...President Obama not violated the law and changed a few statutory deadlines or extended subsidies to the federal exchange.
ObamaCare fines loom for uninsured
$325.00 per adult or 2% of income -- whichever is more. For a single person, the break even income is $16,250, for couples, it's $32,500. Anything above that and your fine, tax, fine, tax, fine, tax goes up.
As it stands, the House of Representatives has the largest Republican majority in 82 years and the Senate back under their control.
I had forgot what a bag spammer you were. I give it to you for generaly getting participation ( this thread an obvious exception), but I swear you take a Cleveland steamer on your chest in 80 to 90 percent of the threads you participate in. Can you point me to a thread where you think you made salient points and "won" am argument. Honestly, since you've been back, it's pretty much been one loss after another...
I make salient points in all my threads.
Take this one for instance; if Obama hadn't arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the Affordable Care Act, with respect to some deadlines and the subsidizing of the federal exchange, I believe the Democrat bloodbath at the mid-term election would have been much worse. Disagree?
Then there are the torture threads.
I contend reasonable people can disagree over the topic; about half the country believes the enhanced interrogation techniques were justified and that they produced actionable intelligence. The other half is split between those who think they weren't or that don't know what they think. I agree with the those who believe they were justified and effective. What I'm finding in here is that it's not enough for people to disagree with the position, they have to make anyone who holds it out to be Satan.
It just goes to the old adage that those on the Right can believe those on the Left of an issue are simply wrong while those on the Left believe those on the Right are evil.
There's another salient point for you.
Then there's Mic e Obama's fabricated racism.
The salient point there is that racism must me so rare anymore that blacks have to make up in order for the narrative to stay alive so people like Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson can stay employed -- although, it appears Al Sharpton has trouble balancing his checkbook.
That's the salient point from that thread.
And, it's not about winning arguments in here. There's little chance anyone wins an argument in here. It's about spurring participation which, you concede, I've done.
I will, however, admit I'm wrong when I make a mistake. Not something many others in here will do.
I admitted it was premature for me to post the irony thread about the death of David Ruenzel.
I admitted to ElNono that he was right and I was wrong about how the immigration issue came up at a criminal trial.
And, those just happened in the past couple of days.
Which races specifically would have been altered by Barry not making procedural changes to the ACA? Prove or at least explain your contention. Without that, it's smoke out of your ass, not a salient point.
I've never heard the term, "Cleveland steamer." To what does it refer?
You're like ing Chump; a pedantic ankle-biter. I don't know why I bothered trying to engage you reasonably.
The ing thread le says, "I WONDER..." Jeeze.
It's not like I've got the time research every ing conversation that takes place in here. It's enough for me to know there was considerable anger over the ACA that many believe had an impact on races across the country. I simply wondered, WONDERED, what might have been different if people had been paying fines since last January and if they weren't having their premiums subsidized out of my pocket. That's all. It was a conversation starter.
That's not represented in your interactions on this board. You've actually suggested ElNono stands with terrorists because he doesn't agree with your position. You've been harping on the polls, insisting you're not in the minority.
You are not a reasonable person and you clearly don't believe reasonable people can disagree over what cons utes torture.
The statement I quoted above is nothing short of a lie from the pit of .
Someone taking a on your chest
You think a ing $300 tax was going to sway an election? That's a ridiculous assertion.
That was after a long thread of people pretty much (maybe ElNono, maybe not -- I really don't pay attention to personalities in here, just posts) contending the Bush administration tortured for the fun of it and are a bunch of evil criminals. No one is even willing to entertain the idea that, even if you disagree with their actions, they may have had noble intentions. So, yeah, I flipped it.
The two polls I've referenced in here are recent and suggest more than 50% of the American Public believe what the administration did was warranted, justified and effective. Heck, even a few of those that didn't agree it was warrant or justified believe it was effective.
Well, it's hard to be a reasonable person agreeing with unreasonable people. Both sides have to be reasonable for that to work. I can't even get anyone to examine the particular techniques and why the administration believes they were able to design them where they stopped short of torture. No, all you get in here is the Japanese and a couple of American GIs in Vietnam were convicted of war crimes and/or executed for the same thing when, that demonstrably untrue.
? I rest my case.
I simply think you're wrong whereas, you believe I speak from .
Ah, had never heard that one.
$325.00 is a bunch of money for someone making just over $16K a year. Then, when you get to the lower middle class incomes, the fine escalates. So, yes, I do think it would be a big deal. I believe Obama thought it would be a big deal or he wouldn't have moved the date.
lol "I wonder"
See what I mean, Th'Pusher?
I see what Th'Pusher means.
You're pathetic.
Straight from your email list to this board. Do you get paid per thread?
Says he with 88,253 posts -- 99.9% of which are comprised of insults, nonsensical question, and stupid demands to be personally satisfied by another poster. You should look back at your posting history; you have rarely, if ever, advanced an idea -- you simply attack others over their's.
These aren't your ideas.
You're right; while I've shared my opinions, I generally pull the thread topics from events that have taken place somewhere other than in my presence so, technically, they're not my ideas. Perhaps I should have taken a different approach. You simply attack posters over what they post. I'm sure you'll think of some way to run that in a circle, as well.
I have no idea what you think on anything -- except that you have a obsession over trying to talk posters in circles. You rarely try to advance a position yourself.
There was a time when you and boutons were the fringe and there were plenty of other posters that would engage in a thread. But, those days are gone, I suppose.
I suspect I'll give the forum back you to and boutons as soon as it's no longer entertaining again.
Thanks.
I advance plenty of positions. I just think challenging those of others is OK.
There are other old dudes who don't like it. That's fine. I eased up on them too.
But, you don't challenge, you harangue.
What do you think about Obama changing statute by moving deadlines and adding subsidies that did not exist?
Do you really believe there is no difference between the torture called waterboarding, practiced by the Japanese and, I guess, a couple of GIs during Vietnam, and the enhanced interrogation technique called waterboarding? None? do you even know what rules were put in place to ensure the 2002 incarnation didn't cross over into torture?
Do you believe Barack and Mic e Obama seriously experienced racism after hearing the examples forwarded in that People Magazine piece?
Instead of attacking me for posting them, explain why you think I'm wrong. Just saying I'm wrong isn't an argument.
I'm sorry, I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
No big deal.
All done just to give the veneer of legality.Do you really believe there is no difference between the torture called waterboarding, practiced by the Japanese and, I guess, a couple of GIs during Vietnam, and the enhanced interrogation technique called waterboarding? None? do you even know what rules were put in place to ensure the 2002 incarnation didn't cross over into torture?
Still torture.
Don't care. I expressed my surprise at how serious you were about it.Do you believe Barack and Mic e Obama seriously experienced racism after hearing the examples forwarded in that People Magazine piece?
Great.I'm sorry, I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
So, you'd be fine if any President decided to to just rewrite the law?
So, why hasn't there been a court decide what they did was illegal?
Why did the Department of Justice decline to prosecute anyone?
How is it torture? When the Department of Justice says the techniques, while harsh, won't be torture if conducted as designed and when no legal proceeding has actually found the techniques to be torture, how can you claim they are torture. What do you know that Eric Holder and every other en y that looked into the matter doesn't know?
You don't think racism is an issue? You don't think an African American President and his wife making up stories or misrepresenting stories as being personal experiences with racism is a big deal? Race issues are consuming the country right now and it's no big deal to you?
I'm sorry, I guess I should have asked. What did you mean?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
