Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by habitforming

Social Security proves all of your points wrong.

And how is Social Security doing these days?

Set for insolvency I believe.
More Govt run amok with false hopes and lies.

You believe wrong. SS is doing just fine, despite the Republican efforts to both loot and dismantle it. Amazing how it holds up and is quite popular.

Originally posted by macman
I don't need to go back and re-read. I know what you are getting at.
Yes, other Presidents have made bad choices.

Yeah you do need to go back an re-read because "other presidents have made bad choices" is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
You can keep posting nonsense I will ignore because it is not a response to anything other than your imagination or you can actually go back and re-read what you posted and what I responded with or you can even just admit you are lost.

This was so far off it was funny.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
My bad. I keep forgetting that they don't teach civics in school any more, and kids these days don't know what "governing" is any longer.

"Governing" is keeping Knothead A from infringing Knothead B's rights, and providing a remedy when they are unsuccessful at that. As an example, they're there to keep you all from murdering one another, and failing that, meting out punishment to the murdering party. They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

They are NOT there to facilitate the theft. They are NOT there to prop up private businesses artificially when that business will fail under poor management. They are NOT there to operate charities. They are NOT there to be your mommy, wipe you nose, bandage your knee, or hug you when you fall.

Does not really sound like you know what you think it means either. All of that is pretty narrow and extremely opinionated. How about defense of the country? Are they there for that?

Already covered, here:

They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

Next.

Originally posted by macman
Well, that is another topic all on it's own.

But, the Govt operating as such is how it was created and designed. Not to provide every want and whim for the citizen.
Oh, and we do pay for medicine. You just want it paid for everyone, with the Govt controlling it.

No, it is quite on topic with people ranting and raving about being robbed without being able to back that up.
Yes, I know we pay for medicine. We also pay for bombs. I would rather spend less on bombs and more on medicine. Am I going to have to over-explain everything to you?

What is wrong with having it paid for for everyone? Look at the tax dollars wasted on crap that only benefits a few people. Why is that better?
What exactly do you think I want the government in control of?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
My bad. I keep forgetting that they don't teach civics in school any more, and kids these days don't know what "governing" is any longer.

"Governing" is keeping Knothead A from infringing Knothead B's rights, and providing a remedy when they are unsuccessful at that. As an example, they're there to keep you all from murdering one another, and failing that, meting out punishment to the murdering party. They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

They are NOT there to facilitate the theft. They are NOT there to prop up private businesses artificially when that business will fail under poor management. They are NOT there to operate charities. They are NOT there to be your mommy, wipe you nose, bandage your knee, or hug you when you fall.

Does not really sound like you know what you think it means either. All of that is pretty narrow and extremely opinionated. How about defense of the country? Are they there for that?

Already covered, here:

They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

Next.

Not really.
If my neighbor steals my rake, that is covered under defense of the country? Or are you saying the Federal government controls local police in defense of the country?

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
So the answer is to steal MORE?

More?
How do you do math?
You wanna pay for war and no medicine.
I wanna pay for medicine and no war.
x+w-m=y
x+m-w=y

With a pencil, usually.

The PPACA doesn't take any money from war, it places another tax, which tax provides exactly nothing to the citizen. So if you keep the taxes paying for war, and pay for war, then ADD another tax to pay for nothing, it's STILL "more", as in "more taxes", irrespective of the fact that it provides nothing in return. It does nothing to diminish war spending, or redirect that money into providing health care. It just adds another tax. You know, MORE tax.

No money has been stolen from me to fund a war, but it seems they have plans to steal from me to NOT provide any health care, too. Good luck with that theft - I'll be waiting for the enforcers.

What exactly does that mean?

Fixed your quote tags, so folks can figure out what's mine and what's yours.

For the comprehension impaired, it means that what I give is not "stolen". I am not going to give a penalty tax that returns exactly nothing.

You do not pay taxes or you pick and choose what each and every penny goes to?

I invite you to audit me and find out.

"We both" and "only I..." WHAT? Lose your train of thought there?

Why so many blank spaces at the ends of your posts? Are you trying to make them longer?

Is there some sort of relevant thought hidden in that sidetracking gibberish?

No, I did not lose my train of thought. I wrote exactly what I meant and the first part of this response right here pretty much solidifies it for me.

Then you think in meaningless gibberish. It will be difficult to hold a rational conversation with that, but I'll try.

You have two sets of standards in your America. One for you and one for me.

No. I have one standard. I will take care of myself in the best way I see fit, and allow you to do the same - but I expect reciprocity, that you will leave me alone to take care of myself as I am willing to do for you.

Originally posted by habitforming

Not really.
If my neighbor steals my rake, that is covered under defense of the country? Or are you saying the Federal government controls local police in defense of the country?

Read carefully, grasshopper, for comprehension this time.

Defense is defense. Whether from an external threat or your thieving neighbor, it is still "defense". If you can't handle your neighbor, then by all means call a cop. If you can't handle getting blown to smithereens by an external force, then by all means call out the army. Either circumstance is an "assault, theft, or infringement" - it's only a matter of scale, and so has it's proper defense mechanism at that scale.

You did not make a distinction between local defense and national defense in your initial comment, you specified national defense. Now you want to drag in the thieving neighbor you can't handle on your own as a national issue? Are you unable to make the mental distinction between local government and national government?

Let me put you back on track - this Obamneycare is a national issue. It's not your neighbor stealing your helpless rake.

Watch out about that changing horses in mid stream - it can get you all wet.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Read carefully, grasshopper, for comprehension this time.

Try to be clear this time.

Defense is defense. Whether from an external threat or your thieving neighbor, it is still "defense". If you can't handle your neighbor, then by all means call a cop. If you can't handle getting blown to smithereens by an external force, then by all means call out the army. Either circumstance is an "assault, theft, or infringement" - it's only a matter of scale, and so has it's proper defense mechanism at that scale.

So then defense against a plague would be perfectly legitimate, right?

You did not make a distinction between local defense and national defense in your initial comment, you specified national defense. Now you want to drag in the thieving neighbor you can't handle on your own as a national issue? Are you unable to make the mental distinction between local government and national government?

I can but I am not so sure you can. As you wrote

Already covered, here:

They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

Next.

Everything you described there is something that happens primarily at the local level. So....?

Let me put you back on track - this Obamneycare is a national issue. It's not your neighbor stealing your helpless rake.

You are off track. I never asked one question about anything called Obamneycare. You brought up what the federal government does and does not do and defense is one of them

Watch out about that changing horses in mid stream - it can get you all wet.

edit on 2012/7/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

Drink and post often?

Originally posted by nenothtu
With a pencil, usually.

The PPACA doesn't take any money from war, it places another tax, which tax provides exactly nothing to the citizen.

No wonder each of your posts has a "comprehension impaired" type slam in it somewhere. You cannot really read well.
Where did I ever say that the ACA took money from war?

I am not sure why you feel it does nothing for the citizen, that is not true. In fact I cited some of those things. the NPE, 80% rule, 26 year child health insurance, and it gives me a better chance of not catching something when I go out in public because you know...there should be fewer not sick people touching things I touch.

So if you keep the taxes paying for war, and pay for war, then ADD another tax to pay for nothing, it's STILL "more", as in "more taxes", irrespective of the fact that it provides nothing in return. It does nothing to diminish war spending, or redirect that money into providing health care. It just adds another tax. You know, MORE tax.

I do not think you understood what you just replied to. I know that x+y= more than x when y is a positive value. What are you arguing?

Fixed your quote tags, so folks can figure out what's mine and what's yours.

You really are a gentleman aren't you. Here I was claiming I was perfect too.

For the comprehension impaired, it means that what I give is not "stolen". I am not going to give a penalty tax that returns exactly nothing.

Slow down speedy, I believe I get to that next.

You do not pay taxes or you pick and choose what each and every penny goes to?

I invite you to audit me and find out.

How would that tell me where all of your tax dollars go?

Is there some sort of relevant thought hidden in that sidetracking gibberish?

Yes but not for comprehension-ally deficient I guess.

Then you think in meaningless gibberish. It will be difficult to hold a rational conversation with that, but I'll try.

Oh you can skip the parts at the bottom if they are too tough for you unless I go on to explain it but you cannot wait.

You have two sets of standards in your America. One for you and one for me.

Oh hey look! Yet again if you just stopped and read all the way to the end you got your answer again. I have to ask why a smart guy like you reads a paragraph and then interrupts twice to ask questions that are answered at the end?

No. I have one standard. I will take care of myself in the best way I see fit, and allow you to do the same - but I expect reciprocity, that you will leave me alone to take care of myself as I am willing to do for you.

Sorry but I live in society.The founding fathers understood what that meant

Originally posted by habitforming

Social Security proves all of your points wrong.

Oh...this will be good.

Please tell me how point by point. I am slow.

As for your remarks on defense it is fairly clear you have no basic understanding of the concept. We do not protect ourselves from American bases why would we let our enemies get that close before we acted.

We project our defense outside our boarders so we don't have to fight wars in our own back yard. Why have a war in our streets when we can have it elsewhere...?

We participate in regional conflicts across the globe to reinforce our relationships with our allies and to train our cadre of regular military members in the art and science of war so that if we ever should need to defend our actual borders we will have enough people who know how to form the base of the huge army that we will have to raise to do so. One cannot learn to prosecute war in a classroom or at a map table.

Those so trained will in turn train their replacements and new recruits who will fill the ranks.

Or are you one who believes that a citizen army will be enough...when the musket was the most complicated piece of military equipment and every farmer had one it might have been.

However, an AH64 is not a system anyone can just fire up and use. Even our basic infantry equipment requires some extensive training to use competently. The days of the citizen soldier taking up arms to protect his nation are long gone. A well trained and practiced standing army is required to be any deterrent at all. Equipment asside there are tactics and doctrine that all take time to learn. You can't recruit a Colonel and expect him ot know how employ a brigade in combat. That was neat for the Civil War when being a Colonel meant you were the one who could read wirte and disburse the pay then get everone motivated enough to line up to fight.

Things are a little more complicated now...

The only way to keep an Army ready is to always have a little conflict going on to which we can rotate our troops – just a fact. Not a convenient one but a fact none the less.

91 Pages later...despite some peoples efforts...Obamacare still Constitutional...Still the law of the land.


I think people need to just get used to accepting this fact.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
91 Pages later...despite some peoples efforts...Obamacare still Constitutional...Still the law of the land.


I think people need to just get used to accepting this fact.

You are correct.
We may have to get used to it, but not necessarily accept it. Jim Crow laws were accepted for a long time, good thing some people decided not to accept it.
We may not have to get used to it for that long though. We shall see.
I don't have a problem with legislation that tries to address the problems with healthcare in the US, but I don't like the way that this law does it, in more than one way.