Booster4324 Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 When all else fails, use the "you wouldn't talk to me like than in person" argument. Works everytime... He has pretty much won this debate.
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 It's not my or your responsiblity or the federal gov's. So I don't care about your financial advice or anything else you have to say because your just a smug argumentative piece of crap. You would never talk to me like that face to face because you would be afraid of a beat down. Your just a chicken **** hiding behind the internet. Same with Alaska Darren and DC Tom. Argumentative? No sir, well informed and educated on the subject. So how many shades of red did your face get typing that?
Doc Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Far from it Chef Jim. I wanted to see your answer. But to answer your question about life insurance. To have or not have life insurance affects only the family involved with the death. Health Insurance affects millions and millions of people. When a person needs health care and doesn't have it and goes to the emergency room, it affects everyone else's premiums. Also many people are exluded by no fault of their own or the insurance companies get greedy. Most other if not all nato countries have broad health insurance polcies, we should as well. We are supposedly the greatest country on earth? Lets start acting like it. Why should the federal government get involved? Because it's job is to step in when an issue affects the country as a whole such as slavery, civil rights, self defense, a nation of un-insured people suffering from greedy insurance companies, etc. And please stay classy and refrain from name calling. Wait, lack of life insurance only affects the family left behind, but lack of health insurance affects millions? Gotta hand it to you Pasta, you just made me stagger out the door, shaking my head like the AFLAC duck after overhearing Yoggi Berra. So, you actually want single payer healthcare that is rationed? You want to wait weeks or months to see a doctor that might help you with your obvious slide into full blown dementia? I nominate all those who agree with this bill to receive rationed, gubment-run health care. The rest of us can pay (or not) for private insurance? All in favor?
/dev/null Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 I nominate all those who agree with this bill to receive rationed, gubment-run health care. The rest of us can pay (or not) for private insurance? All in favor? Aye
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 It's not my or your responsiblity or the federal gov's. So I don't care about your financial advice or anything else you have to say because your just a smug argumentative piece of crap. You would never talk to me like that face to face because you would be afraid of a beat down. Your just a chicken **** hiding behind the internet. Same with Alaska Darren and DC Tom. I'd wager I'd never talk to you at all. Now explain to me again how your health is mine and the government's responsibility, but your family's solvency after your death isn't...?
Fan in San Diego Posted March 26, 2010 Author Posted March 26, 2010 I'd wager I'd never talk to you at all. I wouldn't like you in person either, I don't care for pompous asses. Now explain to me again how your health is mine and the government's responsibility, but your family's solvency after your death isn't...? I already answered your question, re-read my answer.
erynthered Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 It's not my or your responsiblity or the federal gov's. So I don't care about your financial advice or anything else you have to say because your just a smug argumentative piece of crap. You would never talk to me like that face to face because you would be afraid of a beat down. Your just a chicken **** hiding behind the internet. Same with Alaska Darren and DC Tom. Geez Billy, why do you have to be so mean?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Geez Billy, why do you have to be so mean? He's a tough guy.
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 He's a tough guy. Yeah I seem to remember he wished a painful death on me sometime back. I was scared and just as I was getting over it he threatens me again.
ieatcrayonz Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 And please stay classy and refrain from name calling. It's not my or your responsiblity or the federal gov's. So I don't care about your financial advice or anything else you have to say because your just a smug argumentative piece of crap. You would never talk to me like that face to face because you would be afraid of a beat down. Your just a chicken **** hiding behind the internet. Same with Alaska Darren and DC Tom. I don't get it.
John Adams Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 BAck to the constitutionality question, I stand by my assertion that the Supremes (if they even hear the case) would find it to be Constitutional even if challenged by the states enacting laws saying they refuse to comply with it. Here's someone's read based on the current makeup of the Court. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...-of-history/?hp The architects of the Rehnquist federalism revolution were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and his fellow Arizonan, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (Chief Justice Rehnquist was actually from Milwaukee, but he decided during his Army service in North Africa that he liked the air of the desert rather than the cold and damp of the Great Lakes.) They were Westerners to whom the notion of states’ rights came naturally. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is not William Rehnquist, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. is not Sandra Day O’Connor. John Roberts has made his career inside the Beltway ever since coming to Washington to clerk for Rehnquist. As for Sam Alito, I don’t believe that apart from a brief part-time gig as an adjunct law professor, this former federal prosecutor, Justice Department lawyer and federal judge has cashed a paycheck in his adult life that wasn’t issued by the federal government. Nothing in their backgrounds or in their jurisprudence so far indicates that they are about to sign up with either the Sagebrush Rebellion or the Tea Party. Chief Justice Roberts appears particularly in tune with the exercise of national power. One of his handful of major dissenting opinions came in the 2007 case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the court ordered the federal agency to regulate global warming or give a science-based explanation for its refusal to do so. That case was brought by a group of coastal states, which argued that climate change was lapping at their borders. Chief Justice Roberts objected that the states should not have been accorded standing to pursue their lawsuit. He denounced the “special solicitude” that the court’s majority showed the state plaintiffs. An early Roberts dissenting vote, just months into his first term, came in Gonzales v. Oregon, a 6-to-3 decision rejecting the United States attorney general’s effort to prevent doctors in Oregon from cooperating with that state’s assisted-suicide law. She considers several of the judges in her analysis and guesses there isn't much chance of oveturning the law.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 27, 2010 Author Posted March 27, 2010 I don't get it. Everyone has limit of being insulted. I hit my limit.
Chef Jim Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 Everyone has limit of being insulted. I hit my limit. So when you've hit your limit you become a hypocrite?
meazza Posted March 27, 2010 Posted March 27, 2010 I always enjoy Kal's cartoons. http://www.economist.com/daily/kallery/dis...e=features_box4
Recommended Posts