide perks, one of which was FREE healthcare(not a right, but a privilege).  But this so infuriated the liberals who didn't work hard, but still wanted what other people had, they decided to pass the Unaffordable Healthcare Act, saying that it would save $2,500 a family and Jonathan Gruber called you liberal voters "STUPID".  Which you are.  So why should I pay for some fudgepacker to put his Penis up another man's Uranus, and get HIV, or pay for some addicts drug use?  Why wont you help me pay for my AR-15 which is a constitutional right?  Hmmm.  Maybe if the government under Trump started FORCING everyone not a liberal criminal to purchase a gun or be thrown in Jail, would you be okay with that?  Tards voted for Obama the first time, Retards voted for Obama twice.



lol I could just see your little politico mind explode and shower the room with all the random nonsense it contained.

Spectacular.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > At one time before the liberals got their hands of the Federal Income Tax Withheld, people got all their money and at the end of the year, paid for their wants and needs along with taxes.  But then liberals figured out that they could steal more money away from people, because if the money got into the workers account, then at that point what difference did it make, if they made a lot or a little.  So business, decided to get the best people to work for them(not minimum wage ignorant liberals) they would provide perks, one of which was FREE healthcare(not a right, but a privilege).  But this so infuriated the liberals who didn't work hard, but still wanted what other people had, they decided to pass the Unaffordable Healthcare Act, saying that it would save $2,500 a family and Jonathan Gruber called you liberal voters "STUPID".  Which you are.  So why should I pay for some fudgepacker to put his Penis up another man's Uranus, and get HIV, or pay for some addicts drug use?  Why wont you help me pay for my AR-15 which is a constitutional right?  Hmmm.  Maybe if the government under Trump started FORCING everyone not a liberal criminal to purchase a gun or be thrown in Jail, would you be okay with that?  Tards voted for Obama the first time, Retards voted for Obama twice.
> ...


I could see that you aren't satisfied that some people work for a living while some sit in their parents basement, smoke dope, invite their floozy girlfriend over to watch Netflix from their parents account and eat government cheese.  It isn't enough that these people are big HOLES in society, yet they want more, and the dipshit government will give it to them even if it bankrupt this county.  We saw it with Detroit, we see it with Illinois and California, when liberals drive away the producers eventually all their is left is DogMeat.  Are you willing to eat Dog when there is nothing left from a Socialist Society?


----------



## rdean (Jul 1, 2016)

I don't get it.  Under Bush, medical bills were the number one cause of bankruptcy.  

I plan on retiring in less than a year and I will have some time to wait before I can get Medicare.  I already called the exchange and got some good rates.

I'm wondering if it's only bad in Red States where GOP governors are desperately trying to fuck over their base.  It's the GOP base that suffers the most from GOP policies.  Not only from the damage, but from the shame of voting GOP.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 1, 2016)

rdean said:


> I don't get it.  Under Bush, medical bills were the number one cause of bankruptcy.
> 
> I plan on retiring in less than a year and I will have some time to wait before I can get Medicare.  I already called the exchange and got some good rates.
> 
> I'm wondering if it's only bad in Red States where GOP governors are desperately trying to fuck over their base.  It's the GOP base that suffers the most from GOP policies.  Not only from the damage, but from the shame of voting GOP.


Instead of just putting your comment up there, how about some link showing what you said is true.  Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

An Examination of the Bush Health Care Agenda


> A key achievement of the Bush proposals, if properly implemented, would be to increase personal control and private ownership of health insurance policies.


 Funny how a liberal will lie about Bush, and defend the lies from Obama.  Such stupid people DESERVE all the misery FORCED upon them from the Obama Admin.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 1, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it.  Under Bush, medical bills were the number one cause of bankruptcy.
> ...



Here you go:

*Medical Expenses*
_A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance_

Read more: Top 5 Reasons Why People Go Bankrupt


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 1, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> I could see that you aren't satisfied that some people work for a living while some sit in their parents basement, smoke dope, invite their floozy girlfriend over to watch Netflix from their parents account and eat government cheese.



I could see that you just don't know all that much.

Yes, people actually go through real hardships and your little right-winger comic-book characterizations are ridiculous and frankly offensive in the way they minimize the very real suffering people go through.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > So instead of personal responsibility for their own actions, everyone else has to pony up for their diseases, while we who don't fudge pack, or needle push, pay more yet get less coverage.  Geez, your liberal compassion is real nice.  Once again, when the money is all gone, because everyone will be broke, like in Venezuela, are you willing to eat DOG, like Obama did while he was growing up?
> ...



So, it's O.K. to expect society to carry your kid's addiction....but not you.

Hysterical.

Conservativsm is rejected by Americans ?

Really ?

The house and senate are more conservative now than they have been for some time.  

Are you the one who keeps yapping about people living in bubbles ?

ROTFLMAO


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Not one figure in the article.

I've heard that the average amount filed for is a little over 20,000.  The cost of good used sedan.

Do I really care ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 1, 2016)

antontoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > I could see that you aren't satisfied that some people work for a living while some sit in their parents basement, smoke dope, invite their floozy girlfriend over to watch Netflix from their parents account and eat government cheese.
> ...



Awwwww......

What has that got do with how much one knows ?

You are a true moron.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 22, 2016)

Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too high??? 

Nancy Allamon said the couple literally can’t afford to get sick. *After the passage of Obamacare, their health insurance deductible spiked to $5,000*—money they don’t have. *They also saw their monthly insurance payments rise*.

2 Ohio Counties, Red and Blue, Ready for Obama Era’s End


----------



## P@triot (Jul 22, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Yes, people actually go through real hardships and your little right-winger comic-book characterizations are ridiculous and frankly offensive in the way they minimize the very real suffering people go through.


I've got news for you - _everybody_ goes through real hardships in life. *Everybody*. Yes - even Bill Gates. Even Pope Francis. Even Barack Obama. Even Donald Trump.

What does that stupid comment have to do with _anything_? At the end of the day, it is *not* the responsibility of government to address "hardships" of the people. It's the responsibility of each individual to address their own hardships. Whether that means working harder, leaning on family, asking for help from friends, using the church, of going to charities.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 22, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, people actually go through real hardships and your little right-winger comic-book characterizations are ridiculous and frankly offensive in the way they minimize the very real suffering people go through.
> ...



The same safety net is available to anyone who qualifies, Bill Gates or not.

And can you reconcile your high flying ideology with earthy reality that all developed countries have safety net programs?

Clearly people disagree with you, quite universally too about responsibilties of government. Welcome to earth.


----------



## dblack (Jul 23, 2016)

antontoo said:


> The same safety net is available to anyone who qualifies, Bill Gates or not.



We all have equal rights. If we qualify.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 25, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Who disagrees with him universally ?

We don't have single payer in this country....obviously people don't agree with you.

They can say it is a good idea, but there is no rush to elect people who will codify your dream.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 25, 2016)

rdean said:


> I don't get it.  Under Bush, medical bills were the number one cause of bankruptcy.
> 
> I plan on retiring in less than a year and I will have some time to wait before I can get Medicare.  I already called the exchange and got some good rates.
> 
> I'm wondering if it's only bad in Red States where GOP governors are desperately trying to fuck over their base.  It's the GOP base that suffers the most from GOP policies.  Not only from the damage, but from the shame of voting GOP.



It's good to know you have no issue with people subsidizing your care.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 26, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Wtf? That's just uber-stupid. 

Single payer is not a pre-requisite for safety net programs like ss, snap, Medicaid/care.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 26, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



You think SS is universally loved ?

You think Medicaid is universally loved ?

Now that would be uber-stupid.


----------



## PurpleOwl (Jul 26, 2016)

There are many things that used to be a privilege only for the rich and powerful, clean water, fresh food, shelter, but today basically everyone has access to those things not because people worked hard to make sure the rich and powerful had the cleanest water, the freshest food, and sturdiest houses, but because people worked hard to make sure that everyone regardless of how rich or powerful they were could have those things. The same is true with basic healthcare


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 26, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> You think SS is universally loved ?
> 
> You think Medicaid is universally loved ?
> 
> Now that would be uber-stupid.



It's true that the very young and the uber-stupid (with a lot of overlap) despise entitlements because they think they'll all be millionaires by retirement age.  You have to ask yourselves how many of your elderly relatives you'd be willing to take into your home and provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for if these programs didn't exist.

If you're a true Randian, you'd just step over them when you saw them begging on the sidewalk.

Where do you stand on the Randian "I don't care/not my problem" spectrum?

Your refusal to answer puts you plunk in the "I don't care/let them die" column.

What say you?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 26, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



It is universally implemented in one form or another in all developed countries on planet earth. A first world country without safety nets does not exist. Developed civilization here has long *REJECTED *the argument that government should not be providing safetynets, so do you think at some point you rightwingers will come down to earth and talk about these matters in a way that doesn't make you sound like martians?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 26, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Which developed nations would that be ?  The ones in Europe that have committed mass genocide twice in the last 100 years ?

Or nations like Greece that are now bankrupt ?

How about these folks ?


And you never did answer my question.....

Is S.S. universally accepted in the U.S ?

Is Medicaid universally accept in the U.S. ?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 26, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Is S.S. universally accepted in the U.S ?
> 
> Is Medicaid universally accept in the U.S. ?



Are they both _available_ in all 50 states?  Yes.  A two-second Google search would have told you that.

Are there dumbasses who claim they'll refuse Social Security when they turn 65?  Yes.  But as Ron White says "You can't fix Stupid."

Also, did you mean "Medicaid" or "Medicare"?  Two very different things, and you need to be more specific.

Yanno who's eligible for both Social Security and Medic_are_?

Every American over age 66 and 65 respectively.  Even Trump.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Umm all of them, dumbass. How many times do I have to repeat the same fucking thing?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> It is universally implemented in one form or another in all developed countries on planet earth. A first world country without safety nets does not exist. Developed civilization here has long *REJECTED *the argument that government should not be providing safetynets, so do you think at some point you rightwingers will come down to earth and talk about these matters in a way that doesn't make you sound like martians?


_Yawn_.....the same old tired Dumbocrat talking point of "hey....look how great that country over there is". And yet *none* of these Dumbocrats like Antontoo go live in those countries.

Here's the thing sparky....we don't care what other nations do. We have a law here in the United States that legally prevents the government from acting like a "safety net". It's called the U.S. Constitution. Now go home sparky and let the adults talk. Or better yet - go live in one of those other countries that you seem to love so much. But either way, you're clearly not even remotely qualified to be having this conversation.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> It is universally implemented in one form or another in all developed countries on planet earth. A first world country without safety nets does not exist. Developed civilization here has long *REJECTED *the argument that government should not be providing safetynets, so do you think at some point you rightwingers will come down to earth and talk about these matters in a way that doesn't make you sound like martians?


Venezuela has implemented _every_ stupid thing you advocate for. How has that worked out for them? Well, they can't even keep the electricity running in that country. They are literally starving to death. Food is extremely scarce. And here is the most unbelievable of all - something as basic as toilet paper is now one of the highest commodities on the black market. That's what your kind of ignorant thinking produces sparky - famine, poverty, and _misery_.

The former U.S.S.R. implemented _every_ stupid thing you advocate for. How did that work out for them? Well, in a nutshell, the nation collapsed and they had to turn to capitalism to survive. They couldn't even keep food on the shelves in stores. They would wait in line for more than 10 hours for a simple loaf of bread. That's what your kind of ignorant thinking produces sparky - famine, poverty, and _misery_.

Detroit was the ultimate liberal utopia. It was completely controlled by Dumbocrats for over 60 years. A dumbocrat mayor for over 60 straight years, a Dumbocrat controlled city council for over 60 straight years. And it had every libtards favorite thing - unions. Not just any unions either - the most powerful union on Earth. The UAW. How has that worked out for them? Well, libtard policy caused the city to file for bankruptcy. You get that sparky - an _entire_ city had to file for _bankruptcy_. That is humiliating and a major indictment on your idiotic liberalism. The city is now literally a third-world shit-hole with dilapidated buildings everywhere, crime is rampant, drugs are everywhere, and - as is _always_ the case - famine, poverty, and _misery_.

Do you see a pattern here sparky? You're an immature, idealistic, moron. You don't understand _basic_ economics. Government does not exist to be a "safety net". That's not their role and it is something they cannot fulfill. The fact that you don't even know _why_ we have a government is tragic (and a major indictment on public school education, which - like everything else - has been run into the ground by liberals). Now run along junior. Venezuela is waiting for you to come and enjoy all the wonders of your socialist utopia first-hand.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Oh hey...what do you know! We're now up to 16 Obamacare Co-Ops that have *collapsed*. Just a few short weeks ago I posted the news that the 14th had collapsed and a few days after that, the 15th had collapsed.

You never notice that _anything_ a liberal touches ultimately ends with the word *collapsed*. What an idiotic and failed ideology that these people cannot let go of. They are like those morons who still show up for KKK meetings and they are like 1 of 3 people in the room, and the other two is their spouse and child.

How the Rest of the Obamacare Co-Ops Are Faring


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > It is universally implemented in one form or another in all developed countries on planet earth. A first world country without safety nets does not exist. Developed civilization here has long *REJECTED *the argument that government should not be providing safetynets, so do you think at some point you rightwingers will come down to earth and talk about these matters in a way that doesn't make you sound like martians?
> ...



Seriously???  gross cherrypicking of under-developed countries is your best effort response?

You can't find anything in-between socialist economy and your imaginary safe-net-free utopia?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


So Detroit is in an "under-developed" country in your mind? _Really_? 

So the former U.S.S.R. - at one time the world's elite super-power along side of the United States was an "under-developed" country in your mind? _Really_?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Here are the "wonders" of government "safety nets"...

"I also learned how people gamed the welfare system. *They’d buy two dozen packs of soda with food stamps and then sell them at a discount for cash*. They’d ring up their orders separately, buying food with food stamps, and beer, wine, and cigarettes with cash. *They’d regularly go through the checkout line speaking on their cell phones*. I could never understand why our lives felt like a struggle while those living off of government largesse enjoyed trinkets that I only dreamed about.

Mamaw listened intently to my experiences at Dillman’s. We began to view much of our fellow working class with mistrust. Most of us were struggling to get by, but we made do, worked hard, and hoped for a better life. But a large minority was content to live off the dole."

Seeing Food Stamp Use Changed My Mind About Democrats

The indisputable reality is - if you incentivize people not to work - they *won't*. At that is why it ultimately leads to collapse as more and more people mooch off of society and less and less people are forced to carry the load (can you say "Atlas Shrugged"?). You want to get people out of poverty? Make them *miserable* in their poverty. Content people aren't motivated to do anything.

*“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Benjamin Franklin*


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> So Detroit is in an "under-developed" country in your mind? _Really_?
> So the former U.S.S.R. - at one time the world's elite super-power along side of the United States was an "under-developed" country in your mind? _Really_?



dumbass, side discussions aside the glaring problem is your selection method. Your post is pure cherry-picked bullshit where you simply grab whatever economically challenged place comes to your mind and use them to prove the rule about all of the world that has safety-nets.

THEY DO NOT prove the rule. Your post is BS. Try arguing something non-stupid.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So Detroit is in an "under-developed" country in your mind? _Really_?
> ...


Wow....you just keep moving the goalposts every time the facts show that you're an _idiot_. First you claimed that I pointed out only "under-developed" countries. When I showed you that I mentioned Detroit and the former U.S.S.R. (which was the #2 super-power in the _world_) you then moved the goal-posts yet again.

Government does *not* exist to serve as a "safety-net". I'm sorry you don't like it. Venezuela is waiting for you sparky.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Not to be too repetitive but why respond with something new when my previous post perfectly addressed your new one?

dumbass, *side discussions aside the glaring problem is your selection method*. Your post is pure cherry-picked bullshit where you simply grab whatever economically challenged place comes to your mind and use them to prove the rule about all of the world that has safety-nets.

*You selection method is still BS, your post is still BS and you are still too fucking dumb to even understand the problem let alone improve your argument.*


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


You haven't "addressed" anything. All you've done is move the goalposts because you _can't_ "address" anything. You're wrong and that's all there is to it.

What's funny is that it doesn't even matter if your idiotic, economy collapsing ideology was right. The U.S. Constitution is the law and it dictates that what you desire cannot be done. It is illegal. Now run along stupid. You just got embarrassed. Go hide in Venezuela where they need the fucking *black market* just to get their hands on toilet paper because they implemented idiotic failed liberalism.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> *Yes, people actually go through real hardships* and your little right-winger comic-book characterizations are ridiculous and frankly offensive in the way they minimize the v*ery real suffering people go through*.


If people go through "real hardships" then why don't _you_ help them, you greedy little prick? Why do you stand on the sidelines crying like a little bitch, demanding that we break the law simply because you're too selfish and too greedy to get in the game and make a difference?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> The same safety net is available to anyone who qualifies, Bill Gates or not. And can you reconcile your high flying ideology with earthy reality that all developed countries have safety net programs? Clearly people disagree with you, quite universally too about responsibilties of government. Welcome to earth.


The question is - why are _you_ too selfish, greedy, and lazy to be the "safety net"? Where do you get off standing on the sidelines that demanding that government place a gun to the head of _other_ people and _force_ them to be the "safety net"?

You want to know how one knows for certain that something is wrong? When it has to be done by force. Everything Saddam Hussein did had to be done by *force*. Everything Benito Musollini did had to be done by *force*. And everything the modern-day idiot liberal wants done has to be done by *force*.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



You keep mumbling because you have your head up your ass.

So, that includes Greece.

Why don't you move there and make American smarter ?

Greek crisis: How did it get this bad?

It already had huge debts because successive governments spent way more than they collected in taxes. The scale of tax evasion was staggering - with tens of billions not being paid. Corruption and political favours were commonplace. While the Greek government's accounts were as good as fakes. Balance sheets submitted to its European partners often left out big spending projects.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The question is - why are _you_ too selfish, greedy, and lazy to be the "safety net"? Where do you get off standing on the sidelines that demanding that government place a gun to the head of _other_ people and _force_ them to be the "safety net"?
> 
> You want to know how one knows for certain that something is wrong? When it has to be done by force. Everything Saddam Hussein did had to be done by *force*. Everything Benito Musollini did had to be done by *force*. And everything the modern-day idiot liberal wants done has to be done by *force*.



You are actually comparing taxing and spending in a first world representative democracy to totalitarian state. It isn't and saying it is just makes you look dumb (though we already know it's not just a look)

Beyond that, your proposition that safety nets become ELECTIVELY funded is also detached from reality. The programs will be completely dysfunctional and even more so in hard economic times  when they are needed most.

But even feasibility aside,on the fairness angle - why would it be a good idea to let selfish assholes enjoy the benefits of functional society paid for by the kindness of suckers who will carry this burden?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The question is - why are _you_ too selfish, greedy, and lazy to be the "safety net"? Where do you get off standing on the sidelines that demanding that government place a gun to the head of _other_ people and _force_ them to be the "safety net"?
> ...



I think that is what conservatives keep asking.

You have an incredibly selfish class of people who demand they be provided for....

Being funded by the suckers who work.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> So, that includes Greece.



It also includes all the "good" countries..ta-da, dead end for your stupid argument reached.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> I think that is what conservatives keep asking.
> 
> You have an incredibly selfish class of people who demand they be provided for....
> 
> Being funded by the suckers who work.



Bullshit. "Provided for class" is small minority and not nearly big enough to pass any coherent agenda ...especially considering that they barely even vote or have any social leverage through affluence.

That "class" cannot pass anything "provider class" populace does not consent to.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> But even feasibility aside,on the fairness angle - why would it be a good idea to let selfish assholes enjoy the benefits of functional society paid for by the kindness of suckers who will carry this burden?


Oh...you mean the exact society that liberals have built in America now. 

(Psst.....stupid....48% of America pays no federal taxes at all. In other words, 48% of selfish assholes enjoy the "benefits" of "functional society" paid for by "the rest of us suckers who carry this burden").

Let a libtard talk long enough and they will defeat their own position with their own stupidity! Game over junior - you literally just defeated yourself.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> You are actually comparing taxing and spending


Being that you are a Dumbocrat, I would expect you to have read the U.S. Constitution to actually understand what you're talking about. So I'll fill you in here - taxing is not for redistributing wealth or acting like a "safety net". The purpose of taxing is to run the government. And the government (federal) is _only_ responsible for 18 enumerated items (stuff like defense, protection of IP, post office, etc.).

The federal government is not empowered to simply decide they can "tax" whenever they want to do something. It doesn't work that way sparky.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Oh...you mean the exact society that liberals have built in America now.



No dummy, in America we pay taxes without being able to pick and elect which spending programs money goes to. Just because you are an asshole that doesn't understand that people need some hand up, doesn't mean I'm going to be the sucker to carry that social burden for you while you reap the benefits of a functional society.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > So, that includes Greece.
> ...


Bwahahaha! Forgot about that one - thank you Sun Devil. Yeah antontoo....how's that shit working out in Greece? Far from a (and I quote) "under-developed country" which has now completely collapsed. They had horrible rioting six years ago and now the banks are shut down and people are "allowed" to withdrawal $70 per week to live off of. Nothing creates failure like liberalism.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh...you mean the exact society that liberals have built in America now.
> ...


Why? I don't benefit at all from person A (you) giving person B (destitute) a "hand up". Doesn't help me either way. Why do you insist on creating a false narrative? Oh yeah....that's right....because the *facts* prove you are dead *wrong*.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh...you mean the exact society that liberals have built in America now.
> ...


Why didn't you address the question? Why are you running from it? 48% of the population pays no federal taxes right now yet they enjoy ALL of the benefits of the federal government. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. National Defense.

How the fuck does _that_ work?!? You've built the exact system you just wailed against. A few of us "suckers" are forced to carry the burden for the rest of you mooches.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > So, that includes Greece.
> ...



You bet.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that is what conservatives keep asking.
> ...



Sorry.....

What I described applies.

Don't like it....GFY.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Beyond that, your proposition that safety nets become ELECTIVELY funded is also detached from reality. The programs will be completely dysfunctional and even more so in hard economic times  when they are needed most.


Why? Why would they be "dysfunctional"? History has proven that the federal government is _extremely_ dysfunctional while organizations such as the United Way and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are well oiled machines. Plus - with all of you altruistic liberals running around, there should be no problem at all.

Why do you insist on just making shit up? You simply can't accept that you've bought into a failed ideology?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Being that you are a Dumbocrat, I would expect you to have read the U.S. Constitution to actually understand what you're talking about. So I'll fill you in here - taxing is not for redistributing wealth or acting like a "safety net". The purpose of taxing is to run the government. And the government (federal) is _only_ responsible for 18 enumerated items (stuff like defense, protection of IP, post office, etc.).
> 
> The federal government is not empowered to simply decide they can "tax" whenever they want to do something. It doesn't work that way sparky.



Let me fill you in on REALITY:

*The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay* the Debts and provide *for* the common Defencr and *general Welfare of the United States*;

Yes, US federal government has Constitutional authority to tax and spend on safety-nets and just about anything so long as it is for the general well being of United States (and not specific areas). This is a long ago settled matter by enterpretive authority - the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The fact that you, in year 2016, do not know that, while trying to make some claim to understand constitutional matters completes my case that you are an idiot detached from reality.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Just because you are an asshole that doesn't understand that people need some hand up, *doesn't mean I'm going to be the sucker to carry that social burden* for you while you reap the benefits of a functional society.


This really illustrates the mind-set of the liberal. No compassion. No will to actually help and make a difference. No thought about how good it will feel to help those in need. Nope. In the liberals mind - they are (and I quote) "a *sucker*" and a "social *burden*" to *help* people.

Would rather pass that "burden" off to government and then have them pass it off to us at the barrel of a gun.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Sorry baseless re-asserting doesn't improve the argument. You shouldn't like it either.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



There was something baseless in Canadians telling Paul Kgugman they think they have a terrible health care system ?

Who knew ?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Being that you are a Dumbocrat, I would expect you to have read the U.S. Constitution to actually understand what you're talking about. So I'll fill you in here - taxing is not for redistributing wealth or acting like a "safety net". The purpose of taxing is to run the government. And the government (federal) is _only_ responsible for 18 enumerated items (stuff like defense, protection of IP, post office, etc.).
> ...


Stupid....it is well documented that the "General Welfare" clause refers to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government *only*. How dumb are you?!? Here stupid - words right from the mouths of the founders who created this country, designed the U.S. Constitution, and lead the country...

“*Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - *Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)*

“[We]...declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do *whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers*.… *The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others*. – *Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)*

You have no idea what you're talking about so stop trying. The "General Welfare" clause is not unlimited powers for the federal government. It applies to their 18 enumerated powers _only_. Try reading the frick'n Constitution just once as well as original writings by the founders rather than parroting whatever idiotic libtard talking point you happen to over hear.

Making antontoo my personal _bitch_ since July 13, 2016


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you are an asshole that doesn't understand that people need some hand up, *doesn't mean I'm going to be the sucker to carry that social burden* for you while you reap the benefits of a functional society.
> ...



Yep,

Government being 'they the people".....meaning they the people who are going to pay my way.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Unfortunately, republicans let the government stop acting that way a while ago.

I agree with your historical context...but it has little meaning in today's world.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


How about the fact that Canadians fly to the U.S. for their healthcare because their system sucks so bad?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sorry *baseless* re-asserting doesn't improve the argument. You shouldn't like it either.


Typical liberal. Projecting. Always accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of. Sun Devil and I have provided actual facts, data, names of nations, examples, links, and even video (fucking _video_!!!) and stupid here calls it "baseless" while not providing one shred of fact to back up his nonsense.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you are an asshole that doesn't understand that people need some hand up, *doesn't mean I'm going to be the sucker to carry that social burden* for you while you reap the benefits of a functional society.
> ...





P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



It also includes all the "good" countries..ta-da, dead end for your stupid argument reached.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Do you have any supporting data for this greatly exaggerated "fact"?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> How about the fact that Canadians fly to the U.S. for their healthcare because their system sucks so bad?









Canadians,  a country with safety nets, flying to United States, another country with safety nets does not make for a case for your anti-safety-net thesis.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about so stop trying.




HA!!! A guy arguing, in year 2016, that Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, NASA are unconstitutional is saying something about ME not having an idea.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > How about the fact that Canadians fly to the U.S. for their healthcare because their system sucks so bad?
> ...


Actually...it does. The U.S. has privatized healthcare. Canada has liberal nationalized healthcare..._stupid_.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea what you're talking about so stop trying.
> ...


I just proved it _stupid_. Hey....I know....why don't you tell us all again about the "General Welfare" clause


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



The U.S. has _private_ healthcare supported by a national safety net.  You don't seem to understand that.

Still waiting for you to provide proof of the - what is it, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions? - of Canadians flocking to the U.S. for healthcare because their system "sucks so badly."


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> But even feasibility aside,on the fairness angle - why would it be a good idea to let selfish assholes enjoy the benefits of functional society paid for by the kindness of suckers who will carry this burden?


This quote is one for the ages. Why _would_ it be a good idea to let selfish assholes (you liberals) enjoy the benefits of functional society paid for by the kindness of "suckers" (us conservatives) who will carry this burden?

It's the exact society that you idiots created illegally. And now you wail against it without even realizing it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > But even feasibility aside,on the fairness angle - why would it be a good idea to let selfish assholes enjoy the benefits of functional society paid for by the kindness of suckers who will carry this burden?
> ...



A very elaborate but essentially meaningless flame.

Where's your proof that Canadians are flocking to the U.S. for healthcare?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> The U.S. has _private_ healthcare supported by a national safety net.  You don't seem to understand that.
> 
> Still waiting for you to provide proof of the - what is it, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions? - of Canadians flocking to the U.S. for healthcare because their system "sucks so badly."


Still waiting for you and antontooo to provide proof of _anything_ you've said. Here's the thing junior - Sun Devil already posted a hilarious post of Krugman being exposed for the ignorant asshole he is. On top of that, news outlets around the U.S. have covered stories for decades now about Canadians coming to the U.S.

You buffoons have been obliterated here with facts (go back through the entire thread chief and look at all of the links, data, quotes, videos, etc.) and now you're just angry about it. You think you can "challenge" me and make me your little monkey who will dance for you. Not going to happen. I've proven everything. The onus is now on your to prove _anything_. If you can't produce 10 *credible* links backing up any of your nonsense, then the rest of us will just dismiss you from this point on.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Where is your proof that his incredible quote is "meaningless"? You talk a _lot_ of shit but sure can't back _anything_ up. Sun Devil and I have filled this thread with links, videos, quotes, etc. I've yet to see you add _one_ thing. Why is that?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > But even feasibility aside,on the fairness angle - why would it be a good idea to let selfish assholes enjoy the benefits of functional society paid for by the kindness of suckers who will carry this burden?
> ...



No dumbass, the selfish assholes I'm CLEARLY talking about are the ones who do not want to pay for safety-net programs our society needs to be functional.

Anyway, I can't fix your sort of stupid and I can't squeeze half way rational response from you, so I'm just going to ignore.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Still waiting for you and antontooo to provide proof of _anything_ you've said.



What would you like to know?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> You talk a _lot_ of shit but sure can't back _anything_ up. Sun Devil and I have filled this thread with links, videos, quotes, etc. I've yet to see you add _one_ thing. Why is that?



Because you haven't asked any questions.  What would you like to know about the topic you started?  What specific post of mine suggests I have information that I haven't shared?

Matthew 7:7


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> No dumbass, the selfish assholes I'm CLEARLY talking about are the ones who do not want to pay for safety-net programs our society needs to be functional.


Right....like _you_.

Society was plenty "functional" for well _over_ 100 years without Social Security. It was "functional" for nearly 200 years without Medicare and Medicaid.

Like all liberals - you have an emotional and irrational position that you cannot defend so you throw a tantrum like a small child. Government does *not* exist to provide for people like they are infants. That is why people like you and Arianrhod exist. The problem is - you're too lazy, selfish, and greedy to help anyone but yourself.

The other problem is that you view government as some "magical" entity of unlimited resources. It's never occurred to your very limited intellect that government cannot give to one without *stealing* from another.

You're incapable of making a logical case for your irrational position and it shows...


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Society was plenty "functional" for well _over_ 100 years without Social Security. It was "functional" for nearly 200 years without Medicare and Medicaid.



Define "functional."


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Society was plenty "functional" for well _over_ 100 years without Social Security. It was "functional" for nearly 200 years without Medicare and Medicaid.
> ...


From fledging nation to world *super-power*. That's about as "functional" as it gets.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



So "the nation" is what matters, not its citizens.

Out of curiosity, if the safety net vanished tomorrow, how many of your sick and/or elderly relatives would you be willing to support?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Not always true.

And I really try to avoid being critical of other systems.  

Many like what they have.

I like what we have.

Except that people do get trimmed off and we spend way to much.

But it still offers the best in the world (to those who can pay for it).


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Our society is not functional ?

Who knew ?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Our society _is_ functional, in part because of the social safety net.  Figures you wouldn't grasp that.

I'll ask you the same question P@triot dodged (fully expecting you to dodge it, too): If the safety net vanished tomorrow, how many of your sick and/or elderly relatives would you be willing to support?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Neither the nation nor its citizens "is what matters". *Liberty* is what matters. Not healthcare. Not housing. Not government cell phones. *Liberty*.

Throughout the history of the United States, _over_ a *million* people have died to give us liberty. And how do you honor those people? You literally walk over to their grave, piss on it, and then use the liberty that they handed to you on a silver-platter as bargaining chips to trade in for pitiful government table scraps.

If you and idiot antontoo think that people need everything provided to them, then _you_ have the _liberty_ to make that choice and provide whatever needs you think are missing. Funny how neither of you step up by choice and instead want everything done by communist force.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Our society _is_ functional, in part because of the social safety net.  Figures you wouldn't grasp that.
> 
> I'll ask you the same question P@triot dodged (fully expecting you to dodge it, too): If the safety net vanished tomorrow, how many of your sick and/or elderly relatives would you be willing to support?


Where did I "dodge" _anything_? I've made you look stupid by punching holes in your pitiful politician campaign slogans. You have nothing of substance.

Tell me something Arianrhod - is this "_functional_" in your mind?

I also learned how people gamed the welfare system. *They’d buy two dozen packs of soda with food stamps and then sell them at a discount for cash*. They’d ring up their orders separately, buying food with food stamps, and *beer, wine, and cigarettes with cash*. T*hey’d regularly go through the checkout line speaking on their cell phones*. I could never understand why our lives felt like a struggle while those living off of government largesse enjoyed trinkets that I only dreamed about.

Seeing Food Stamp Use Changed My Mind About Democrats


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Where did I "dodge" _anything_?



(1) You claimed Canadians were coming to the U.S. to get healthcare.  You never stated how many (two, two thousand, two million?) or where you got your information.

(2) You were asked "If the safety net vanished tomorrow, how many of your sick and/or elderly relatives would you be willing to support?"  You haven't answered that, either.

If you can't answer either, that's fine.  No need to keep changing the subject.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Where did I "dodge" _anything_?
> ...


I don't need to state how many. I stated a indisputable *fact* and because it _proves_ your ideology is a failed and ignorant ideology, you want to change the subject.

You're the one who keeps dodging. I've asked you why don't you support whoever you feel needs help and you refuse to answer why you don't.

I've asked you if the reality above is "functional" and you were dead silent...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Just because you are an asshole that doesn't understand that people need some hand up, doesn't mean I'm going to be the sucker to carry that social burden for you while you reap the benefits *of a functional society*.


Who the fuck are _you_ to decide what constitutes a "functional society"? Arrogant prick. I'll tell you what - Venezuela (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now. The former U.S.S.R. (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now - they don't even exist anymore.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> I don't need to state how many. I stated a indisputable *fact*



Indisputable facts can be easily proven.  Baseless opinions, on the other hand, often cause their promulgators to tap dance and bullshit instead of providing supporting evidence...because they know they can't.

Okay, so you've dodged that one three times.  Time to dodge this one a third time, too: "If the safety net vanished tomorrow, how many of your sick and/or elderly relatives would you be willing to support?"


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Who the fuck are _you_ to decide what constitutes a "functional society"?



One might ask you the same question.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need to state how many. I stated a indisputable *fact*
> ...


All of them. Or none of them. What difference does it make? If you're so worried about my relatives - then _you_ care for them if I fail to care for them to your standards.

Oh wait....that's right. You're a lazy, selfish, and greedy liberal. You won't help anybody. You demand that government do everything for you. Including helping others.

You've dodged every question I've asked so far. Kind of proves you don't have any answers sweetie.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Who the fuck are _you_ to decide what constitutes a "functional society"?
> ...


And I'm not the one proclaiming that society isn't functional if we don't implement communism.

Do you realize you can't give a single answer to _anything_ on this site? All you do is ask nonsensical questions - and copy the good questions of the intelligent people on this site (see above).


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



All the difference in the world.



P@triot said:


> And I'm not the one proclaiming that society isn't functional if we don't implement communism.



Neither is anyone else in this thread.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > And I'm not the one proclaiming that society isn't functional if we don't implement communism.
> ...


*Liar*. That's _exactly_ what you guys are proclaiming. *Forced* socialism. That is _communism_.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > All of them. Or none of them. What difference does it make?
> ...


Wow...what a cute and empty platitude. Typical from someone not ready to defend an irrational and emotional position.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



"All of them.  Or none of them.  What difference does it make?"  Decidedly platitudinous, but quite revealing of someone with very little knowledge about the costs of illness or of daily care for someone who's frail and elderly.

If you'd like to take a stab at any of that, let me know.  If not, platitude on.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Wow....there you go again repeating what an intelligent person said because you have *no* intelligent thoughts of your own.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You silence here is deafening Arianrhod. It's disgusting how other people died to hand you *liberty* on a silver platter and you use their sacrifice to get free shit from the government because you're lazy, selfish, and greedy.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...





Bet you don't know how much CABG surgery or cancer treatment costs.  Or long-term treatment for multiple sclerosis or diabetes or muscular dystrophy.

Pick something that interests you, and let's discuss it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> You silence here is deafening Arianrhod.



Exactly nine minutes passed between your post and mine.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

Hey, P@triot, I have to step away from the keyboard for the next little while.  I hope that's okay with you.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Bet you don't know how much CABG surgery or cancer treatment costs.  Or long-term treatment for multiple sclerosis or diabetes or muscular dystrophy.


Bet you've *never* read the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > You silence here is deafening Arianrhod.
> ...


Exactly more than an hour has passed because you failed to respond to the post in question (reading comprehension my dear....reading comprehension).


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Pick something that interests you, and let's discuss it.


The *U.S. Constitution*. Go...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Bet you don't know how much CABG surgery or cancer treatment costs.  Or long-term treatment for multiple sclerosis or diabetes or muscular dystrophy.


Bet you that the cost of healthcare doesn't trump *liberty*.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Bet you don't know how much CABG surgery or cancer treatment costs.  Or long-term treatment for multiple sclerosis or diabetes or muscular dystrophy.


Bet you that it's each person's responsibility to pay for their own healthcare no matter how much it costs.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Bet you've *never* read the U.S. Constitution.



I know it says nothing about how you'd manage to take all of your elderly relatives in and provide them with everything that Social Security and Medicare - which, BTW, are not "handouts," but something they've worked for all their lives - can provide.

Unless you're Bill Gates.  Are you Bill Gates?  In which case, you and I need to talk about the bugs in Windows 10.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Was it exactly an hour or more than an hour?  It can't be both simultaneously.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Bet you don't know how much CABG surgery or cancer treatment costs.  Or long-term treatment for multiple sclerosis or diabetes or muscular dystrophy.
> ...



It does not.

It simply brings risks.  Not really an issue in my book.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Not really an issue for anyone who's never experienced a health crisis and apparently doesn't know anyone else who has.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Bet you've *never* read the U.S. Constitution.
> ...


Well...I respect your honesty that you've never read the Constitution. Honesty is nearly unheard of in a liberal. Kudos. However, I suggest you read it thoroughly along with the Federalist Papers. Otherwise, you're simply not qualified to be discussing U.S. government. It explains why everything you say makes no sense.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Bet you've *never* read the U.S. Constitution.
> ...


And why do you insist on the *false narrative* that my relatives need providing for? I have an uncle who passed away with an _ungodly_ sum of money. I'm talking insane. He created a trust for his estate (and you don't create a trust for $20k). He had _million*s*_. Plural. He didn't need anyone to take care of him. Like all conservatives (i.e. mature adults) he took care of himself.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Not really an issue for anyone who's never experienced a health crisis and apparently doesn't know anyone else who has.


So let me get this straight - you believe that the million plus who died to hand you *liberty* on a silver platter (almost all very young people) should have to make the _ultimate_ sacrifice for America but people with health issues shouldn't have to make a simple financial sacrifice?!? The Constitution should just be shredded and we should turn to communism because you don't want healthcare financial burdens?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Not really an issue for anyone who's never experienced a health crisis and apparently doesn't know anyone else who has.
> ...



No.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Well that is exactly what you've argued here...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Not really an issue for anyone who's never experienced a health crisis and apparently doesn't know anyone else who has.
> ...





P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



It might well be a "constitutional scholar" like our loser-in-chief.

Meaning they know how to get around it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Well...I respect your honesty that you've never read the Constitution.


Then how did I know it says nothing about the costs of long-term illness?  (Aside from the historical context that when it was written people tended to die rather quickly from whatever illnesses they contracted.)

You might work on infusing your own posts with a little more honesty.  You don’t do yourself any favors by Making Shit Up.


P@triot said:


> And why do you insist on the *false narrative* that my relatives need providing for?


Did you miss the fact that the first word in that sentence was “if”?  Important word, “if.”  Changes the whole meaning.


P@triot said:


> I have an uncle who passed away with an _ungodly_ sum of money. I'm talking insane. He created a trust for his estate (and you don't create a trust for $20k). He had _million*s*_. Plural. He didn't need anyone to take care of him. Like all conservatives (i.e. mature adults) he took care of himself.


That’s irrelevant to what _you_ would do.  Except the part about taking care of himself.  There’s no doubt about that.  The question was whether or not you had any clue to the costs of medical treatment.  You’ve inadvertently answered that quite clearly.


P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


No. 

However, since you brought it up, the Revolutionary War is an excellent example (though not as egregious as the Civil War) of the need for good healthcare, if you’d like to discuss that.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> However, since you brought it up, the Revolutionary War is an excellent example (though not as egregious as the Civil War) of the need for good healthcare, if you’d like to discuss that.


Not really. I value *liberty* exponentially more and would much rather discuss _that_. But then again, I'm not an ungrateful liberal. I value the ultimate sacrifice made by so many.

Sad that you and your fellow liberals are not willing to make the exponentially _less_ "sacrifice" of not getting "free" healthcare.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > However, since you brought it up, the Revolutionary War is an excellent example (though not as egregious as the Civil War) of the need for good healthcare, if you’d like to discuss that.
> ...



The Revolutionary War was about the fight for liberty (which, BTW, is from the same Latin root as "liberal").

One wonders how much liberty you'd have in the absence of the social safety net.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


No shit Sherlock. You're not talking about the war - you keep focusing on healthcare. 


Arianrhod said:


> One wonders how much liberty you'd have in the absence of the social safety net.


We don't have to wonder. The answer is _infinite_.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > The Revolutionary War was about the fight for liberty (which, BTW, is from the same Latin root as "liberal").
> ...



Then what were you referring to in Post #247 (although the casualties on the Colonial side were around 25,000+, not "a million")?


P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > One wonders how much liberty you'd have in the absence of the social safety net.
> ...



Planning to live forever, eh?  All the more reason to have those entitlements.  Your 401(k) won't last forever.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Planning to live forever, eh?  All the more reason to have those entitlements.  Your 401(k) won't last forever.


Um....living and *liberty* are two _vastly_ different things. Reading comprehension my dear. Reading comprehension.

You know those over one million men and women who died for the liberty that you take for granted? They sure as shit didnt "live forever" but the liberty that they provided will if we can protect it from liberals.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Um....living and *liberty* are two _vastly_ different things.



Good thing Jefferson was smart enough to put them in the proper order.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Then what were you referring to in Post #247 (*although the casualties on the Colonial side were around 25,000+, not "a million"*)?


Man alive we have to do _something_ about your reading comprehension. At no time did I say "the Revolutionary War". My point about over one million men and women is thought out U.S. _history_. Liberty did not end with the Revolutionary War. It was preserved time and time again in the Civil War, in the Cold War, in the world wars, and so on. And there have been additional sacrifices beyond wars. How many died acting as spies for the U.S.? How many died in training excercises? How many police officers have died engaging criminals who attempt to strip us of our liberties?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Um....living and *liberty* are two _vastly_ different things.
> ...


You know those over one million men and women who died for the liberty that you take for granted? They sure as shit didnt "live forever" but the *liberty* that they provided will if we can protect it from liberals.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You proceed from a false assumption.  Well, several, actually, but when you start off by calculatedly mischaracterizing my posts to fit your agenda, you're not going to get anywhere.

I'm logging off now.  You may have the last word.  It won't be any more accurate than the rest, but it's yours.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Who the fuck are _you_ to decide what constitutes a "functional society"? Arrogant prick. I'll tell you what - Venezuela (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now. The former U.S.S.R. (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now - they don't even exist anymore.



And who the fuck are you?

You asked my why it's fair to make you and I to pay taxes that go to pay for safety nets and I explained.

Don't like explanation? Though shit, cause unfortunately for you it makes a lot of sense to non-nutters.

To listen to you there are only shitty countries with safety net programs. NOT FUCKING TRUE. Best ones all have them (while a lot of the worst ones don't). So stop lying.



Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Can you for ONCE, I mean just *ONCE* say something not COMPLETELY stupid?

United States has safety net programs funded by involuntary tax system and yes, part of why our society is functional is because that IS the case.

How is it possible that you DIDN'T know?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Who the fuck are _you_ to decide what constitutes a "functional society"? Arrogant prick. I'll tell you what - Venezuela (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now. The former U.S.S.R. (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now - they don't even exist anymore.
> ...



No I didn't. I didn't once ask you that. You just kept coming up with this *false* *narrative* of a "functional society" all on your own.

You don't get to decide what constitutes a "functional society" just because you're too lazy, selfish, and greedy to help people in need.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> No I didn't. I didn't once ask you that. You just kept coming up with this *false* *narrative* of a "functional society" all on your own.
> 
> You don't get to decide what constitutes a "functional society" just because you're too lazy, selfish, and greedy to help people in need.



Functional society is where people are not homeless and starving, perhaps pushed into crime to survive when they can't find, or perform a job.

Functional society is one where people are not left curbside to die or disfigurement just because they can't afford to pay for medical procedure they need.

Functional society is one where you can get education to get ahead, even if you can't pay for it.

Functional society is one where we make sure children and elderly are not living in deep poverty.

Functional society is one where the system gives you the opportunity to let the past go, pick yourself up and turn your life around.

That's what functional society means to me and most sane people not all tangled up in ideological bullshit.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > No I didn't. I didn't once ask you that. You just kept coming up with this *false* *narrative* of a "functional society" all on your own.
> ...


Well you claimed that the U.S. was a (and I quote) "functional society" because of (and I quote again) "safety nets".

You follow that up by stating a "functional society" is one where "people are not homeless and starving". Well the U.S. _has_ homeless people. The U.S. _has_ starving people. So you just contradicted yourself. Typical libtard.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Functional society is one where the system gives you the opportunity to let the past go, pick yourself up and turn your life around.


That's what *liberty* does, _stupid_. *Not* communism.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 28, 2016)

A


P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > You don't get to decide what constitutes a "functional society" just because you're too lazy, selfish, and greedy to help people in need.
> ...





> That's what *liberty* does, _stupid_. *Not* communism.


At one time before FDR started social security, people actually had to save for retirement or end up on the short stick when they got old.  But many back there didn't think they would live past 60 so they threw all their money into cigarettes and alcohol, living their lives to the fullest, then once they passed the 60 year mark, started to realize that they could be eating canned dog food the rest of their lives.  So I am supposed to feel sorry for them who planned stupidly?  No, they rolled the dice, took the chance, if they want to continue to live past 60 then they should continue to WORK.  But you libidiots decided that you didn't want to work past 60 so had the government provide a safety net, that was supposed to supplement not be a retirement plan and SS became law, which the liberals stole all the money out of to spend someplace else.  Such stupid MORONS, who vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 28, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> A
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> ...


If you took away welfare, then social security could be saved, because then more people would HAVE to work in Obama's roaring economy, providing more funding for the FICA deduction.  Funny how when people aren't sucking the government tit for FREE stuff, the society that they live in actually start to function properly.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> You follow that up by stating a "functional society" is one where "people are not homeless and starving". Well the U.S. _has_ homeless people. The U.S. _has_ starving people. So you just contradicted yourself. Typical libtard.



Our society is not problem free obviously. No one can MAKE YOU, not be homeless. But we have a programs in place you can turn to, that's the whole point.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> So I am supposed to feel sorry for them who planned stupidly?



YES.

People end up in bad situations due to bad circumstance, but also bad decisions (they are people right?). But in a civilized society your situation will not be completely desperate and you will get some minimal help in sustaining your most basic needs.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > You follow that up by stating a "functional society" is one where "people are not homeless and starving". Well the U.S. _has_ homeless people. The U.S. _has_ starving people. So you just contradicted yourself. Typical libtard.
> ...


We're not even "functional" according to your own definition. Care to contradict yourself any further?

Government does *not* exist to provide for people. The fact that your public school education was so pitiful that you don't even know the purpose of government is tragic. Just more evidence that liberalism destroys everything it touches.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > So I am supposed to feel sorry for them who planned stupidly?
> ...


So help them. If you weren't so lazy, selfish, and greedy, *you* would help them.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> That's what *liberty* does



LOL, yea I want to see you get a job when you can even get a clean shirt, take a shower, get on the bus or even afford lunch.

Bad situations tend to be self-perpetuating.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



I help, you free ride? Fuck that.

I say we are in it together, I pay my taxes, you pay yours and the safety nets are there for everyone.

Don't like it? get enough people to agree with you to get rid of the safety nets. GOOD LUCK.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > That's what *liberty* does
> ...


Funny....that is _exactly_ what Chris Gardner did. Came straight from jail without a suit or even clean clothes and landed an internship that launched him.

Boy - you couldn't have picked a better lie. You walked right into that one. Thank you.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> I help, you free ride? Fuck that.


Again...you're wailing against the very system you support. I help (against my will) while 48% of the nation (such as yourself) "free ride". Like you said - _fuck_ that.

Let a libtard talk long enough and they will inevitably contradict their own position


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> I help, you free ride? Fuck that.


So basically your position is "it's unfair that some are more successful than others - lets drag _all_ of society down"


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Funny....that is _exactly_ what Chris Gardner did. Came straight from jail without a suit or even clean clothes and landed an internship that launched him.
> 
> Boy - you couldn't have picked a better lie. You walked right into that one. Thank you.



Yea of course, world is just full of Chris Garners that can land a job straight out of orange suit, but hey he probably did have that free shower and a meal in jail while he was thinking things over. That fucking free rider.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> I help, you free ride? Fuck that.


So then don't help! Problem solved....


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Funny....that is _exactly_ what Chris Gardner did. Came straight from jail without a suit or even clean clothes and landed an internship that launched him.
> ...


Proves it can be done. Which proves that you just make shit up to support your irrational position.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > I help, you free ride? Fuck that.
> ...



No thanks. I'd rather us both pay in to make sure America is the land of opportunity we always promise it to be.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> I say we are in it together


You don't get to say. You're inflated sense of self has caused you to form absurd and irrational position.

The Constitution dictates how the United States is governed. Not you chief.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Proves it can be done. Which proves that you just make shit up to support your irrational position.



Free riding until you turn yourself around? - YEA, IT CAN.

But on a more general note you need to familiarize yourself closer with relationships between single examples and what is generally true. Exceptions are not a rule make.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


But I don't care what you would "rather". None of us do. You don't get to decide what I do and don't do Hitler. I'm a free man in a free country. I decide for _myself_. Why are you so desperate to control others? Is your life so small and insignificant that you feel the need to control other people?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Proves it can be done. Which proves that you just make shit up to support your irrational position.
> ...


Chris Gardner didn't "free ride" junior. You just make shit up in _every_ post. How immature...


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Chris Gardner didn't "free ride" junior. You just make shit up in _every_ post. How immature...



NO? Did he pay for his meals and showers in jail perhaps? Stop making shit up.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


It _is_ the land of "opportunity" without help. Was in not the land of opportunity in 1776 when there was no Social Security? Was in not the land of opportunity during the entire 1800's when there was _still_ no Social Security? Was in not the land of opportunity in the early 1900's when there was no Medicare or Medicaid? _Oops_...

You've really been brainwashed by Dumbocrats to buy into the victim mentality. Not surprising. That's what happens with the *weak minded*.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Chris Gardner didn't "free ride" junior. You just make shit up in _every_ post. How immature...
> ...


He didn't get a shower that night in jail (it wasn't state prison dumb ass). And his meal wasn't a "free ride" - he was in _jail_. And...how did that meal land him his internship when he showed up dirty and in the dirty clothes that _you_ claimed would prevent someone from landing a job.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> No thanks. I'd rather us both pay in to make sure America is the land of opportunity we always promise it to be.


No thanks. I'd rather _you_ - the lazy, selfish, greedy liberal - just pay. *I win*! The U.S. Constitution says so.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Was in not the land of opportunity in 1776 when there was no Social Security? Was in not the land of opportunity during the entire 1800's when there was _still_ no Social Security? Was in not the land of opportunity in the early 1900's when there was no Medicare or Medicaid? _Oops_...
> 
> You've really been brainwashed by Dumbocrats to buy into the victim mentality. Not surprising. That's what happens with the *weak minded*.



There is no question that today there is FAR more opportunity to get education, get a good job and live a good life. This unquestionably true for ANY developed country *today* compared to United States in 1800s.

If it was up to the rightwingers we'd still be stuck in long gone past.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > No thanks. I'd rather us both pay in to make sure America is the land of opportunity we always promise it to be.
> ...



The system functions according to how I believe it is appropriate for it to function, exactly contrary to the way you want it to function *BUT* you win?

Retard much? 

I'll let you get back to celebrating by paying your taxes, taxes that will be used to pay for safety-nets.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Was in not the land of opportunity in 1776 when there was no Social Security? Was in not the land of opportunity during the entire 1800's when there was _still_ no Social Security? Was in not the land of opportunity in the early 1900's when there was no Medicare or Medicaid? _Oops_...
> ...


Yeah....and all of that is due to *liberty*. It is innovation in the free market which have advanced mankind by providing all of the products that make our lives better.

What you really want to say is "if it were up to right-wingers, I would be able to mooch off of society"


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


The U.S. Constitution dictates exactly what taxes are for - and it's *not* "safety nets". This was proven yesterday when I illustrated how profoundly ignorant you are of the Constitution (which is when you cried like a little girl and ran away )


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > That's what *liberty* does
> ...


Wait a minute, when you select a lifestyle that is Punkish, because you are in the fight for more FREE STUFF, that is your choice, not mine, and I in no way want to provide anything to you, other than advice and that is to stop fucking being liberal and learn to be self sufficient, clean yourself up , and get a job.  There are many out there, maybe not the one you want right away, but start building a resume so you can finally achieve something of yourself.  When I entered the job force, I had to flip burgers for McD's, today, I am a multimillionaire with my own business of fixing houses and selling them.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Who the fuck are _you_ to decide what constitutes a "functional society"? Arrogant prick. I'll tell you what - Venezuela (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now. The former U.S.S.R. (which implemented pure liberalism across the board) sure as hell isn't very "functional" right now - they don't even exist anymore.
> ...



Just checking to see what you are describing.

So we are functional ?

What are you complaining about then ?

Or are we not functional (i.e. taxed) enough  for you ?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


He can't figure out it. All he knows is that he wants to be able to mooch off of society indefinitely and so he'll say anything that he thinks will facilitate that desire.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Just because you are an asshole that doesn't understand that people need some hand up, doesn't mean I'm going to be the sucker to carry that social burden for you while you reap the benefits of a functional society.


And _how_, exactly, would I "reap the benefits" if you are helping someone else who is homeless, hungry, etc.? 

You continue to take stupidity to unprecedented levels.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Just because you are an asshole that doesn't understand that people need some hand up, doesn't mean I'm going to be the sucker to carry that social burden for you while you reap *the benefits of a functional society*.


I give you antontoo's idea of a "functional society"... 

"I also learned how people gamed the welfare system. *They’d buy two dozen packs of soda with food stamps and then sell them at a discount for cash*. They’d ring up their orders separately, buying food with food stamps, and beer, wine, and cigarettes with cash. *They’d regularly go through the checkout line speaking on their cell phones*. I could never understand why *our lives felt like a struggle while those living off of government largesse enjoyed trinkets that I only dreamed about*."

Seeing Food Stamp Use Changed My Mind About Democrats

(In other words - antontoo is scared stupid that some day he will no longer be able to fleece the American people for his "free" food, "free" housing, "free" cell phones, etc.).


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> I give you antontoo's idea of a "functional society"...



See, now, if he actually did write that, you've just revealed his RL identity which, if I'm not mistaken, can get you banned.

If he didn't, you're just Making Shit Up again.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I give you antontoo's idea of a "functional society"...
> ...


Uh...._what_?!? 

English dear. English. SMH


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



My post has a Flesch Kincaid readability score of 74.6, meaning that a seventh-grader can understand it.

Are you claiming that antontoo wrote that blog post?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Just checking to see what you are describing.
> 
> So we are functional ?
> 
> ...



???? Dumbass, I'm not the one complaining about being taxed to pay for safety nets, Patriot is.

I asked you to post something non-stupid, why are you sooo against that?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> ???? Dumbass, I'm not the one complaining about being taxed to pay for safety nets, Patriot is. I asked you to post something non-stupid, why are so against that?


_What_? That's exactly what you've cried about like a little bitch. You're not willing to help anyone so you want government to place a gun to my head and *force* me to do it for you. You know something is wrong when it must be achieved by force. Rape is achieved by force. Robbery is achieved by force. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and more all used force to achieve their desires.

The fact that you have to resort to force proves that you're wrong and that you're an irrational fucking idiot. The fact that you won't help anyone voluntarily also illustrates that you are lazy, selfish, and greedy. Add it all together (ignorant, lazy, selfish, greedy, and irrational) and you have the textbook definition of a libtard.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> ...you want government to place a gun to my head and *force* me to do it for you.



How often has this happened to you?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> _What_? That's exactly what you've cried about



UMM NO, I didn't at all cry about us both having to pay taxes that pay for safety nets, on the contrary I support this system. You are just a retard posting retarded nonsense.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > _What_? That's exactly what you've cried about
> ...



Is it possible he doesn't understand that someone breaking into his house and "placing a gun to my head and forcing me" to hand over his money is not "the government"?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ...you want government to place a gun to my head and *force* me to do it for you.
> ...


Yeah.....uh....every single day sweetie. If you refuse to pay taxes, a person will show up at your house from the government and they _will_ have a gun on them.

Any other stupid questions I can answer for you?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > _What_? That's exactly what you've cried about
> ...


You cried like a little bitch about voluntarily helping _anyone_ (because of your fear that the gravy train that you mooch off of might run out).


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Well.....clearly Arianrhod is one of the 48% that pays no taxes in this country.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



So this is from personal experience and not something Alex Jones told you.  Amazing.



P@triot said:


> Well.....clearly Arianrhod is one of the 48% that pays no taxes in this country whose experiences with the IRS do not involve armed men showing up at the house.



Fixed that for you.  If there's a tax problem, normal people get a letter from the IRS.  They call and get it straightened out.  Unless you're a drug dealer or the ghost of David Koresh, you're MSU.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Just checking to see what you are describing.
> ...



How could you possibly be expected to know what "non-stupid" is ?

You've made some claims you won't expand upon.

Seems you have a bad case of inflated self-worth.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > _What_? That's exactly what you've cried about
> ...



"Having to pay taxes" for safety-nets.

If only......


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Oh, the huge manatee -!


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> If there's a tax problem, normal people get a letter from the IRS.  They call and get it straightened out.  Unless you're a drug dealer or the ghost of David Koresh, you're MSU.


Tell you what sweetie.....*refuse* to pay your taxes. Then come back to us on USMB and let us know how it goes

(Hint - you'all have to have your attorney do it for you as they don't allow people on the Internet from prison - after the man with gun shows up at your home with an arrest warrant) 

It's amazing how even the most basic realities need to be explained to you. If you don't pay your taxes, *a man with a gun will* *show up at your house*. Period.

Now pretend again how that isn't true. It's such a fun game indulging you in your childish/immature antics.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > If there's a tax problem, normal people get a letter from the IRS.  They call and get it straightened out.  Unless you're a drug dealer or the ghost of David Koresh, you're MSU.
> ...



I can't see how.

I put the troll on ignore a long time ago.  

It simply saves time and braincells.

Not sure what you are responding to.  Taxes ?  The nice thing is that the IRS only has to focus on about half the country.


----------



## rdean (Jul 28, 2016)

I don't understand the problem Republicans have with this.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > If there's a tax problem, normal people get a letter from the IRS.  They call and get it straightened out.  Unless you're a drug dealer or the ghost of David Koresh, you're MSU.
> ...



For one thing, stop flirting with me.  I couldn't be less interested.  (Besides, you're making Sunny Boy jealous.)

For another, I'm not a deadbeat like someone who wants to be a member of the club but doesn't want to pay his dues.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Yeah....she claims that if you don't pay your taxes someone from the government *with a gun* will *not* show up at your house. You can't make this stuff up...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

rdean said:


> I don't understand the problem Republicans have with this.


The funny thing is - if it bothers you libtards so much - you are *free* to take care of them _yourself_. And yet you refuse to do that. Instead you whine like helpless children to Uncle Sam to place a gun to the head of other people and *force* them to do what you refuse to do.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

rdean said:


> I don't understand the problem Republicans have with this.


On a side note - are you even capable of articulating what is wrong with what Ron Paul said? You cry about it a lot and post it all the time yet you're never able to enlighten anyone on what is wrong with what he said...


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Yeah....she claims that if you don't pay your taxes someone from the government *with a gun* will *not* show up at your house. You can't make this stuff up...



As an honest person, I wouldn't know what it was like not to pay my share of the privilege of being an American, but apparently - according to your own words - this is an everyday occurrence for you.

What amazes me is that either (A) you sit there passively waiting for the Men with the Gunz to come by every day instead of Standing Your Ground or moving somewhere where there are no taxes or (B) you're posting from a federal prison and they have WiFi.

What does not surprise me is that you've chosen the coward's way out and, instead of answering me, you're gossiping behind my back like a third-grade girl.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Well...I respect your honesty that you've never read the Constitution.
> ...


Bingo! It says nothing about healthcare period. Which means the federal government is strictly prohibited from meddling in it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



So the original Constitution is carved in stone and should never be changed by things such as, for example, Amendments?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

antontoo said:


> But even feasibility aside,on the fairness angle - why would it be a good idea to let selfish assholes enjoy the benefits of functional society paid for by the kindness of suckers who will carry this burden?


More liberal "functional" society. Not only have liberals started yet another false narrative (that we need to cover college education for some inexplicable reason) - but college kids are partying more and spending less time on actual education than _ever_.

What a great use of our limited resources... 

College Students Aren't Working That Hard | RealClearPolicy


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Has it been amended for healthcare yet?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Where's the stone?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 29, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Where's the stone?


In the National Archives. Now answer the question - has the U.S. Constitution been amended to include healthcare yet?

If not - then you tyrants need to accept the fact that *We the People* have spoken.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> In the National Archives.



So that would be in addition to the parchment.  Interesting.  Are there photos of it?  Because I've seen the parchment version and thought that was the original.



P@triot said:


> Now answer the question - has the U.S. Constitution been amended to include healthcare yet?



You mean you're not sure.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 29, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Now answer the question - has the U.S. Constitution been amended to include healthcare yet?
> ...


Oh of course I'm sure (I know the U.S. Constitution inside and out). I just want to see if you are capable of being intellectually honest. So far it would _appear_ not.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Yet you felt compelled to claim it was written in stone.  Tsk!


----------



## P@triot (Jul 29, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


So you're acknowledging that you can't be intellectually honest _and_ that you refuse to respect the will of the American people? Got it!

(Psst...."written in stone" is a _phrase_ meaning that something is not flexible. Try _Googling_ it).

phrase of stone
*1*. used to emphasize that something is fixed and unchangeable.
"anything can change—nothing is written in stone"


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You're the one claiming that the Constitution was written in stone, not I.  Now you say it wasn't.  I didn't even get a chance to ask you whether it was marble or granite.  (I'd assume marble; granite is too fine-grained and all those fancy loopy letters the Founders wrote it would have been hard to read.)

Get back to me when you've decided whether the original was in stone or on parchment, and we can continue.

Or you can just keep writing tabloid headlines that mean nothing.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 29, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


In other words - you can't get the votes you need to amend the Constitution and implement your radical views so you're just going to throw a tantrum and act like a petulant child? Got it.

The U.S. Constitution is the law my dear. It was signed into law. The only way to change that is to alter the law legally. In the case of the U.S. Constitution - that means the amendment process. And that means getting 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the states. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Is there an adult around you right now that you could ask for help?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 29, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> You're the one claiming that the Constitution was written in stone, not I.


I'm sorry Arianrhod. I completely forgot about the upgrades. It used to be set in stone. It is now set in granite, steel, and bullet-proof glass. My bad!


----------



## Arianrhod (Jul 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one claiming that the Constitution was written in stone, not I.
> ...



Okay, that was amusing, and it brings us back to the English language and its wonderful flexibility.  "Set in stone" can - loosely speaking - mean "written in stone."  You've pointed out the very literal meaning of "to set" an object within another object.

But the metaphorical meaning is the one where "set in stone" means "immutable, unchanging, and unchangeable."

Given the numerous amendments to the original Constitution, it would take some mental gymnastics to argue that, in the metaphorical sense, it is "set in stone," but by all means have at it.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one claiming that the Constitution was written in stone, not I.
> ...



Funny....and true in terms of it's physical condition.

However, our modern day SCOTUS has basically ruined it.

Our current moron in chief has helped.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

The liberals effort to collapse the U.S. economy continues. They not only want us paying for liberal parasites that don't pay into the system - they want us paying for criminal from other nations to expedite the collapse. If only Obamcare hadn't caused the price of healthcare to skyrocket - this additional burden wouldn't be quite as devastating.

States find dialysis for illegal immigrants a costly dilemma


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The liberals effort to collapse the U.S. economy continues.



 with this retarded bullshit already. Liberals, like all Americans with most rare of exceptions want a good economy, even if they may disagree with you on what it takes.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The liberals effort to collapse the U.S. economy continues.
> ...


That _may_ be the case with the liberal minions - but it is most certainly *not* the case with the liberal masters in Washington D.C.

Cloward & Piven taught a strategy to collapse the U.S. economy, blame it on capitalism, and then use that to implement communism while they were professors at Columbia University. Care to guess who attended Columbia while they were there and preaching this strategy? Yep...none other than Barack Obama himself.

And he just _happened_ to run up almost $10 *trillion* in debt while president? Almost same amount it took all presidents in U.S. history 235 years to accumulate?!?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The liberals effort to collapse the U.S. economy continues.
> ...


By the way....how do you explain away the link above that discusses the _devastating_ cost of "free" dialysis for *illegal aliens*?!?


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Cloward & Piven



who the f?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Cloward & Piven
> ...


Exactly. This is why you vote Dumbocrat. People who vote Dumbocrat are _completely_ uninformed. Start doing some research on Cloward & Piven and the strategy they openly taught to collapse the U.S. That's the kind of shit your side of the aisle engages in. You don't even know what you're voting for when you pull the lever for Dumbocrats.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



The article showcases the disparities between the two states in question.  If North Carolina had covered the costs of anti-rejection medications once Ms. Toribio had her transplant, she would in all likelihood have a functioning kidney and an ability to work and pay taxes for another 35 years until she retired, instead of being constrained by dialysis three times a week and virtually disabled.

It's a case of "states rights" being more important to the elitist theoreticians (like the ones who consider the Constitution in and of itself more important than the people it was written to serve) than the people who live in those states.


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Exactly. This is why you vote Dumbocrat. People who vote Dumbocrat are _completely_ uninformed. Start doing some research on Cloward & Piven and the strategy they openly taught to collapse the U.S. That's the kind of shit your side of the aisle engages in. You don't even know what you're voting for when you pull the lever for Dumbocrats.



*EXACTLY*

Which Democrat agrees with Cloward & Piven? I've never heard of them, let alone witness anyone on the left support any such strategy.

So lets go, prove it.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. This is why you vote Dumbocrat. People who vote Dumbocrat are _completely_ uninformed. Start doing some research on Cloward & Piven and the strategy they openly taught to collapse the U.S. That's the kind of shit your side of the aisle engages in. You don't even know what you're voting for when you pull the lever for Dumbocrats.
> ...


Well considering you didn't even know they existed 3 minutes ago - how could you know anyone who "supports their strategy"? And you don't even see the irony of claiming that no one on the left support the Cloward & Piven strategy while mentioning Cloward & Piven?!?! Clearly _they_ support it. 

Keep living your life deaf, dumb, and blind, _stupid_. Keep pulling the lever for people and policies that you don't even understand. It's one hell of a coincidence that Barack Obama just "happened" to run up *$10 trillion* in debt after attending Columbia University while Cloward & Piven were there teaching a strategy to collapse the U.S. economy and then blame it on capitalism.


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I will repeat my question to you, *WHAT DEMOCRAT SUPPORTS CLOWARD & PIVEN STRATEGY?
*
Obama does? By passing 800 billion stimulus in the middle of Great Recession and extending tax cuts conservatives love? That is your proof that Obama follows that strategy...that is super strange considering Great fcuking Recession complete with trillion dollar defict happened on Bush's watch - how come you don't claim that Bush is a C&S fan?

You are full of shit.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> The article showcases the disparities between the two states in question.  If North Carolina had covered the costs of anti-rejection medications once Ms. Toribio had her transplant, she would in all likelihood have a functioning kidney and an ability to work and pay taxes for another 35 years until she retired, instead of being constrained by dialysis three times a week and virtually disabled.


And why should the people of the great state of North Carolina pick up the costs of an *illegal* alien from another country? And why don't you pick up the cost? Seriously. Start a foundation and tell all 50 states that if they have any illegal aliens with healthcare needs - _you_ will cover the full cost.

You clearly didn't read the article all the way through so please allow me to quote it for you:

“*Taxpayers are on the hook for people who aren’t supposed to be here*,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

The fear in many states is that offering routine dialysis will lure more sick people from other countries.

“If I go home, I won’t be able to afford this,” said Aquino, 56. “*No way am I going home*.”



Arianrhod said:


> It's a case of "states rights" being more important to the elitist theoreticians (like the ones who consider the Constitution in and of itself more important than the people it was written to serve) than the people who live in those states.


Uh...._duh_! I know this is a mind-boggling concept for *selfish* liberals (such as yourself) but why would people be more important than the U.S. Constitution?!? Do you know all of the great men who fought for this country, founded it, and wrote the U.S. Constitution? Well all of them are dead. Every single one of them. But guess what my dear - the U.S. Constitution is still around and *billions* of people have benefited from it since the last of those great men died. People come and go. None of us live forever. But the Constitution - if it can be protected and preserved from people like _you_ - will last forever. It's infinitely more important than any one person or even an entire nation of people. The fact that you don't even realize that speaks to your selfishness.

*"Give me liberty or give me death" *- Patrick Henry. The founders realized that freedom and the Constitution that provided it are exponentially more important than life. Why don't you?

And once again I have to ask - if you care soooooo much - why don't _you_ cover the cost for these people? Are you too selfish (want to hoard all of your money for yourself)? Are you too lazy to work the amount of hours it would require to save lives (that's pretty cold sweetie - even by liberal standards).


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > The article showcases the disparities between the two states in question.  If North Carolina had covered the costs of anti-rejection medications once Ms. Toribio had her transplant, she would in all likelihood have a functioning kidney and an ability to work and pay taxes for another 35 years until she retired, instead of being constrained by dialysis three times a week and virtually disabled.
> ...



California was once part of Mexico.  You may worship a line in the dirt, but some of us have other priorities.

And what a patient receiving dialysis for 17 years has to do with a program that's been in existence for only three years is something you can't explain, but you're welcome to try.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Ever notice how angry liberals get in the face of facts? They really lose their shit big time - don't they? Bush never saw unemployment hit 7% until his final month in office (December 2008). The average over his 8 years was 5.7%. And most of all - he didn't deficit spend almost $10 *trillion*.

By the way - just because you don't support Cloward & Piven doesn't mean your side of the aisle doesn't. You should really check out all of the things that Communist Party U.S.A and the Green Party support. You've lived your life deaf, dumb, and blind. Now that someone is opening your eyes, you're getting all pissed off. Bizarre to say the least. One would think you want to know what's going on in the real world. But....feel free to go back to sleep if ignorance is bliss for you.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> California was once part of Mexico.  You may worship a line in the dirt, but some of us have other priorities.


That "line in the dirt" is what affords you the right to speak and your standard of living. Feel free to step over that "dirt in the line" and go experience life over there.

And I'll ask for the third time - if you have other priorities (as you claim) - then why aren't _you_ picking up the tab for these illegal immigrants in need of healthcare? It's a simple question. Why do you refuse to address it?


Arianrhod said:


> And what a patient receiving dialysis for 17 years has to do with a program that's been in existence for only three years is something you can't explain, but you're welcome to try.


Because for way more than 17 years - Dumbocrats have _forced_ our healthcare system to provide services for people who aren't willing to pay. It was Tip O'Neill (Dumbocrat Speaker of the House) Congress that passed a law _forcing_ healthcare to be slaves. To perform their labor without pay. But then again - the Dumbocrat has always been the party of slavery so this should come as no surprise to anyone.


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Ever notice how angry liberals get in the face of facts?



Facts? it's retarded bullshit.


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Because for way more than 17 years - Dumbocrats have _forced_ our healthcare system to provide services for people who aren't willing to pay.



Wow - imagine that, Democrats are out to destroy American economy....by making sure people who can't afford medical treatment don't get left on the sidewalks to die.

You are a retard, no other way to explain what you post.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> California was once part of Mexico.  You may worship a line in the dirt, but some of us have other priorities.


By the way...since I'm sure you wouldn't want to be a despicable hypocrite....can we assume that the "line in the dirt" that creates the official boundaries of your property means _nothing_ to you? That I am welcome any time I want to cross that line, enter your home, eat your food, watch your tv, etc.? And that since lines and boundaries mean nothing to you, you would also be completely ok with me crossing the boundaries of your _personal lines_ in the dirt and maybe helping myself to your body?

Suddenly those lines matter to you, uh? Hypocrite...


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > California was once part of Mexico.  You may worship a line in the dirt, but some of us have other priorities.
> ...



How will that help patients like Ms. Toribio who lost a kidney to bureaucratic incompetence?  Anyway, it's "line in the dirt."  Try to get that much right, at least.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Because for way more than 17 years - Dumbocrats have _forced_ our healthcare system to provide services for people who aren't willing to pay.
> ...


Why would they be left on the sidewalk? They would be deported to their own country where they could get all the healthcare they desire! Stop being such a drama queen sweetie. Just because you can't make a rational case for your bizarre and irrational position doesn't mean you have to be a drag queen (er....uh....sorry....drama queen) chicken little declaring the sky is falling and dead bodies will litter the sidewalks.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Anyway, it's "line in the dirt."  Try to get that much right, at least.


Sorry...your astounding stupidity mixed with your astounding hypocrisy had me all messed up as I typed. I have since corrected for you.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Because you'll be in Mexico and you can assist her there! Everybody is a winner!


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Why would they be left on the sidewalk



Umm because they can't pay and hospital would take a financial loss by treating them silly


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> How will that help patients like Ms. Toribio who lost a kidney to bureaucratic incompetence?


"Bureaucratic incompetence" 

You know what the rest of America calls it? The *law*. Sorry that we don't support illegal activity sweetie. I wonder if your liberal views would change if you were suddenly the victim of a horrible crime and everyone said "nah....that was just 'bureaucratic incompetence' my dear"


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they be left on the sidewalk
> ...


Funny how you edited my post and left out the part that said they would be back in their own country getting all of the healthcare they needed. I guess when you look stupid (which is most of the time) you have to resort to *lying*.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



That's a child's answer.  You should look to your own ancestors.  If any of them were here before the creation of social safety nets during the Great Depression, they most likely received some sort of benefit - jobs, in-home electricity if they lived in the TVA area, free inoculations - benefits without which they might have died, and you might never have been born.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > How will that help patients like Ms. Toribio who lost a kidney to bureaucratic incompetence?
> ...



A handful of pills vs rejecting a transplanted kidney, resulting in lifelong dialysis.  That's what an adult would call incompetence.

Guess how much a kidney transplant costs.  Guess how much dialysis costs per year.  Let's see how knowledgeable you are.


----------



## AntonToo (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Funny how you edited my post and left out the part that said they would be back in their own country



Funny how you still don't fucking get that there actually IS a distinct possibility that Democrat support such common sense laws not out of desire to wreck economy but out of concern for fellow human beings (something that psychopaths like yourself lack)


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you edited my post and left out the part that said they would be back in their own country
> ...



Common Sense Law.....really ?????


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



According to you, then, all laws are nonsensical.  Including those resulting from the  Sacred Second?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I keep hoping that 20 trillion will wake people up.

Somehow I am not so sure.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you edited my post and left out the part that said they would be back in their own country
> ...


Funny how you pretend to "care" soooooooo much and then selfish hoard everything and refuse to share what is _yours_. They can go back to their own country (where they belong) or you can pay for their needs.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



It's true y'all were sleeping from 2003 through 2008.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


I love how you just make shit up when you've been thoroughly defeated with facts. Where did Sun Devil say that "all laws" were "nonsensical"?


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Funny how you pretend to "care" soooooooo much and then selfish hoard everything and refuse to share what is _yours_.



What's really funny is how, when you can't answer something as simple as "How much does a kidney transplant cost?" your only recourse is to invent cute little stories about other posters.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Guess how much it costs to make foreigners get their "free" healthcare from their own damn nation? *$0.00*. Any other _stupid_ things you want to say?


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> I love how you just make shit up when you've been thoroughly defeated with facts. Where did Sun Devil say that "all laws" were "nonsensical"?



Right here:



Sun Devil 92 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I'll take that as a "no."


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you pretend to "care" soooooooo much and then selfish hoard everything and refuse to share what is _yours_.
> ...


I've answered it over and over - it costs endless more than deporting *criminals* back to their own damn country where their own damn nation can address their healthcare needs.

Do you have _any_ idea how stupid you sound attempting to justify something so insane? This is literally like someone trying to make the case for why it was ok for Ted Bundy to rape and murder women. You can't justify forcing someone else to cover the healthcare needs of a criminal who illegally broke into our country. You cover the cost you selfish, greedy buffoon. Or ship their ass back to their own country where they _belong_.

But then again - you liberals realize you can't win a clean election. You have to pander to Mexican's, support their criminal activity, and pray that you can make them eligible to vote.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I love how you just make shit up when you've been thoroughly defeated with facts. Where did Sun Devil say that "all laws" were "nonsensical"?
> ...


He was laughing at antonnon idiot posts. Do try and keep up sweetie. This is _embarrassing_...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


I'all take that as your admission that I'm right and you're _dead_ wrong. Thank you!


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



In what universe is kidney failure a crime?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> According to you, then, all laws are nonsensical.  Including those resulting from the  Sacred Second?


According to you then - all illegals should be executed or deported and registered Democrats should cover the full cost of both?


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Right about what?  That you believe kidney failure is a crime?  That's the only thing you've consistently claimed in this thread.  Constantly reiterating it doesn't make it any more correct but, hey, go with your strengths.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > According to you, then, all laws are nonsensical.  Including those resulting from the  Sacred Second?
> ...



You've confused me with Sun Devil.  He's the only claiming there are no common sense laws.  Take it up with him.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> In what universe is kidney failure a crime?


In the universe where the person with the kidney problem illegal crossed the border of a nation that they are not a citizen of.

Why do you insist on the childish games and disingenuous positions? You know damn well why she's a criminal. Is it just because you've come to the realization that your position is bat-shit crazy irrational?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Right about what?  That you believe kidney failure is a crime?  That's the only thing you've consistently claimed in this thread.  Constantly reiterating it doesn't make it any more correct but, hey, go with your strengths.


Watching you wave the white flag while proclaiming you've won the war is a _fascinating_ dichotomy.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


He claimed no such thing my dear. Meanwhile, you've claimed that black people aren't capable of being anything than dirty slaves.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > In what universe is kidney failure a crime?
> ...



Well, you go right ahead and Stand Your Ground on that line in the dirt.  The adults will point out that the article you posted was written six years before the implementation of the PPACA.  It's cute how you think it's relevant.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



So you're saying someone hacked his account and posted this?



			
				Sun Devil 92 said:
			
		

> Common Sense Law.....really ?????



That's a pretty serious accusation.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


How is it _not_ relevant?!? Government control of healthcare is the problem - whether it's Medicaid or Obamacare 

You're getting more irrational as we go. I'm actually getting worried about you. Is there someone I can call for you to have them come check on you?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> So you're saying someone hacked his account and posted this?


No - I'm saying you _pretending_ to see something there doesn't actually make it there.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying someone hacked his account and posted this?
> ...



Since neither you nor Sun Devil can explain what "Common Sense Laws?  " means, I'll go with the literal translation.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> How is it _not_ relevant?!? Government control of healthcare is the problem - whether it's Medicaid or Obamacare



Were you complaining about these things prior to January 2009?  Didn't think so.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Since neither you nor Sun Devil can explain what "Common Sense Laws?  " *means*, I'll go with the literal translation.


So let me get this straight - you admit that you *don't* know what it means, so rather than ask for clarification and waiting patiently until you get it, you simply assign your own interpretation to it and pass it off as "fact"?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > How is it _not_ relevant?!? Government control of healthcare is the problem - whether it's Medicaid or Obamacare
> ...


Yes my dear. If you think this is just a "Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office" thing then you are _dead_ wrong.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


My govt. provided healthcare is great! Better than the private healthcare I had for years.....


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 2, 2016)

The ACA, medicare and medicaid is not govt. provided healthcare, since it is private for profit healthcare providers that do the work.................


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> The ACA, medicare and medicaid is not *govt.* *provided* healthcare, since it is private for profit healthcare providers that do the work.................


Reading comprehension.... See the difference between the blue words below (what was actually said) and the red words above (the bizarre interpretation that is the result of you seeing what you _want_ to see)?


P@triot said:


> How is it _not_ relevant?!? *Government control* of healthcare is the problem - whether it's Medicaid or Obamacare


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > The ACA, medicare and medicaid is not *govt.* *provided* healthcare, since it is private for profit healthcare providers that do the work.................
> ...



So, like Sun Devil, you believe there's no such thing in America as "common sense law."  

How soon can we start dismantling the  Sacred Second Amendment?


----------



## Yarddog (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> 
> Thanks Obamacare: This Is What Americans Spent Most Money On In 2015




I pay for my own, it costs me almost 50% of my home mortgage and its still a shitty plan. Still need to pay most of everything out of pocket because its not a premium plan.  I try to go to the doctor as little as possible, just cant afford to go in for things.  I'd be way better off if i didn't have health insurance and just payed completely out of pocket but its the law right?   before Obama care, it actually was pretty affordable


----------



## Yarddog (Aug 2, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...




yeah but somebody else is paying for it disproportionally


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 2, 2016)

Yarddog said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Well it's perk for being a veteran of the US Army...After I got out, during Reagan, he had cut us off, but Dubya came to the rescue in 2004.....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Well it's perk for being a veteran of the US Army...After I got out, during Reagan, he had cut us off, but Dubya came to the rescue in 2004.....


Then your situation doesn't even apply to the discussion. You served in the U.S. military - which means you *earned* your healthcare. And the American people (via the government) owe that to you. But the federal government has no business meddling in healthcare with private citizens. None. It's illegal.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Well it's perk for being a veteran of the US Army...After I got out, during Reagan, he had cut us off, but Dubya came to the rescue in 2004.....
> ...


I don't like them mandating auto insurance either, but........


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


But that's at the state level. Romney implemented a government run healthcare system in Massachusetts and I support that *100%*. It's illegal for the federal government to engage in healthcare.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 2, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > So, like Sun Devil, you believe there's no such thing in America as "common sense law."
> ...



Link?



Yarddog said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> ...



Even through the exchanges?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> The article showcases the disparities between the two states in question.  If North Carolina had covered the costs of anti-rejection medications once Ms. Toribio had her transplant, she would in all likelihood have a functioning kidney and an ability to work and pay taxes for another 35 years until she retired, instead of being constrained by dialysis three times a week and virtually disabled.
> 
> It's a case of "states rights" being more important to the elitist theoreticians (like the ones who consider the Constitution in and of itself more important than the people it was written to serve) than the people who live in those states.


And _this_ article illustrates the pure insanity of your position that I have no right to what is mine, that you are somehow "just" in stealing what belongs to me, and that everything which is mine is somehow public domain for all of society:

The Democrats’ primary practice of redistributing wealth, based on a defunct 16th-century philosophy, is nothing other than theft disguised as “social justice” (*property rights be damned — “the people” are entitled to take what they want from others*). And since Democrats feel entitled to steal property, naturally they feel entitled to steal elections, too, which is why they oppose squelching voter fraud with voter ID laws and favor measures like motor-voter laws that enable illegal aliens to vote.

Election 2016: The Party of Stupid vs. The Party of Evil


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Link?


Or patties?


----------



## Yarddog (Aug 2, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




Oh well, thats all good then.  Veterans are a different category


----------



## Yarddog (Aug 2, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I make too much money to qualify, but not really so much that it's easy to pay the premiums.   Unless there's something i'm missing?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2016)

Yarddog said:


> Oh well, thats all good then.  Veterans are a different category


I'm _disgusted_ and ashamed at how this country treats our veterans. They deserve a 1,000x's the quality and quantity of healthcare that we provide to them.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 3, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > The article showcases the disparities between the two states in question.  If North Carolina had covered the costs of anti-rejection medications once Ms. Toribio had her transplant, she would in all likelihood have a functioning kidney and an ability to work and pay taxes for another 35 years until she retired, instead of being constrained by dialysis three times a week and virtually disabled.
> ...



Which has nothing to do with my actual position, just the one you made up.


----------



## Dekster (Aug 6, 2016)

Yarddog said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Wait....I thought Obama said that we needed Obamacare because the costs of healthcare were just too much???
> ...



 I doubt it would be cheaper.  I just got my EOB today from my recent ER visit.  Billed charges were over $10K.  I have to pay a little over $2K.  The billed charge for the CT was over $6K alone; I have to pay around $900.00 just for that.  On the plus side, I am over my $1500 deductible and well on my way to my $4500 max out of pocket so I am running to the ER every time I sneeze for the rest of the year.  Isn't like it will cost me much more


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 10, 2016)

Dekster said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Well, according to some, you should be filing for bankruptcy.


----------



## Dekster (Aug 10, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> > Yarddog said:
> ...



That would be problematic for me since I own a few houses and make too much to get a subsidy.  I am fairly sure they would laugh me out of the courtroom if I declared bankruptcy over a $2K bill.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 10, 2016)

Dekster said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Dekster said:
> ...



I was being sarcastic....and you probably knew that.

Seems like we should be laughing a lot of medical bankruptcies out of the courtroom.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 10, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> > That would be problematic for me since I own a few houses and make too much to get a subsidy.  I am fairly sure they would laugh me out of the courtroom if I declared bankruptcy over a $2K bill.
> ...


We should be laughing Obamacare and liberals out of the _country_...


----------



## Dekster (Aug 10, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Probably.  In my area at least, it not that common that they sue you if they know you are broke, and even if they do, they don't often try to enforce it.  You get sent to collection; collection does their thing; it eventually gets sold to somebody who buys bad debt for pennies on the dollar hoping to be able to collect more than they spent.  Once it leaves the original provider's hands, I tell people to file a motion asking for all the original documentation and an itemized statement of account.  They tend not to be able to provide that in the time allowed by law and the case gets dropped. 

Even beyond all that, people I know who say it was because of medical bills really did it because of credit card bills and those moes will come after you aggressively.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 10, 2016)

Dekster said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Dekster said:
> ...



Yep,

Often people who don't manage money well who got sick.

And then looked for the dishonorable way out.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 11, 2016)

One of the most catastrophic cluster-fucks in Democrat history...

Next president faces possible ObamaCare meltdown


----------



## Dekster (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> One of the most catastrophic cluster-fucks in Democrat history...
> 
> Next president faces possible ObamaCare meltdown



Interest rates are too low.  The reserves are not paying enough to cover the rise in costs.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 12, 2016)

Dekster said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > One of the most catastrophic cluster-fucks in Democrat history...
> ...



Is this a defense of Obamacare ?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

So much for the false liberal narrative that Obamacare will "reduce" healthcare costs.... 

Because of Obamacare, *young people have seen up to a 44% increase in premiums*.

3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Bad for Millennials


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> So much for the false liberal narrative that Obamacare will "reduce" healthcare costs....
> 
> Because of Obamacare, *young people have seen up to a 44% increase in premiums*.
> 
> 3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Bad for Millennials



Blog.  Thin on facts.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> So much for the false liberal narrative that Obamacare will "reduce" healthcare costs....
> 
> Because of Obamacare, *young people have seen up to a 44% increase in premiums*.
> 
> 3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Bad for Millennials



From your article:

As of March 2015, Obamacare has a net cost of $1.207 trillion over the next 10 years and will add an additional $17 trillion over the next 75 years in unfunded liabilities. Our national debt is over $19 trillion, so how is the United States supposed to pay for this? Oh, that’s right, it will increase taxes on the young people who will continue to pay for Obamacare, as well as the other giant federal entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—for the rest of our lives.

Debt.
Debt.
Debt.

What don't people understand about that.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

Liberalism doing what it does best - inflicting tremendous harm on everything it touches (people, economies, businesses, etc.).

Her Obamacare Plan Could Be $650 a Month.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So much for the false liberal narrative that Obamacare will "reduce" healthcare costs....
> ...


Packed full of *facts* had you actually taken the time to read and then click on the links in the story which were proof of what was stated. The Heritage Foundation specializes in research - *not* _opinion_ pieces. When liberals want to deny reality, they need to be more clever than something this weak.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Then why couldn't you post the facts from the original sources instead of having them premasticated for you by some blogger?



P@triot said:


> Liberalism doing what it does best - inflicting tremendous harm on everything it touches (people, economies, businesses, etc.).
> 
> Her Obamacare Plan Could Be $650 a Month.



"Could" is such a wonderful word - full of possibilities of what _might_ happen but has not yet happened.  Get back to us in 2017 and let us know whether Gavin's wife's policy really did increase by that much, will you?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Packed full of *facts* had you actually taken the time to read and then click on the links in the story which were proof of what was stated. The Heritage Foundation specializes in research - *not* _opinion_ pieces. When liberals want to deny reality, they need to be more clever than something this weak.
> ...



Why? Because you're intellectually lazy? The article not only summarizes everything nicely (for people like you) but then it is FULL of links to everything stated for independent verification (giving people who want to dig deeper the option to do so). In addition, my reasons for posting a particular article are really none of your concern. What should be your concern is not challenging something before you read and understand it. Because you come across looking really dumb when you do that.



Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Liberalism doing what it does best - inflicting tremendous harm on everything it touches (people, economies, businesses, etc.).
> ...



Once again you did not read the article but commented on it anyway. I would highly recommend reading the article (but I'm sure you won't ).


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I just find it amusing how many people here need to have their information spoon-fed to them by bloggers.  Does that augment the truthiness?  Is the perception that bloggers are incapable of spinning or outright lying, but cold hard facts are innately suspect?  Fascinating...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Sorry - but the Heritage Foundation is the single most influential political *think tank* in America. It is not a "blogger". You're trying to spin it as much because you find the facts very inconvenient to the narrative you would like to spin.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



The person who wrote the blog is not an employee of the Heritage Foundation, but a blogger.  He could be anybody.  Are you aware of his credentials?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Funny how Heritage is what gave us Obamacare.......but they are just bloggers.

Well, they didn't give us Obamacare and they are more than bloggers.

However, they do have an agenda and people do need to read their stuff with filters on.


----------



## Arianrhod (Aug 19, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Funny how Heritage is what gave us Obamacare.......but they are just bloggers.



No, the blogger is a blogger.  He is not a member of the Foundation's staff.  What are his credentials?

The filtering is what you guys do when you let a blogger interpret the facts for you.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Liberalism doing what it does best - inflicting tremendous harm on everything it touches (people, economies, businesses, etc.).
> 
> Her Obamacare Plan Could Be $650 a Month.



Probably will be.....

And what about the deductible......

But this isn't liberalism....it is the far left


----------



## Dekster (Aug 23, 2016)

I just got my rate increase letter from my health insurance.  I have a grandfathered policy with no subsidy.  My rate increase starting in a couple months will be 16%.  The last few years it has been closer to 28% a year, so at least they are dialing it in some (or the numbers are getting so big that the percentages seem smaller as the actual dollar amounts rise of the rate increases).


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dekster said:


> I just got my rate increase letter from my health insurance.  I have a grandfathered policy with no subsidy.  My rate increase starting in a couple months will be 16%.  The last few years it has been closer to 28% a year, so at least they are dialing it in some (or the numbers are getting so big that the percentages seem smaller as the actual dollar amounts rise of the rate increases).



And I'll bet you are so happy to be paying into this mess.


----------



## Dekster (Aug 23, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> > I just got my rate increase letter from my health insurance.  I have a grandfathered policy with no subsidy.  My rate increase starting in a couple months will be 16%.  The last few years it has been closer to 28% a year, so at least they are dialing it in some (or the numbers are getting so big that the percentages seem smaller as the actual dollar amounts rise of the rate increases).
> ...



What am I paying into?   My policy is not an exchange policy and I do not get a subsidy.  My yearly increase this year in premiums is more in line with what they were before the exchanges started, so at least going forward from Nov 1, 2016 to October 31 2017, I won't be getting soaked like I have been in recent years.

I did not and do not support the ACA.  I support the idea of extending insurance to those who cannot get it or truly afford it, or, in the alternative devising another method to insure people have access to reasonable healthcare through clinics, etc.  I am open to a lot of things, but repealing the ACA and allowing insurers to compete across state lines won't do a thing to help the uninsured to gain access to healthcare.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 24, 2016)

Dekster said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Dekster said:
> ...



Sorry.....next time, I'll put the words "being sarcastic" next to my post.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 26, 2016)

The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...

Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises


----------



## Arianrhod (Sep 26, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 27, 2016)

Dekster said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Dekster said:
> ...


Medicaid was set up for those who couldn't get a job and employer provided healthcare.  Back when Clinton signed into LAW, the contract with America(that New Gingrich) brought to him, many people got off welfare after 2 years of collecting it and had to work or get an education, because the welfare ended on that 2nd year.  People didn't starve without the welfare and because of Newt, Bill(I did not have sexual relations with that woman while Hillary watched) Clinton got to claim a very good economy.  Many people got employer provided healthcare, costs were down, do to competition and Medicaid for those still unemployed and Medicare for those retired.  But then along came Obummer, Nancy Blinkie Pelosi and Dirty Harry Reid, who behind closed doors and against the will of the people, created a fiasco of a Bill(that had to be passed before we could see what was in that Bill) that you could keep your doctor(if the doctor didn't quit) you could keep your hospital(if the hospital didn't close) and you would save $2,500 on healthcare.  Boy when Jonathan Gruber called liberal voters stupid, that was a gross understatement.  Liberals are moronic for what they have done to the US.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...
> 
> Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises



Dear P@triot
To be fair, I would say the equivalent argument
on the other side is to argue that the cost of
lives and resources on the War in Iraq was
equally if not more disastrous.

Both are argued as unconstitutional if you follow
traditional laws. Both required coloring outside the lines of
the Constitution in order to justify. And both involved
doling out trillions of dollars at taxpayers expense
without guarantee of achieving the goal, but in the
process imposing costs and damages onto people of
both nations. As many conservatives denounced Bush's actions
as unconstitutional as liberals denouncing Obama's; so the dissent
wasn't just partisan opposition, but within the respective parties as well,
criticizing the policies of their own party leaders and officials.

So in comparison of these two contested situations,
it isn't fair to criticize one and not the other.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> > I just got my rate increase letter from my health insurance.  I have a grandfathered policy with no subsidy.  My rate increase starting in a couple months will be 16%.  The last few years it has been closer to 28% a year, so at least they are dialing it in some (or the numbers are getting so big that the percentages seem smaller as the actual dollar amounts rise of the rate increases).
> ...



Dear Sun Devil 92 
Why not require the people who support this plan to pay for it and provide for whoever they want to be covered under it; make it voluntary to opt into if it's so economical and sustainable.

Let the Green Democrats set up coops and singlepayer health care that those supporters opt into to pay for and provide health care for fellow members of that group.

Let the conservatives Republicans and Christians who believe in free market and prolife health care opt into that system and fund the solutions that group believes is most effective for covering for that population.

And let each group decide its own policies, terms and conditions, etc.

That way
* prochoice people can fund that policy and all its costs and consequences
* prolife people can support health care that doesn't involve abortion or abortifacient birth control
* whatever people believe in funding they can exercise freely without requiring the participation of others in opposition
* and other terms and conditions can also be
organized separately by party so people are grouped
by like beliefs:
- those who are for singlepayer and against the death penalty can redirect funding into preventative care, education and effective social services, and away from capital punishment or other abusive prison practices that waste taxpayer money destroying life and mental health instead of helping people with recovery and rehab

- those who believe in spiritual generational healing, as practiced in Christianity to eradicate the root cause of criminal abuse and addiction, can require this of their members in order to afford health care on a sustainable and cost effective basis.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 28, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...
> ...


Back when the US went to war with Iraq, there was a super majority of Senators and Congressmen who voted for the war before a few would of voted against it.  That means 60% or more were in agreement.  With Obummbercare, the Dems behind closed doors just the nuclear option,(thank you Dirty Harry Reid) where only a simple majority, 51% had to get the Bill passed before you saw what was in the Bill.  Once again a liberal has tried to rewrite history, but I wont let that happen as the TRUTH will also expose the lies from the left.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 28, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Dekster said:
> ...


My Christian Care


> *Choice:* Members of Medi-Share have a God-honoring choice for their healthcare, and their dollars will never be used for procedures that go against their conscience.
> 
> *Acceptable:* Although not insurance, Medi-Share members are exempt from the mandate to purchase insurance or face financial penalties.


 You know who wont use this service?  Liberals, who are bigoted towards Christians.  That is who.  But you can bet, that they are trying to figure out how to destroy this system, just like they try to destroy the Christian community.  Such hatred from the liberals, who can be compared to the Roman's persecution of the Christians.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 28, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The worst legislation in U.S. _history_. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...
> ...


That's simply *not* true emilynghiem. The Iraq War was the single _most_ legal/constitutional war in U.S. _history_. The Bush Administration went before Congress as they are constitutionally required to do to declare war and received their approval. That was all they needed - but they didn't even stop there. They then went before the U.N. and ultimately received a UN Security Resolution which grnated them international approval for military action against Iraq.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Dear P@triot:
As many Constitutionalists have argued that UN policies are NOT what the US/Congress/Military are sworn to uphold.

Yes, it can be argued that attacks on the pilots in the nofly zones count as attacks on the US.

But the major justification for military actions targeting Iraq were the UN policies on inspections, where going to war was not necessarily the next step of action in the process. So even by UN process, this leap to war was contested, and there was nothing that said it was necessarily the consequence.*

Now, I happen to agree with you and others that once the decision is made to go to war, the US should follow through until it is completely resolved, or it puts the troops, the nations and security at risk. So I don't believe it is safe to back out once that decision is made, the conflict and division compromises support and endangers the troops and enforcement of security and defense.

However, even though I believe the arguments about WMD were valid, and these chemical weapons were most likely moved into Syria and used later, this was not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty.

So people who don't BELIEVE war was necessary, but BELIEVE diplomatic solutions could be accomplished by connecting DIRECTLY with the Iraqi people and academic leaders and clergy deserved that chance, and are owed restitution for destruction caused by bypassing their right to petition to redress grievances peacefully.

I tend to favor the decision of war once it is made. But I do recognize this decision and its justification as necessary wasn't proven to all citizens, and was faith-based.

So those people who disagree based on their faith in restorative justice to bring peace to avoid war can argue this wasn't fully Constitutional and restitution is owed for damages caused. I agree with that also, as part of the cost of war. I believe taxpayers are owed in the trillions of dollars of military spending on contracts that were contested.
And as much money should be invested as restitution to rebuild the health care systems in Iraq and reform the VA system for Vets who suffered intolerable damages from the war.

==========

* Note: this confusion over using either UN process or US policy to justify going to war, where people basically cite a mix of both policies together, is similar to arguments to justify passing ACA/Obamacare as Constitutional by first passing it through Congress as a public health bill, then approving it through Court as a tax.  Had it been presented to Congress as a tax bill to begin with, it never would have passed; likewise, the argument against going to war with Iraq were that it would not have passed through Congress without the WMD claims later contested as faith based and thus rejected by people who required strong proof/confirmation before agreeing to go to war.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 28, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Dear andaronjim
While there are SOME atheists who are proactively Anti-Theist and Anti-Christian, and are deliberately targeting Christians and churches, most people have their own problems to deal with and don't have time or energy to go after Christian churches and leaders.

Most people just want their rights protected, and don't want this religious interference with govt to mess up the laws.

There are lots of people who may personally hate and reject Christians and Christianity, but for the most part, they only care when it comes to govt and public policies, like abortion and schools.  They will target those legal and legislative issues and attack Christians and Conservatives who propose challenges or reforms.

Where I might agree with you:
the secular liberals who reject Christianity to the point of DENYING the access and knowledge of spiritual healing is causing harm to people and running up costs of health care, disease, and crime especially abuse and addiction. These ills can be cured by spiritual healing, and save lives and resources to cover health care for the greater population.

so it is selfish to keep discrediting and rejecting Christianity, when it has the solution to health care by reforming prisons and mental health systems to save resources that could pay for medical education, services and housing on a sustainable basis instead of overfilling prisons and mental health facilities without curing anyone.

However, this is unintentional.
Both Christians and nonchristians who don't know that spiritual healing has been proven
effective and consistent with science and medicine are UNWITTINGLY blocking this knowledge and help from people whose lives, minds, health and relations could be saved from destruction.

So indirectly and unintentionally,
yes, the rejection of Christian practice
in terms of spiritual healing, is causing
death and destruction. And people don't even know it and that's why it is happening.

People lose their lives, minds and health every day to disease, crime, abuse and addiction,
homicide and suicide, that have been shown to be cured by applying Spiritual Healing to diagnose, remove and cure the generational sources of these ills.

Instead of investing millions into researching marijuana, which only placates symptoms and doesn't cure the disease, we should at least invest matching funds into spiritual healing that has been studied as curing a wide range of physical, mental and social ills.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 28, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> As many Constitutionalists have argued that UN policies are NOT what the US/Congress/Military are sworn to uphold.


Emily - as I previously stated - Bush went before the *United States Congress* *first* and received their approval. You are conveniently omitting that in this instance.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 28, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> So people who don't BELIEVE war was necessary, but BELIEVE diplomatic solutions could be accomplished by connecting DIRECTLY with the Iraqi people and academic leaders and clergy deserved that chance, and are owed restitution for destruction caused by bypassing their right to petition to redress grievances peacefully.


Are you suffering from temporary insanity?!? 

There is no "peacefully petitioning" a certified mad-man like Saddam Hussein. Don't you think the Iraqi people would have done that 35 years ago if that were even remotely an option? Do you even realize that Iraq was a full-fledged Democracy up until the late 1970's when Saddam assumed power through a military coup?

What you're doing here is rewriting the Iraqi history of the Saddam Hussein years (whether intentionally or unintentionally). There was no utopia Republic under Saddam Hussein. There weren't appellate courts, 1st Amendment rights, or a Senate to balance power. It was a vicious dictatorship and that was it. Nothing else. What Saddam said, when Saddam said it, or you died. Hell, even if you did exactly what Saddam said but he didn't like your performance, you were horrifically tortured. The torture that their Olympic athletes were subjected to for losing is legendary.

Nations whose Olympic athletes are tortured for losing are not afforded a "right to petition". Surely you know that already.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > As many Constitutionalists have argued that UN policies are NOT what the US/Congress/Military are sworn to uphold.
> ...



Uh...this is about skyrocketting health care prices.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 27, 2016)




----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Nov 1, 2016)

And we have individual members saying that they are seeing 100% plus increases.


----------

