It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[Wildman]

...successful Democratic policies!

there are some??

 

[P@triot]

You can post a radical left-wing article celebrating tens of thousands of people all you want.

Yeah, the New York Times is a bunch of radicals.

You're delusional, dude. Must be from the Right-Wing brainwashing you lap up daily from conservative media.

Do you notice that we started very amiable but the longer this goes with me providing indisputable facts, links to articles, etc. the angrier you are getting?

You don't want to see the truth. All you want is ideological comfort food that supports what you were trained to believe.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again you prove leftists don't know how shit works

I'd just like to say fuck you.

 

[P@triot]

So the real question is - why does the government, engaging in highly illegal activity - get a pass from you?

Name the illegality. And STFU about how you know the law better than SCOTUS.

I already did, but I'm more than happy to do it again. Here you go...

It doesn't matter that a Supreme Court stacked with political activist instead of justices ruled it "constitutional". One only read the U.S. Constitution to comprehend two things:

1. The federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers. Healthcare is not one of those powers. Cut & Dry. Black & White. So simple, only a liberal could be confused by it.
2. The federal government has zero authority in the U.S. Constitution to force the American people to purchase a good or service. That power simply does not exist.

Nobody can deny #1 or #2 above. Not you. Not Obama. Those are the cold hard facts - and they are indisputable. And then there is this little gem: Barack Obama insisted over and over and over in front of the American people that this was not a tax. When the bill was challenged before the Supreme Court, both #1 and #2 above were the arguments for why this was unconstitutional. So what did Barack Obama and his administration do? They then reversed course and said "wait...this is a tax...and the Constitution grants us the power to lay and collect taxes". So Obama either egregiously lied to the American people over and over and over, or he committed perjury before the Supreme Court by lying to them. But wait! It gets better! (I feel like an infomercial). Even if this was a "tax" (and it's not - that is the most absurd argument ever put before the American people as a tax is something used to finance the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government - a tax is not a new regulation and unconstitutional power) - all revenue bills must be generated by the House of Representatives per the U.S. Constitution. But the Obamacare bill which ultimately passed and was signed into law was generated in the Senate. So no matter how many lies Obama comes up with, it is still the most illegal, unconstitutional legislation ever created in U.S. history.

You do realize that every time you point to the Supreme Court ruling you are simply proving just how illegal this bill was, don't you?

 

[Synthaholic]

And this will be your response when Louis Gommert is running for his 10th term, too.

To be honest - I highly doubt they will have it cleaned up by his 10th term. But if they do, my response will be dependent upon his performance.

If he has $10 million in his bank account and is violating the U.S. Constitution daily - just like Nancy Pelosi - I will consider him a typical dirt-bag politician who should not have become a career politician. If, however, he is a man of modest means who is upholding the U.S. Constitution as his oath requires him to, I will respect and praise him.

What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?

Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".

Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.

Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.

It is a socialist unconstitutional scam

.

You just hate successful Democratic policies!

NYT: Immigrants And Low Wage Workers Benefiting The Most From Obamacare

Immigrants -- and specifically, Hispanic immigrants -- are among those benefiting the most from Obamacare, a New York Times analysis published Sunday said. The Times' report on the first full year of Affordable Care Act implementation found that low-wage workers also saw their uninsured rates decrease sharply, as did part-time workers and those with only high school degrees.

"The analysis shows how the law lifted some of the most vulnerable citizens," the Times reported.

I'll see your article Syn and raise you one more centered in reality and in the number of people negatively impacted by Obamacare as opposed to the extreme minority positively impacted by it...

Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable

^^^ Corporate tool.

 

[P@triot]

Again you prove leftists don't know how shit works

I'd just like to say fuck you.

My dad always had a great saying Syn:

"If everyone in the room is an asshole....maybe it's you"

You're angry, you're finishing posts with "STFU", you're swearing. And literally nobody here agrees with you (at least over the past 20 pages or so). Nobody.

If you're this angry when faced with reality, why do you come here? Why not do something more constructive with your time that is more relaxing for you? After all, you have no desire to learn anything. You deny reality and refuse to accept it. Just spend your time reading Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. You'll be happy being filled with failed ideas and you'll live longer because of it.

 

[P@triot]

To be honest - I highly doubt they will have it cleaned up by his 10th term. But if they do, my response will be dependent upon his performance.

If he has $10 million in his bank account and is violating the U.S. Constitution daily - just like Nancy Pelosi - I will consider him a typical dirt-bag politician who should not have become a career politician. If, however, he is a man of modest means who is upholding the U.S. Constitution as his oath requires him to, I will respect and praise him.

What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?

Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".

Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.

Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.

It is a socialist unconstitutional scam

.

You just hate successful Democratic policies!

NYT: Immigrants And Low Wage Workers Benefiting The Most From Obamacare

Immigrants -- and specifically, Hispanic immigrants -- are among those benefiting the most from Obamacare, a New York Times analysis published Sunday said. The Times' report on the first full year of Affordable Care Act implementation found that low-wage workers also saw their uninsured rates decrease sharply, as did part-time workers and those with only high school degrees.

"The analysis shows how the law lifted some of the most vulnerable citizens," the Times reported.

I'll see your article Syn and raise you one more centered in reality and in the number of people negatively impacted by Obamacare as opposed to the extreme minority positively impacted by it...

Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable

^^^ Corporate tool.

Boy...you're last few posts sure have added a lot of value to this thread. Typical liberal - making zero contributions to a community.

 

[Contumacious]

Well duh....they aren't done cleaning it up yet.

And this will be your response when Louis Gommert is running for his 10th term, too.

To be honest - I highly doubt they will have it cleaned up by his 10th term. But if they do, my response will be dependent upon his performance.

If he has $10 million in his bank account and is violating the U.S. Constitution daily - just like Nancy Pelosi - I will consider him a typical dirt-bag politician who should not have become a career politician. If, however, he is a man of modest means who is upholding the U.S. Constitution as his oath requires him to, I will respect and praise him.

What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?

Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".

Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.

Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.

It is a socialist unconstitutional scam

.

You just hate successful Democratic policies!

NYT: Immigrants And Low Wage Workers Benefiting The Most From Obamacare

Immigrants -- and specifically, Hispanic immigrants -- are among those benefiting the most from Obamacare, a New York Times analysis published Sunday said. The Times' report on the first full year of Affordable Care Act implementation found that low-wage workers also saw their uninsured rates decrease sharply, as did part-time workers and those with only high school degrees.

"The analysis shows how the law lifted some of the most vulnerable citizens," the Times reported.

I see , so If benefit from a CRIMINAL ACT then it is not a criminal act?


There is no specifically enumerated power authorizing fegov to operate an insurance scheme.

Furthermore , Here you have a scam adopted at 2 AM on a snowy Xmas eve , in a SECRET senate session where Harry Reid (D-USSR) manipulated the rules so as to prevent Republicans from objecting and where a 2000 pages bill is approved even though no one read the motherfucking thing.


.

 

[Synthaholic]

the next ideal situation would be to have a Supreme Court filled with true justices (such as Antonin Scalia)

Scalia was an activist Justice, creating laws from the bench and putting his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh please...that is the exact opposite of reality and you know it. Antonin Scalia was the one Supreme Court justice who actually acted like a true justice. He put his own opinions aside and objectively accepted the U.S. Constitution for exactly how it was written. He is forever the shining example of exactly what a justice was intended to be.

By the way, vintage example of the modern day "bleeding heart liberal" there - celebrating the death of a good and decent man.

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

 

[Contumacious]

the next ideal situation would be to have a Supreme Court filled with true justices (such as Antonin Scalia)

Scalia was an activist Justice, creating laws from the bench and putting his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh please...that is the exact opposite of reality and you know it. Antonin Scalia was the one Supreme Court justice who actually acted like a true justice. He put his own opinions aside and objectively accepted the U.S. Constitution for exactly how it was written. He is forever the shining example of exactly what a justice was intended to be.

By the way, vintage example of the modern day "bleeding heart liberal" there - celebrating the death of a good and decent man.

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

Unfortunately, he was instrumental in protecting our right to bear arms.

So , would you be happy with a nice justice who is personally a great person who votes against our right to bear arms?


.

 

[Synthaholic]

It was the Obamacare mandates that caused the prices to go up. That's a simple fact.

It's not a fact, and there is no way you can prove that it is. And a bigger pool of insured should result in lower prices, but the companies decided to jack the rates.

It doesn't matter the pool size when government is removing free-market competition! The mandates on what a policy must include and offer cause prices to skyrocket.

No competition has been removed. Blue Cross can compete for insurers just like Aetna or Cigna or any other insurer.

The mandates include:

1. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
2. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages
4. Blood pressure screening
5. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7. Depression screening
8. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8% or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for everyone born 1945 – 1965
12. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk
13. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
    
    • Diphtheria
    • Hepatitis A
    • Hepatitis B
    • Herpes Zoster
    • Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
    • Influenza (flu shot)
    • Measles
    • Meningococcal
    • Mumps
    • Pertussis
    • Pneumococcal
    • Rubella
    • Tetanus
    • Varicella (Chickenpox)
14. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15. Obesity screening and counseling
16. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
17. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users

Now, are you going to try to tell me that catching diseases and other issues before they become life-threatening costs insurers more than what they would have to pay were these not caught and treated early?

If so, you're just a dumbass who I'm wasting my time with.

 

[Synthaholic]

That's why millions of policies were cancelled.

Why were policies cancelled instead of addended/modified to comply? Multiple times a year I get a notice from a credit card company telling me my terms of service have changed, and I can accept the changes or cancel my card. Insurers could have done the same thing.

No - they couldn't. A credit card doesn't charge you - they charge the business that you purchase goods and services from. And you may not use the credit card for weeks or months.

But that's not the case with insurance. It's a constant cost which cannot be skipped. And...the policies were not "addended/modified" because that was not an option with Obamacare. The regulations required services and coverage far beyond what the previous pricing structure could support.

It's still basically a contract, whether it's a credit card company or an insurer: we will offer you these services and here are our terms, which we can amend and change at any time. We'll give you notice, and you can stay or go.

Insurers could have just modified the policies instead of cancelling them.

Tell me why they couldn't do that.

And BTW: credit cards don't charge you? Are you serious? Does your card have a 0% interest rate?

 

[Synthaholic]

The proof is that it costs everyone more now for their coverage than it did before Obamacare.

That's false, as I've just posted the article again.

And Obamacare doesn't set the cost - insurance companies do.

Obamacare absolutely sets the costs by its mandates. Stop being a naive minion to the government.

False. Government set the mandates, insurers set the cost.

Now show me how those mandates forced insurers to raise their prices.

Gladly.... (how long are you going to deny reality Syn?)

The largest health insurer in the country is bailing on Obamacare

Almost certainly because they aren't making enough profits to keep their executives in Gulfstream jets.

 

[Contumacious]

It was the Obamacare mandates that caused the prices to go up. That's a simple fact.

It's not a fact, and there is no way you can prove that it is. And a bigger pool of insured should result in lower prices, but the companies decided to jack the rates.

It doesn't matter the pool size when government is removing free-market competition! The mandates on what a policy must include and offer cause prices to skyrocket.

No competition has been removed. Blue Cross can compete for insurers just like Aetna or Cigna or any other insurer.

The mandates include:

1. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
2. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages
4. Blood pressure screening
5. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7. Depression screening
8. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8% or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for everyone born 1945 – 1965
12. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk
13. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
    • Diphtheria
    • Hepatitis A
    • Hepatitis B
    • Herpes Zoster
    • Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
    • Influenza (flu shot)
    • Measles
    • Meningococcal
    • Mumps
    • Pertussis
    • Pneumococcal
    • Rubella
    • Tetanus
    • Varicella (Chickenpox)
14. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15. Obesity screening and counseling
16. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
17. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users

Now, are you going to try to tell me that catching diseases and other issues before they become life-threatening costs insurers more than what they would have to pay were these not caught and treated early?

If so, you're just a dumbass who I'm wasting my time with.

 

[Synthaholic]

You can post a radical left-wing article celebrating tens of thousands of people all you want.

Yeah, the New York Times is a bunch of radicals.

You're delusional, dude. Must be from the Right-Wing brainwashing you lap up daily from conservative media.

Do you notice that we started very amiable but the longer this goes with me providing indisputable facts, links to articles, etc. the angrier you are getting?

You don't want to see the truth. All you want is ideological comfort food that supports what you were trained to believe.

No, you just keep spewing Right-Wing talking points and spending your time in this thread on your knees to corporate America.

You believe ever corporate word. If they say they are raising prices due to Obamacare instead of confessing wanting to maintain obscene profits, you eat it up and spit it out again in this thread.

 

[Contumacious]

You can post a radical left-wing article celebrating tens of thousands of people all you want.

Yeah, the New York Times is a bunch of radicals.

You're delusional, dude. Must be from the Right-Wing brainwashing you lap up daily from conservative media.

Do you notice that we started very amiable but the longer this goes with me providing indisputable facts, links to articles, etc. the angrier you are getting?

You don't want to see the truth. All you want is ideological comfort food that supports what you were trained to believe.

No, you just keep spewing Right-Wing talking points and spending your time in this thread on your knees to corporate America.

You believe ever corporate word. If they say they are raising prices due to Obamacare instead of confessing wanting to maintain obscene profits, you eat it up and spit it out again in this thread.

.

 

[Synthaholic]

It doesn't matter that a Supreme Court stacked with political activist instead of justices ruled it "constitutional".

This is why it's fruitless to discuss this with you - you're delusional. The court has Justices confirmed from Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Yet you think they're all "political activists".

Get help.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

That's not entirely accurate. We have a representative democracy which in part protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Recall, Gore had more votes than Bush.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're angry, you're finishing posts with "STFU", you're swearing. And literally nobody here agrees with you (at least over the past 20 pages or so). Nobody.

I'm not angry. I just recognize that FLACALTENN is a moron.

Just because they aren't posting doesn't mean they don't agree with me. More likely, they realize that I'm kicking your butt without needing any assistance.

 

[Contumacious]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

That's not entirely accurate. We have a representative democracy which in part protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Recall, Gore had more votes than Bush.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally

Do that means that Libertarians - a 3% minority ------does not have to pay or abide by

the "income" tax

the social security tax

Obama Hellcare

TSA

support the welfare/warfare police state?

......ad nauseam