Jump to content
And the fact that you refuse to accept my answer says much about yours.
I wish you the best Mr. Meglen.
Now there is some:
ob·fus·cate [ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing.
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
If you don't agree with me you are immoral. Did I get that right Joe?
I support your right to your opinion. Do you support mine?
I answered your question crystal clear in the context it was asked. Let's put it this way. If I walk up to your front door and shoot you dead it it murder. If you are breaking into my house and I shoot you dead it is self-defense. The difference is context not obfuscation or evasion.
Kevin, No matter what problems we face as a Nation, discourse, debate and discussion is the proper path for change. Armed revolution is not going to make this a better place to live for our children and grand-children. I agree, the Feds are not done with Mr. Bundy but they definitely made a smart decision to back down and avoid a Ruby Ridge or Waco situation.
Joe look at your own words. You changed the question. I did not obsfucate, I answered the question in the context it was asked:
"In order to distill the discussion of the ACA, or collectivism in general, down to basics, I have a question: Is it right to take from one person against their will and give these proceeds to another?"
Asked in the context of:
Is it OK for me to take my shotgun, break into your house and take your stuff to give it to lift-up the answer is no.
In the context of:
Is it OK for the Federal Gov't to tax your earnings in order to pay for the ACA, the Supreme Court said Yes. Doesn't matter what you or I think about it, we do not get to overrule the Supreme Court no matter how strongly we disagree with their decisions now do we.
That IS the law of the land. Are you calling for armed revolution against the Federal Gov't?
Dan, sorry I did miss that.. Presidents have power to change stuff, what can I say. They all do it.
Sucks when you disagree, great when you think it is right and proper. I am not sure but I do not believe any sitting President has ever been in Court over Executive Orders and the current POTUS is about average in that respect. The Left was all incensed about George Bush's Executive orders and the right is all pissed off about Obama's. Not much meat there really, just a bunch of grumbling about the guy with the pen.
PS. Rhys should contact me. I have need of some programming help. $$$ not friends and family/
No Jerry, if you are happy with your computer Windows XP should run fine for a long time. Microsoft will no longer support the product which means any security holes will not be fixed. If you do your banking online, you would want to consider a new computer in the next couple of years. If it is just for email and surfing then use it till it drops dead on the floor and pukes up its guts.
When using older computers, make sure you have a 2nd copy of any picture or file that matters to you. If you do not have that copy when the older computer fails it will be gone.
Dan, no it is not incorrect, just slanted. I am sure that every survey or poll that any of us can find are all slanted. I can match you poll for poll all day long but that won't really prove much, will it?
Bottom line is that all the Republican scare tactics about the ACA keep being proved wrong. I ask again, will you ever admit that some of the Fox News headlines over the last 4 years about the ACA (aka Obamacare) we flat out wrong?
I am not trying to say that I buy into this law lock stock and barrel. It is too big, too complicated and still allows some of the abuses that caused the problems in the first place. If would do many things differently, but somehow the politicians did not listen to me, go figure.
Joe, I DID answer you question, you just don't happen to like my answer. You asked:
I answered your question in the context of the ACA as requested. The Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment and called the ACA a "tax". I realize that you do not like that decision but you do not get to override the Supreme Court no matter how strong your beliefs and just like I have to live with the Citizens United decision, you have to live with the fact that the ACA is a tax.
The Constitution says:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
The Supreme Court also ruled that Healthcare falls under the general welfare clause and is therefore legal and constitutional so your argument that:
Is null and void because the Supreme Court said so. End of Story,
I agree and would add term limits and campaign finance reform. These politicians have a nasty habit of spending their campaign contributions on personal expenses and maintain a large account to attack anyone that runs against them.
We should make ALL candidates start with fresh fundraising 1 year prior to the election and any unspent campaign funds should revert to the Gov't agency that the candidate was running for with the sole purpose of reducing debt.
Last login: Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.