OCinBuffalo

Winning requires an argument. You don't have one, as I clearly stated above. Come back when you do. Here's some help: ar·gu·ment  /ˈɑrgyəmənt/ Show Spelled[ahr-gyuh-muhnt] 3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument. 4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory. Either definition will suffice.

Scathing comeback...and to think, I am dealing with a professional media person here, and a liberal, so by definition, someone much smarter than myself...however will I survive?

Do you really expect me to believe that you still don't "perceive the nuance" here? The whole point, idiot, is that being born is not the same as buying something...and you are making this about: worth? Clearly one is worth more than the other.... ....so how does that make your point that health insurance = car insurance? When by your own admission here: one is not the same as the other? Aren't you in college? How do you pass anything? Oh, wait, I remember, we stole all the tests too, dude...

Looks like you need wawrow to help you "perceive nuance" a little better huh? Apparently you can't tell the difference between being born a citizen of the United States(or soon, being an illegal alien and getting amnesty) Hint: involuntary and buying a car. Hint: voluntary I will leave you to ponder....

It is exactly as necessary as: Continuing to post in your own thread, and then scoffing at how many pages long it is... or, Continuing to talk about other people not being able to "perceive nuance" and then not being able to tell the difference between one and many

I agree with the helping others part to the point that I teach it. Nobody in a crew of mine leaves until everybody's work is done. But, what about the "holding up your end first" part? Who do we go see when our money/time gets wasted on some half-ass who does nothing with the benefit we have provided? How about this as a compromise: If you take subsidized health care from the government, and are willing to give up your self respect, then lets take this the whole way: the government gets to control what you eat, whether you smoke, no drugs, 1 glass of wine a day, have to exercise at the government gym, etc. If you pay for your own insurance, you get to do whatever you want, including drugs->everything is legal for you, booze, Vegas, Bills Tailgates, 10 bic macs a week, whatever. If we are going to "invest" in the health care of people, then as "owners" we should be able to have a board meeting and elect officers who will oversee the careful management of our investment. That's not selfish, that simply sound "asset" management. Hey, you are the one who keeps saying that we need to help these folks, I am merely saying that we "help" them as much as possible.

It's a tough burden to bear, I agree. But, look at it this way: you could be in the Wrong Club.... conner as Pres. and Archbishop of Science Molson_Golden as honorary Pres. PastaJoe as Vice President, and the "Brains" of the Operation wawrow as Secretary and Intelligence Testing Officer blzurl as "We have to look after the poor, as long as they don't get their filth on us or our sedan" Treasurer RI as Chief "Get off my lawn, LBJ was a great President, You don't know anything about the Navy! ...and now can I please tell you?" guy Big Cat as Entitlement Receiving Officer and Mascot of the Club, as they affectionately call him, "HandOut" Booster as Assistant "LAMP" guy(and in few months he'll make Lamp Guy Manager, and that's when the big attention starts rolling in) and Chief Post Chaser EII as "I don't have a clue dude, I live in a van down by the lake, and dammit, it all comes down to Lake Michigan!" guy and last and least, Bad Lietenant, "Dude, I just mop up at night" guy or part-time Club Janitor, or "Whatever, just make sure you leave me enough money for pizza" guy.

Yes, the litany of economic and policy issues I have with this....are because I am a racist, and have nothing to do with the fact that I now know the health care industry well enough to get paid to advise it. Yes, I am NOT arguing increasing demand, while either holding supply(Docs and Nurses) constant or, due to cutting reimbursement, reducing supply, drives prices higher(you know, basic economics...that apparently you never took?), which means schit COSTS MORE, and SCHIT COSTING MORE does not "reduce the cost of healthcare". Nope. Nah...I am saying that the black man doesn't know how to take care of himself, and that guaranteeing him his civil rights will only exacerbate the problem by taking away the structure that is currently being provided, that he is dependent upon, and without which his existence will be significantly worse(you know, the argument that is the history of the Southern Democrat ...that apparently you never took?). ....wait a minute, PastaIdiot is right, those are the EXACT SAME arguments. And, here, all this time I thought I was making a rational macro-economic case....nah, turns out, I'm just a racist!

As I said in another thread, and it definitely bears repeating, it's nice to see such a high value being placed on self respect and personal achievement. Perhaps those words don't have any meaning for some?

Just a quick point of order: Milf stand for Mother I'd LIKE to.... Not Mother there's no way in hell, even if it meant the health care bill failed, I'd....

Hehe....more than you can possibly comprehend. You'll forgive me if I don't explain further. I fear my time will be wasted explaining it to you. Feel free to "test" me though ...that's worked out so well for others of your kind here. We had so much fun with wawrow and RI, might as well continue with the rest of the retard parade. And, it's nice to see that you still have that hook, planted firmly in your lip. Hysterical actually. You might want to go get that checked out. Now that you are getting "free" health care courtesy of your neighbors, you might as well take advantage....of us. After all, what use is self respect and personal achievement when you can just vote yourself "equal" to others?

But, if the government is INSERTING ITSELF into the agreement, by requiring a purchase, instead of what it does now, only talk about the terms of that purchase, doesn't that mean we can sue them? They can't have it both ways, either they stay out of the fray, and retain their immunity, and supposedly, their objectivity as "regulators", or, they are now involved on the side of the sellers, by compelling the buyers to buy, based on nothing other than the buyers being born in this country, and they lose the ability to regulate. (This is not the same as car insurance, you don't have to buy a car). If nothing else, can't we sue to take away their ability to regulate any business in which they are actively participating? How can you require public firms to be audited by a 3rd party, but, let the government audit itself, and, compete with those public firms in the same industry?

But...but...but... (haven't seen that in a while so I thought I would haul it out) What about suing the government if the health care they forced me to buy doesn't do the job? What if I could only afford one plan, and, since I had to buy something, isn't the government now liable for damages if that insurance doesn't cover me properly/tries to screw me out of a claim? And, last time I checked: the word regulate requires commerce to exist, so it can be: regulated. It is not the originator of that commerce. The clause appears to mean: commerce that would otherwise exist without regulation, not, commerce becoming compulsory as a result of regulation. Seems like we are talking about 2 different things.

Oops, look who showed up!..asking us another retarded question. Yes, fine analogy there. Too bad it's not even close. The last Tea Party people I actually paid attention to were black....but they must be Uncle Toms right tool? Yes, they are racists, and therefore hate themselves. Nah, they can't have rational concerns about serious economic/foreign policy mistakes by Obama....because...they're black, and black people don't have their own thoughts, their thoughts are dictated by Bad Lieutenant. This is because, as we all know: 1. black people can't think for themselves, therefore 2. they need white liberals to do it for them, since 3. white liberals aren't: racist

Yes, RI, you have shown us so much courage by "daring" to ask a question whose premise is either false, or near pointless(um, it was one(1) guy). Why does: "So courageous"! (South Park) come to mind, I wonder? Does RI = Mr. Hand, or, the sycophantic audience in that episode? Or, has he found a retard "middle path" that allows him to be both at the same time? Hmm. That makes the second time in 7 days we have been "tested" by f'ing retards. First wawrow and now this tool. It's hysterical that in both cases, their attempt at positing themselves as "judges of intelligence" only served to expose their intellectual weakness. If only we can get Bad Lieutenant, conner, etc. to try and do some "testing" on us...why not? Make it a retard parade!

This thread is the purest form of stupidity I have ever seen. But, RI won't get to see this response, so... ...don't you guys love it as he tried to blow by Chef's post? With a quote we are told to think about? How does that address the point? For those of you that missed it: He agrees that only 1 person said something racist, but, starts a thread about "The Movement"? Perhaps RI should follow his own advice: more thinking before more posting.

I'm no lawyer. Clearly. But, I never thought the Court would rule against the ALGORE, Inc. recount either. That went right down party lines. Given the fact that for the first time in history we are being told we HAVE to buy something, the mere unprecedented nature of this law makes me wonder why they wouldn't do it again. This is not regulating commerce. By definition, it is REQUIRING it. I have a question as well(obviously I do know contract law): Commerce is normally defined as having a buyer and a seller, with the regulator as a third party, taking neither side. So, with the government now participating in the transaction, by requiring it, doesn't that change the game? If you force me to buy something, and that something doesn't deliver per the terms of the contract, aren't you liable for forcing me to buy it? So, in essence, can we now sue the Feds for insurance issues?....And, I thought we weren't allowed to sue the Feds??? So, how does this square? Not sure if any of that goes anywhere, but hey, looks like the trial lawyers get to bill even MORE hours...thus, adding even MORE valueless cost to health care. Great plan!

Perhaps. But, if these are the "rules" they want to play by, I don't want to hear any bitching when those same "rules" are used against them.

...but, at the same time, they are saying that there's no way they will lose the House/Senate in November? Which is it? Essentially we are being "lamed ducked" into a terrible health care bill that wastes a whole lot of $$ and only fixes about 20% of the problem. Great. This is indefensible. Thank God we have 37 states passing/have already passed laws to block this. Take it to the Supreme Court, get a 5-4 vote if that's what it takes and throw this thing out with the trash.

Current count is 211-220 against. TheHill.com has 37 likely "no"s. That means it doesn't go. 37 Defections is the "no" magic number. They say they are going to have a vote on Sunday. But, now, the news is also saying that even if there is a vote on Sunday, that the Senate will want to make changes...so no way it passes even if it does pass the House on Sunday. Right now? This looks less and less likely to be resolved soon. In fact, if they still don't have a vote by Sunday, the ass may fall right out of this thing. Hooray! Then, perhaps, they will start all over and do it right this time, and start focusing on real cost cutting, not this phony crap.

In case anybody needs reminding: The Fox News/Obama war So....given that....WTF? Nice to see Obama stand up for his principles huh? Where are the Fox bashers? DC_Tom? How can this be? How dare Obama show up and legitimize Fox? (as if they needed it given their ratings) This is so pathetic, its funny. How much $$ would you pay to hear what the conversation before the decision was made? But, I am sure we will be told this is a "shrewd" move...and shows Obama's willingness to reach out to the "other side". Ask yourself: which votes are we talking about them not having? Republican or Democrat?

Ohhhh, I thought you were going to show how to make something new in paper mache.

Of course! You can't argue with what I said because, it's logically sound, so, out comes the name calling. You and RI Bills fan should start a thread and see which of you is the better name caller.

Hehe....probably true...after all, it's a matter of fact now that the KGB infiltrated many liberal groups, and influenced many of them, but also was influenced by them. This is where the ass falls out of the whole "we elected an actor? are you serious?" argument. Reagan was in radio before he became an actor, and, Reagan was the head of the SAG for a long time. As such, he learned all about how the media works. Clearly he kept setting up situations/questions he would be asked where he could deliver one devastating one-liner after the next. One of my all time favorites: "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Oh sorry, I used an emoticon. Believe it or not, my emoticon usage is directly due to the fact that long ago, I was actually criticized here for not using enough of them

Nah, I will bet you $1 that this kid turns into a Republican right about the time he turns 16. Kids love to rebel, and, with this family obviously laying it on way too thick that's almost sure to happen. Also, this kid could barely get the words pronounced, which make me think: they aren't his. So, why are people lavishing praise on him? He's going to have a tough time in high school if he keeps getting undeserved praise/credit for work he isn't doing. To me, that's the big threat here: when little Johnny realizes that academic achievement requires...achievement, and not just saying prepared words a bunch of sycophants want to hear, and now he can't produce.