3rdnlng Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Hey, I bumped the Bundy thread just so our little hummingbirdcanine couldn't continue to make accusations and then fall back on "check the other thread" schit. So I posted a black man's response to being questioned by a CNN reporter stating that Bundy is not a racist. I've maintained all along that Bundy said some pretty stupid stuff, but it didn't mean he had to be a racist. He appeared to me to be a crusty old guy who was inarticulate and couldn't describe the soft slavery that TYTT so well described. I'm not saying he isn't a racist though. He could be or he could be the guy that the black guy was standing up for. And this is for you birdog--if you have to twist words around and misquote people to try to get a point across, your point is pretty f'n weak in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 So if I call you insane without also calling everyone insane that you consider insane I'm a hypocrite? That's fan!@#$ingtastic!! It's insane, is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 nothing needs to be subtly changesd cuz that's about as subtle as a brick. it's overtly racist referring to an entire race as "they" as if everyone black is identical and all are lazy and unprincipled. but again, that's not the point here. the point is that you and the gang of merry men (who btw apparently feel entitled to rule the board - ie the gatorman thread) defend a statement like this while being appalled at taxation for public health reasons. it's ostensibly about freedom and liberty to you folks and not having others decide what's best for you. that holds as long as you're talking about yourself or someone that looks like you. it seems to stop when others are the object. I haven't followed that story or thread, so this is the first I've heard, but based on the last few posts it sounds more like the guy was ripping the effects of the welfare state on the black community than any endorsement of slavery. I hope he knew he was being hyperbolic (absurdly so IMO) but I don't see how you could logically construct that statement to be a call to reinstate slavery...at all...even a little bit...even if you really really wanted it to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I haven't followed that story or thread, so this is the first I've heard, but based on the last few posts it sounds more like the guy was ripping the effects of the welfare state on the black community than any endorsement of slavery. I hope he knew he was being hyperbolic (absurdly so IMO) but I don't see how you could logically construct that statement to be a call to reinstate slavery...at all...even a little bit...even if you really really wanted it to be so. Keep in mind this is the same group of people that call you a racist if you disagree with the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Keep in mind this is the same group of people that call you a racist if you disagree with the President. Oh, so calling Bundy a racist POS is just over the top hysterics? Nice try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 The Coming Two-Tier Health SystemWall Street Journal, by Scott W. Atlas Original Article With the unveiling of the Affordable Care Act´s website, the public experienced a painful reminder of the consequences of the government´s new authority over health care. While millions signed up for insurance, millions of others abruptly lost their existing coverage and access to their doctors because that coverage didn´t fit new ObamaCare definitions. The health-care law was generated by an administration promoting government as the solution to inequality, yet the greatest irony of ObamaCare is what will undoubtedly follow as a long-term, unintended consequence of the law: a decidedly unequal, two-tiered health system. more at the link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) Oh, so calling Bundy a racist POS is just over the top hysterics? Nice try That whole !@#$ing thread is over the top hysterics. From both sides. Edited May 2, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 more at the link: There won't be a two-tiered system, it will be what is already in place, a two-tiered access system. Nothing really changed about that with the ACA- rich people will cut in front of you in line, get MD cell phones, etc. Medicaid people will show up late to appts and scream because there is a $2 copay they won't pay, probably because of that $5 coffee in their hand. the rest, play by the rules and for the most part get what you need in a timely manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Obamacare’s doomWashington Post, by George F. Will Original Article If the president wants to witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation’s second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the origination clause, which says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” The ACA passed the Senate on a party-line vote, and without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats. What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on — the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote. More at the link: I doubt the court will dare state the obvious, but some type of tortured exemption will be proclaimed. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 More at the link: I doubt the court will dare state the obvious, but some type of tortured exemption will be proclaimed. . It will be an interesting decision, especially in light of the Supreme Court stating that the mandate was, in fact, a tax. This is why Reid acted to eliminate the filibuster so he could pack that court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 It's amazing that they could take a House bill (3590), remove everything in it, and create a new and completely different bill like that. Charlie Rangel must have introduced that bill just for that purpose but I haven't heard anyone giving him the business over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 This is a frivolous law suit. The senate is allowed to amend bills and send them back and if the house doesn't like it they could have simply not affirmed the senates decision by voting it down. This is grasping at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 This is a frivolous law suit. The senate is allowed to amend bills and send them back and if the house doesn't like it they could have simply not affirmed the senates decision by voting it down. This is grasping at straws. if that is upheld, then all the party in power has to send to the Senate is a bill consisting of one letter. Let the senate fille in the blanks and off we go. Is that what you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 if that is upheld, then all the party in power has to send to the Senate is a bill consisting of one letter. Let the senate fille in the blanks and off we go. Is that what you want? So long as the "correct" party controls the Senate, I'm guessing yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 if that is upheld, then all the party in power has to send to the Senate is a bill consisting of one letter. Let the senate fille in the blanks and off we go. Is that what you want? Keep in mind that you're speaking to someone who finds it desirable for the President to create law by dictat from a podium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 if that is upheld, then all the party in power has to send to the Senate is a bill consisting of one letter. Let the senate fille in the blanks and off we go. Is that what you want? That's not going to happen, but even if it did, the senate would still vote, the house would still vote and the president would have to sign, what's the problem with that? Tell me why this would hurt th country Keep in mind that you're speaking to someone who finds it desirable for the President to create law by dictat from a podium. Yes, let's just make this about me, how about you tell us why this is a good law case and pretend you don't like it simply because the black president wants it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 That's not going to happen, but even if it did, the senate would still vote, the house would still vote and the president would have to sign, what's the problem with that? Tell me why this would hurt th country Yes, let's just make this about me, how about you tell us why this is a good law case and pretend you don't like it simply because the black president wants it. Are you now calling TYTT a racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Are you now calling TYTT a racist? He does seem to be the first in line to defend ANY racist remark. But no, I don't think he is a racist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 The process by which our laws are created and administered is fundamentally more important than any individual law, as this is what has made our "great experiment" so successful. It is the singular reason the phrase, "law of the land" holds any weight, as we all understand that under the American system, the process begins and ends a certain way. When you remove that process, you undermine respect for the rule of law, and as the rule of law depends wholly on the respect of it's citizens to exist, you undermine the rule of law itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 He does seem to be the first in line to defend ANY racist remark. But no, I don't think he is a racist Then explain your remark and what you were trying to infer---"Yes, let's just make this about me, how about you tell us why this is a good law case and pretend you don't like it simply because the black president wants it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts