The Progressive Junta in Washington keeps showing their lack of respect for the American people. It has been revealed that in the Eugenics based Health-Care bill there is a provision for the release of your Tax data!
One of the problems with any proposed law that’s over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats’ proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as “Obamacare.” (Here’s our CBS News television coverage.)
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”
Read the rest.
This is intruding on the privacy of the American people! They will use this to force those that don’t want Coverage to but it. It is a stealth Tax and an invasion of our financial privacy. Tax dats should only belong to the IRS and no one else!
It is hypocritical of Progressives who for years bashed Bush for supposedly invading the American people’s privacy. They are planning to do much worse than the Bush administration ever did. This is another example of their elitism and how they view themselves as our Lords!
The threat to American civil liberties that the left claimed was due to Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney/Rove et al is in reality now due to Obama/Emanuel/ Holder/Carvile/Begala
This comment reminded me of Bill Mahrer’s comment not too long ago that the American public are too stupid to make their own decisions so President Obama should just force it upon us.
The reason that the Left doesn’t care that Obama might infringe on their privacy is because their complaints about Bush were mostly political (whether they realized it or not). This has to do with the indoctrination, and “my team”-ship of political parties, and an core belief to liberalism that THEY really do know better for everyone else and it is thus their job/Right to force their “wisdom” on the rest of society.
It really is a shame. Had America stuck to its founding principles of Liberty and personal Freedom, we wouldn’t even be having this debate over how much authority the Government should have over our lives as the answer would be simple – NONE to as little as possible.
re: #2 by WrathofG-d
They view themselves as Feudal Lords and we their serfs. They are Totalitarian hypocrites of the highest magnitude. They projected onto Bush everything they wanted and are doing.
OMG OMG LMFAO!!!! I wish I could type in larger letters. Those provsions are in the bill to make sure no one is cheating the system you fear-mongering melodramatic jackass. Just like the place you work for now discloses income information to the government so you don’t cheat the system. And you idiots just eat this crap up, lol.
Wonderful.
re: #3 by Rodan
This attitude actually can be seen in the grass roots of liberalism. I have often had conversations with Liberals where they practically told me that their was was The Way, and those who disagreed were just stupid.
You can find this attitude in practically everything they do, and how they wish to control everything everyone else does – how we spend our money, what cars we buy, what we eat, how environmental we are, how charitable we are, how healthy we are, etc.
When I was speaking to a friend explaining how it was bad that Obama was telling GM what cars to make as the company should have the Liberty to thrive or die on their own, he eventually exclaimed that although GM was losing their Liberty, it is ok because now they will be FORCED to build “green” cars, and we will be FORCED to buy them, because we really all HAVE to be driving “green” cars (and living GREEN).
Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves, as they knew there is no such thing as a compassionate totalitarian.
In the Bill, it’s even worse than that. The ability is being given to the IRS to judge if your coverage is acceptible or not. So, say you have medical coverage that the IRS deems unacceptible, you’ll be surcharged on your taxes as well as paying for the coverage you choose for yourself.
Very draconian.
re: #7 by vapig
So, say you have medical coverage that the IRS deems unacceptible, you’ll be surcharged on your taxes as well as paying for the coverage you choose for yourself.
Something of a rhetorical question here, but for the love all that is decent, why is it the IRS’ business what or how much medical insurance coverage I have?
re: #3 by Rodan
Two words: Marie Antoinette
re: #4 by Champion692G
I am exceptionally slow to get angry with posters, but you really beginning to become difficult. You really need to lower the rhetoric, attacks and name calling.
I am sure your mother raised you better than this. Disagree all you wish, but please minimize the name calling, and personal attacks.
If you continue to rant-and-rave, and personally attack the other posters here, you will unfortunately leave us no choice but to limit your access. This is not a threat as I would love your difference of opinion. But the name calling, and personal attacks (especially against those who post here, excluding the Admins as we can take it) we can not tolerate.
Why exactly couldn’t you just have said the following?
re: #4 by Champion692G
That’s totally different. That is for Tax purposes and companies are required by law to do this.
This provision is to force people who don’t want healthcare to but it. Why should people be forced to do what they don’t want to do?
Now I must go do some work. Hopefully we can all be polite, and respectfully debate when I get back.
re: #9 by savage
Hey How you doing!
re: #8 by tqcincinnatus
That’s actually an easy answer. The make the laws coercive, the Bill needs teeth. The government needs a hammer to hit us with and everybody is afraid of the IRS.
re: #6 by WrathofG-d
I prefer to keep my life simple and interact with leftists as little as humanly possible.As evidenced by the ridiculous examples posting here, they have nothing intelligent to offer.
Ask your friend where all the new electricity sources for all those green hybrids will be coming from.The burden will be enormous.
Ask your friend about our need for large commercial vehicles, work vans, utility type trucks, 18 wheelers.You know, the plebes who do carpentry, electricians, plumbers, truckers, etc.
re: #3 by Rodan
Guess that makes them the Toasters!
re: #12 by WrathofG-d
You think we run around like wild animals when you’re not here being the playground monitor, don’t you?
Have a good day Wrath!
re: #7 by vapig
re: #8 by tqcincinnatus
He made an unfounded statement and you ate it up. Where’s the proof? And to the admin, I’m fighting fire with fire, look in the HR 3200 Bill thread and “limit the access” of the posters in there who initiated the personal attacks on me. If you want to ban me I could give a shit, really. Until you do I will continue to talk in the manner I please.
re: #8 by tqcincinnatus
So if you are a non compliant drone they can automatically deduct the 8% penalty from your income.
re: #13 by Rodan
Planning my epic journey to Seattle, buddy.
re: #18 by Champion692G
http://www.health-in-action.org/library/pdf/Shaken%20Baby/Images/Waa%20cry%20baby2.jpg
re: #20 by savage
do truckers have sat nav nowadays savage.
re: #20 by savage
Hey that loon Lawrence was in the other thread. That dude is obsessed with me. He won’t debate anything else.
re: #18 by Champion692G
Why just give me a second. Since I have read the Bill (and I have it here) I’ll show where in the Bill it is located.
See, you missed the day we all went over this thing in total.
And for your information, using the IRS makes perfect sense to this government. They have the power to freeze bankaccounts and seize assets – like your home.
re: #19 by vagabond trader
Nah. The ObamaHellthCare bill is more onerous than that. The IRS will have access to your bank account. They’ll be able to tap that baby anytime they want, including that 8% insurance coverage penalty. “Too bad that rent check bounced. You should have known better.”
There’s no peaceful way out of this mess that is the Obama Administration. They’ll see to that.
re: #25 by RickMZ
Rick they can already tap your account anytime they believe you made a boo boo. Ask anyone who has been audited.
re: #26 by vagabond trader
You’re talking tax liens. This will not be a lien. This will be an automatic deduction, with no warning required. The government will have total control of your bank account, one they can search for any reason anytime they want without a warrant. It’ll be like the Outer Limits intro, but on steroids. They won’t just control the horizontal and vertical anymore.
re: #23 by Rodan
Since everyone is expressing their grievances, please bear with me on this one Rodan. It would be a damned shame to allow bitter people with a grudge to use this blog as a forum, all in the name of tolerance. Just my 2 cents, worth about half that with inflation.
re: #27 by RickMZ
Did I disagree with that? Jeesh!
Maybe you’d rather argue with the champion here?
re: #7 by vapig
The ability is being given to the IRS to judge if your coverage is acceptible or not. So, say you have medical coverage that the IRS deems unacceptible, you’ll be surcharged on your taxes as well as paying for the coverage you choose for yourself.
A lot of people would obey the insurance mandate by buying limited scope, catastrophic plans, which are a lot cheaper. By larding up the minimum plan coverage with stuff you likely don’t want (mental health, substance addiction, pregnancy if you’re a man) they make health insurance as expensive as possible, so you’ll switch to the government plan.
A national mandate would likely greatly increase costs in those states that have minimal insurance mandates. The subsequent “rising costs of insurance” (which they themselves created) would be used as a propaganda point in favor of nationalized health care.
re: #18 by Champion692G
Just for you:
Part 1:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
SEC. 245. INCOME DETERMINATIONS.
(a) In General- In applying this subtitle for an affordability credit for an individual for a plan year, the individual’s income shall be the income (as defined in section 242(c)) for the individual for the most recent taxable year (as determined in accordance with rules of the Commissioner). The Federal poverty level applied shall be such level in effect as of the date of the application.
(b) Program Integrity; Income Verification Procedures-
(1) PROGRAM INTEGRITY- The Commissioner shall take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure the accuracy of determinations and redeterminations under this subtitle.
(2) INCOME VERIFICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Upon an initial application of an individual for an affordability credit under this subtitle (or in applying section 242(b)) or upon an application for a change in the affordability credit based upon a significant change in family income described in subparagraph (A)–
(i) the Commissioner shall request from the Secretary of the Treasury the disclosure to the Commissioner of such information as may be permitted to verify the information contained in such application; and
(ii) the Commissioner shall use the information so disclosed to verify such information.
(B) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES- The Commissioner shall establish procedures for the verification of income for purposes of this subtitle if no income tax return is available for the most recent completed tax year.
(c) Special Rules-
(1) CHANGES IN INCOME AS A PERCENT OF FPL- In the case that an individual’s income (expressed as a percentage of the Federal poverty level for a family of the size involved) for a plan year is expected (in a manner specified by the Commissioner) to be significantly different from the income (as so expressed) used under subsection (a), the Commissioner shall establish rules requiring an individual to report, consistent with the mechanism established under paragraph (2), significant changes in such income (including a significant change in family composition) to the Commissioner and requiring the substitution of such income for the income otherwise applicable.
(2) REPORTING OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN INCOME- The Commissioner shall establish rules under which an individual determined to be an affordable credit eligible individual would be required to inform the Commissioner when there is a significant change in the family income of the individual (expressed as a percentage of the FPL for a family of the size involved) and of the information regarding such change. Such mechanism shall provide for guidelines that specify the circumstances that qualify as a significant change, the verifiable information required to document such a change, and the process for submission of such information. If the Commissioner receives new information from an individual regarding the family income of the individual, the Commissioner shall provide for a redetermination of the individual’s eligibility to be an affordable credit eligible individual.
(3) TRANSITION FOR CHIP- In the case of a child described in section 202(d)(2), the Commissioner shall establish rules under which the family income of the child is deemed to be no greater than the family income of the child as most recently determined before Y1 by the State under title XXI of the Social Security Act.
(4) STUDY OF GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN APPLICATION OF FPL- The Commissioner shall examine the feasibility and implication of adjusting the application of the Federal poverty level under this subtitle for different geographic areas so as to reflect the variations in cost-of-living among different areas within the United States. If the Commissioner determines that an adjustment is feasible, the study should include a methodology to make such an adjustment. Not later than the first day of Y2, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress a report on such study and shall include such recommendations as the Commissioner determines appropriate.
(d) Penalties for Misrepresentation- In the case of an individual intentionally misrepresents family income or the individual fails (without regard to intent) to disclose to the Commissioner a significant change in family income under subsection (c) in a manner that results in the individual becoming an affordable credit eligible individual when the individual is not or in the amount of the affordability credit exceeding the correct amount–
(1) the individual is liable for repayment of the amount of the improper affordability credit; and
(2) in the case of such an intentional misrepresentation or other egregious circumstances specified by the Commissioner, the Commissioner may impose an additional penalty.
re: #18 by Champion692G
Part II:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.
(a) In General- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(21) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to–
`(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
`(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
`(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
`(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
`(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
`(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
re: #18 by Champion692G
And Part III:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
SEC. 1801. DISCLOSURES TO FACILITATE IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR THE LOW-INCOME ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM TO ASSIST SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S OUTREACH TO ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General- Paragraph (19) of section 6103(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
`(19) DISCLOSURES TO FACILITATE IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR LOW-INCOME SUBSIDIES UNDER MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM TO ASSIST SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S OUTREACH TO ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Upon written request from the Commissioner of Social Security, the following return information (including such information disclosed to the Social Security Administration under paragraph (1) or (5)) shall be disclosed to officers and employees of the Social Security Administration, with respect to any taxpayer identified by the Commissioner of Social Security–
`(i) return information for the applicable year from returns with respect to wages (as defined in section 3121(a) or 3401(a)) and payments of retirement income (as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection),
`(ii) unearned income information and income information of the taxpayer from partnerships, trusts, estates, and subchapter S corporations for the applicable year,
`(iii) if the individual filed an income tax return for the applicable year, the filing status, number of dependents, income from farming, and income from self-employment, on such return,
`(iv) if the individual is a married individual filing a separate return for the applicable year, the social security number (if reasonably available) of the spouse on such return,
`(v) if the individual files a joint return for the applicable year, the social security number, unearned income information, and income information from partnerships, trusts, estates, and subchapter S corporations of the individual’s spouse on such return, and
`(vi) such other return information relating to the individual (or the individual’s spouse in the case of a joint return) as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate that the individual is likely to be ineligible for a low-income prescription drug subsidy under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act.
`(B) APPLICABLE YEAR- For the purposes of this paragraph, the term `applicable year’ means the most recent taxable year for which information is available in the Internal Revenue Service’s taxpayer information records.
`(C) RESTRICTION ON INDIVIDUALS FOR WHOM DISCLOSURE MAY BE REQUESTED- The Commissioner of Social Security shall request information under this paragraph only with respect to–
`(i) individuals the Social Security Administration has identified, using all other reasonably available information, as likely to be eligible for a low-income prescription drug subsidy under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act and who have not applied for such subsidy, and
`(ii) any individual the Social Security Administration has identified as a spouse of an individual described in clause (i).
`(D) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION- Return information disclosed under this paragraph may be used only by officers and employees of the Social Security Administration solely for purposes of identifying individuals likely to be ineligible for a low-income prescription drug subsidy under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act for use in outreach efforts under section 1144 of the Social Security Act.’.
(b) Safeguards- Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of such Code is amended–
(1) by striking `(l)(19)’ each place it appears, and
(2) by striking `or (17)’ each place it appears and inserting `(17), or (19)’.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Paragraph (3) of section 6103(a) of such Code is amended by striking `(19),’.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to disclosures made after the date which is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
re: #22 by justin case
No, this has nothing to do with work. This is something that is going to change my life for the better.
re: #30 by randian
Oh you’re good!
re: #23 by Rodan
Oh, kick his ass, Rodan. You can do it!
/rob schneider
re: #29 by vagabond trader
To try to clarify what I am saying is different with the Bill from the situation now. A tax lien is an ‘end of the line’ procedure. Before a lien is put through, a taxpayer has time to respond, and get the matter settled. With the provisions in this bill, the IRS will have direct access to your bank account, with no formal procedure necessary to take anything they want. They won’t have to let you know, as it will be your responsibility to know that you are underinsured. They will be able to scroll through your bank account whenever they feel bored or curious. Without a warrant. There will be no legal protections as are currently in place with the lien procedures. The banks now need a lien to take money out, but with the banks owned by the government, there will not be any need for those distracting legal niceties. It may sound like a distinction without a difference, but to me there is a serious degradation of individual privacy rights all throughout the plan. The IRS having direct access to bank accounts is one egregious example.
re: #28 by vagabond trader
2 cents, minus 1 for inflation, plus the 50% gift tax…….
*grin*
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree.
re: #36 by savage
I did, he’s like a broken record, he doesn’t address anything discussed here. He’s a loon with a vendetta, he even set up a Facebook account with my name!
I see we lost ol’ Champ there. Couldn’t laugh at facts blasting square between the eyes, I guess!
re: #39 by Rodan
Well, obviously you have hit a nerve with your constand attacks agrainst the progressive maching.
Like that old saying, if you’re getting flack that means you’re over the target!
re: #18 by Champion692G
No one is banning you. I am glad you are here debating, please feel free to express yourself. Just tone the harshness of your rhetoric. That’s all!
re: #32 by vapig
In case you didn’t notice in the HR 3200 thread I did read the bill and I stated as is the case today, you misrepresent what is said to fit your agenda. The other mindless cats who posts in here don’t take the time to procure the information for themselves, they just agree, how sad.
This has gotten boring though.
Re 18: Champion692G
1st it presently isn’t my intent to have you banned either.
However, wow you’re a whiner. I don’t think you understood my point. Its called: be polite!
I’m sorry if others were rude to you, but I wasn’t there to tell them to stop it. But so what!? Haven’t you learned that two wrongs don’t make a right?
If a polite request for civility offends you…well,……
re: #43 by Champion692G
If this is boring, then go away and don’t come back, racist liberal lying scumbag.
re: #45 by LanceKates
Lol, he’s very polite, GTFO.
re: #45 by LanceKates
Lance…..
I will request of you what I request of everyone (including myself) please disagree…but do so POLITELY!
Ugh, maybe this is a lost cause!
Where has polite society, and common decency gone?
EVERYBODY! PLEASE disagree politely, and stay away from personal attacks, and name calling!
Thank you.
re: #43 by Champion692G
Since this is not being denied by the WH and has been reported all over the place I think it is you who are misrepresenting facts to fit your ideological tilt – to the left that is.
Why do you people hate freedom and liberty so much?
re: #43 by Champion692G
See my 42,
No one is banning you. We want your input here to defend the Progressive side.
re: #48 by vapig
The bill isn’t being denied but the intent isn’t as you frame it, you’re using semantics to scare people. You’re post are like the teacher on Charlie Brown WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH. It’s like I’m talking to a wall.
Get a load of this shit!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_guantanamo_prisoner
Fuck, I am so sick and tired of these goddamn Muslims and everything the fuckers stand for. POS is lucky we didn’t throw 50 gallons of gasoline on him and toss a lighted match at him.
re: #47 by WrathofG-d
I am being polite. Everything I said has been proven during discussion with Champion.
racist- From the start, they tried racebaiting and suggested that conservatives are racists for disagreeing with Obama, then made a point to note that they are black.
liberal- They constantly degrade Conservatives and cleave to Obama’s socialism, even insulting President Bush in defense of Obama.
lying- They claimed to be a moderate to fend off early suggestions that they were an obama-supporting socialist.
scumbag- they’ve resorted to personal insult against Rodan, Vapig, myself and a few others in a way that is beneath sewer rats.
They are little more than a whining troll who came here to stir up crap in an attempt to get banned so that they can celebrate ‘censorship’ at our blog.
re: #51 by savage
Oh Oh, Defenseman is going to write about you!
re: #52 by LanceKates
Look, it is not my intent to be the complaining-fuddy-duddy at The Blogmocracy. However, I would like to think that we can maintain ourselves with civility at all times. If we slip into “flame wars”, personal attacks, and just name-calling arguments, we are all going to lose out (as that stuff is a bit lame after a while).
Thus I understand that you feel you can justify the labels you used (and you might be right) but if we are going to demand that people like Champ are polite, the rule must apply to you and I as well.
I really don’t wish to discuss this further, as I don’t feel it is my job to, and you all don’t have to justify your behavior to me either. It is just my desire and concern for this Blog, and society as a whole.
We can all get through our disagreements without name calling, and personal attacks.
re: #50 by Champion692G
That’s because, like a wall, you have no ears to listen, not eyes to read.
You are a freedom hating socialist that will not be happy until everybody is equal – in misery and poverty.
I reject your racialistic progressivism.
re: #51 by savage
The pieces of crap that now run the country will pay the shite off, too!
re: #53 by Rodan
Good, then that will attract more users to us!
ahh, my eeeeeeeeeeeeevil plan….
re: #56 by vapig
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Why do you have to be right?
since we are going OT:
This week it was reported that Obama is going to come out and discuss “peace talks” between the Arabs and Israel where in an agreement where the U.S. gets tougher with Iran (the veracity of such an agreement is debated) in exchange for an Israeli “settlement” freeze.
Notice how nothing is asked of the Arabs.
One problem though. < strong>70% of Likud (the ruling/elected party) is AGAINST Bibi’s Policies.
re: #54 by WrathofG-d
Oh we definately can.
Only issue is they are not bringing any arguments. JUST name calling.
Thread after thread, post after post.
I’ve only ever asked them 1 simple question, which they refused to answer.
There is no debate or argument. Just namecalling.
And it doesn’t look like they plan on stopping.
Now that there are more than 2 or 3 people against them, they are pulling out the victim card.
re: #60 by LanceKates
not to sound “holier than thou” but:
We cannot control the behaviors of others, only ourselves and stupid is as stupid does.
I don’t necessarily disagree about Champ, or others like him/her. I’m just hoping we don’t let people like him drag the rest of us down.
re: #61 by WrathofG-d
You are right, Wrath. We cannot control the actions of others.
re: #59 by WrathofG-d
Was it you or VT that posted the article where the arabs (phakistinians) have declared they want all of Jerusalem and plan to kick every Jew out of their own holy city?
re: #61 by WrathofG-d
An ignore feature would be nice.
re: #60 by LanceKates
Yes, but like I told Rodan, if you are taking flack you are over your target.
They are being snarks because they really can’t defend against the truth. They say they can, but can’t or won’t back it up. That includes ol champ, there!
re: #64 by vagabond trader
Holy crap would it. I don’t know that we can do that though, based on how comments come.
I’m going to make a point to ignore Champion, except to ask him about the Constitutional Support for Obamacare.
It’d be great if we all did.
Reg and ’stillaproudlizard’ too.
We’re getting more and more annoying trollish folks here. Must mean we’re doing something right.
re: #66 by LanceKates
Yep. The nice thing about trolls is that if you ignore them, they usually go away.
However, I think it’s kinda fun to confound them with facts and logic. They can’t defend against that and they usually run away anyway.
re: #66 by LanceKates
True, I just don’t like this stalker, personal vendetta crap. It cheapens the place.These guys aren’t looking for debate, they are bomb throwers and pot stirrers.Not cool if they start multiplying. If I wanted to post ad hominens I’d go to Think Progress or KOS. Again, my opinion.
re: #63 by vapig
I posted that link(s). The most recent was an article by Melanie Phillips (IIRC) and an article from Ha’aretz.
re: #61 by WrathofG-d
re: #62 by LanceKates
Can’t we all get along!
re: #70 by Rodan
Shoot, I don’t care if we get along, I just want us to be polite about our not getting along.
wonderful vid though.
re: #8 by tqcincinnatus
I am not sure why we even need an IRS. Just slap on a national sales tax and a lot of the undertaxation is taken care of and a lot of the over regulation is gone.
Don’t want to be taxed? shop in Mexico.
re: #71 by WrathofG-d
I’m being funny!
Come on!
re: #68 by vagabond trader
The reg poster seemed a little unhinged to me. Probably un medicated type that is fixated. Best reply to him is always going to be to take care of himself, drink water, eat right, exercise, take meds. A blog like this lets him float around and not address his immediate needs.
It’s not doing him any good to engage him on his repetitive ideas. The stalking lets him avoid his real issue, which is to cope and make his everyday life work.
re: #64 by vagabond trader
Or a constant floating stalker thread where they can be directed to or have their comments moved to.
re: #59 by WrathofG-d
Israel should not give up a sq inch of land. I would rather see them take the sinai back and then give it up again.
All the palestinian logic is based in non modern prejudices and an urge to hate and kill. Islam need to reform if it wants to be a world partner anywhere.
re: #75 by orangecrush
There ya go! If I may ask, do you have a background in psych? I used to be a psych nurse years ago and can still detect the wifty ones, even online,just like you, lol!
re: #51 by savage
CArrying the dead thread. Yah I find myself saying f**king muslims more often then not these days. I actually used to like the religion, but after 9/11 my eyes were opened to it’s medieval qualities. Not the good ones either like drinking and partying.
re: #70 by Rodan
I always felt kinda sorry for Rodney King.Off the substance he seemed very passive. Wonder what became of him.
re: #77 by vagabond trader
I’ve worked with a lot of mentally ill people trying to stabilize them. But in a volunteer format only. Trying to get them to establish a consistent life style. Very difficult. It wore me out I think.
re: #76 by orangecrush
Yes, you are correct. Unfortunately, the “world” is rewarding their bad behavior and not their good, so I doubt that will ever happen.
re: #81 by WrathofG-d
That’s the problem. If they made their religion a personal faith and not political movement, what the hell do I care that they worship a Black Rock!~
If the stop attacking Non Muslim countries, they would be left alones.
It’s that simple.
re: #80 by orangecrush
I hear you. We ran a 120 bed facility for adults who were schizophrenic and most also had substance abuse problems.High functioning but in need of med supervision and structure.
re: #78 by orangecrush
Me too. The love of my life is Jewish and if anyone of these pricks get within a half mile of her, I will do something that will put me in Florence….
Just thought of another insidious problem with the IRS mandating insurance coverage: deductibles. First, mandating low deductibles makes insurance super-expensive. See my previous post. Second, it makes citizens ineligible for Health Savings Accounts, since HSAs require high-deductible plans. Then when people abandon HSAs in droves, you can publicly slam the entire idea of an HSA as bad for consumers, proof of which is their abandoning of them. Massachusetts’ mandatory insurance rules have the same effect, since MA mandates low-deductible plans. It’s for the children!
re: #67 by vapig
If you provided facts and commented on them in their factual form, instead distorting them to fit your agenda, then maybe I would go away, until then, “I’ll be your huckleberry.”
OBAMA IN ‘12! HAROLD FORD JR IN ‘16!
re: #86 by Champion692G
I did provide facts. Cold stark facts spelled out in plain black and white. You ran a way like a little school girl and didn’t respond to a thing posted. All you did was cry and say it was distorted without providing any basis for such a nonsensical statement.
How can providing the actual bill be a distortion of fact? hmmmmmm?
Face it – you’ve been pwn3d…
re: #87 by vapig
Ok prime example and then i’m really done because it seems your too stupid to get it.
You are like Betsy McCaughey, the brain case who started the whole “death panel” garbage. She was on the John Stewart show reading the bill, interpreting it as a clause for the death panel that Washington is going to use to “PULL THE PLUG ON GRANDMA, OH MY SCARY.” The fact of the matter is, is that any human being that considers optional end of life consultation a “death panel,” is retarded.
That is you, that is the best explanation for what I mean. You provide the facts yes, but then you proceed to interpret them in a way that is a complete distortion. You’re successful in riling up your cohorts but you are light years away from telling the truth.
I came to this site after stumbling upon your post about HR 3200. At first I was like oh shit this is crazy is the government really doing this? Then I read the bill for myself and I was like wow, its jackasses like vapig, that have these people at these rallies disturbing the democratic process. It’s liars like yourself that hurt the country.
You’re a lying conniving scumbag that distorts the truth along with LanceKates, Tchholidhblisdb, Rodan, Vagabond, Randian, Wrath, on and on and on. You all are the poison that keeps us divided.
Post a retort, flame me, fuck off, I don’t care, lol, but I know who you are and what you’re about and hopefully I can change somebodies mind with reality, instead of the end of the world nightmare you assholes live in.
PEACE BITCH!
Check that, PEACE RIGHT WING TERRORISTS!
re: #88 by Champion692G
What a ladies man.
And don’t forget how dipshit Chump claims we are the haters!
But no worries, nothing this dipshit says is even close to the truth. It doesnt write well enough for the supposed “education”it claims.
And it acts so very adolescent.
I don’t think it even has a drivers license.
re: #88 by Champion692G
Hey, what did I do?
Wow, you are seriously unhinged. Its a shame.
[...] [...]
re: #90 by WrathofG-d
Told you so.
re: #90 by WrathofG-d
you’re a little late to the dance, but welcome.
*grin*
re: #92 by LanceKates
Hey, I’m willing to take the hits for things I say and do, but I haven’t posted at all (IIRC) about the Healthcare issue.
I might comment about Obama in general on a Healthcare thread, but I hardly deserve that type of labeling.
Yikes. I guess its guilt by association. So much for the concept of a forum for differing opinions. I guess to some, no matter what we say (and all I told him/her was to be polite) we are all the same.
re: #93 by WrathofG-d
yup, that is their opinion.