usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 7, 2013 19:43:12 GMT -5
"What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there?" Ummm, checking and I believe he was one who said there was no credible threat. That was his opinion. He was in charge of inspections which were to produce data. He was often obstructed, and thus didn't perform all the inspections and collect all the data due under the internationally agreed upon ceasefire; and he wasn't asked for his opinion. He was to supply data, and others would decide. Further, Bush didn't lie to go to war with Iraq. In fact, Bush didn't require Congressional approval at all because a state of war already existed between the United States and a coalition of allies, and the Iraqi regime. The only question was whether or not Saddam Hussein's continued obstruction, and feigning for his own reasons the possession of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons- a violation of the ceasefire- warranted a military response; and whether or not the dictator's regime was tenable in a post 9/11 world. For political reasons, the Bush administration chose to give Congress a vote in the matter (which again, was already decided in 1991, and for which Clinton sought no Congressional approval) and a majority of Democrats and Republicans chose to escalate the enforcement of the terms of the ceasefire, most importantly weapons inspections. 138 of our allies agreed that it was important. Saddam Hussein opted for war. Was the nation-building part of the deal? I would argue it wasn't, and shouldn't be part and parcel of military action. All of that being said- and all of it being water under the bridge, and Barrack Hussein Obama having already broken a promise to end the war in Iraq on "day one" of his presidency- it's simply nowhere near the level of partisan trickery, shenanigans, and outright lying and deceit that foisted the ObamaCare trainwreck on every single American. No it's worse because the mistakes meant going to War. A majority of Americans and the World believe it was a mistake.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 7, 2013 20:36:34 GMT -5
Oh the mistake that Dems voted for before they voted against it or what?
But I guess when people start dying for lack of health care who cares? It's just a law.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 7, 2013 21:53:28 GMT -5
When people start dying for lack of health care? Isn't that how we got here in the first place? This law will fix that- didn't ya read it?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 22:19:55 GMT -5
That was his opinion. He was in charge of inspections which were to produce data. He was often obstructed, and thus didn't perform all the inspections and collect all the data due under the internationally agreed upon ceasefire; and he wasn't asked for his opinion. He was to supply data, and others would decide. Further, Bush didn't lie to go to war with Iraq. In fact, Bush didn't require Congressional approval at all because a state of war already existed between the United States and a coalition of allies, and the Iraqi regime. The only question was whether or not Saddam Hussein's continued obstruction, and feigning for his own reasons the possession of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons- a violation of the ceasefire- warranted a military response; and whether or not the dictator's regime was tenable in a post 9/11 world. For political reasons, the Bush administration chose to give Congress a vote in the matter (which again, was already decided in 1991, and for which Clinton sought no Congressional approval) and a majority of Democrats and Republicans chose to escalate the enforcement of the terms of the ceasefire, most importantly weapons inspections. 138 of our allies agreed that it was important. Saddam Hussein opted for war. Was the nation-building part of the deal? I would argue it wasn't, and shouldn't be part and parcel of military action. All of that being said- and all of it being water under the bridge, and Barrack Hussein Obama having already broken a promise to end the war in Iraq on "day one" of his presidency- it's simply nowhere near the level of partisan trickery, shenanigans, and outright lying and deceit that foisted the ObamaCare trainwreck on every single American. No it's worse because the mistakes meant going to War. A majority of Americans and the World believe it was a mistake. It's different, and not as bad because it wasn't just a bi-partisan 'mistake', it was an international mistake- fueled by a dictator who felt it in his best interest to maintain an illusion. With ObamaCare, it was willful deceit. It was a calculated lie- a conscious decision made that it would be better to lie and pass the bill into law because if people knew, it would become politically untenable because their too stupid to know what's best for them, and we are smart, and we do know what's best for everyone, so we're gonna pass it and deal with the heat later. Fuck the American People.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 22:21:09 GMT -5
"38 days!" ?? Isn't January 2014 a little further away than 38 days? You don't have until January. You have 3...well, 37 days now.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 7, 2013 23:10:23 GMT -5
Because these people are incapable of obtaining a policy in the exchange without the website? Some time bomb. Try a phone or even use one of the navigators- as far as I know even in the worst possible case pen and paper still works.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 8, 2013 6:35:32 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 11:09:11 GMT -5
I suspect you will also not see this point but there's a decoherence between the bolded portions here. On the one hand, I'm advised in your specific case to treat what you say at face value. On the other, I'm advised in the general case to treat what people say as only part of a whole, and not rely on what they say as gospel. For good measure, I'm explicitly informed that my face-value interpretation of what you say gives me no insight into what you believe. I have, to be clear, zero interest in what whoever sits and types Optimist's stuff thinks or feels or is. I don't know her, and she isn't, meaningfully in this context, Optimist - who is, necessarily, only what she says. Occam's Razor applies. Multiplying yourself and me helps to obfuscate the charges leveled at your arguments but its virtue is purely tactical.
Your O is noted, and accorded value consistent with your above-quoted paragraph.
Given two candidates for office, and given that a voter chooses between them based principally on their stated position on a particular issue, and given that their stated position relates to a future situation strictly unknowable in the present -
1) that voter's choice may be informed by knowledge of past behavior, and by their impression of the trustworthiness of the speaker (itself a function partly of foreknowledge), but will most critically be affected by what the candidates say.
2) if the candidate they believe is convincingly lying to them, their choice is based on faulty data. They might as well flip a coin if nothing candidates say is reliable.
3) if you are going to argue that other factors carry more weight, can you identify any in the specific case of the President's repeated lies about the impact of his healthcare reform on millions of middle-class voters who supported him in the 2012 election?
4) if, in the alternative, you accept that, in general, the stated on-the-record positions of the candidate are going to be the criterion on which voters will decide to support or reject him, can you now see how it matters that those on-the-record statements be accurate?
5) Can you further see that, if these statements are unreliable, crude identity politics takes over, demeaning the public debate, debasing the institutions of representative government and doing lasting damage to the body politic?
***
I'm sure it all seems hyperbolic to you. I'm sure within the reach of your arm, nothing is changed by anything the President says, or at least nothing so proximately it's worth your while to care about it. You say you would have no interest in defending honesty as a virtue in the public sphere, and you're under no obligation to mount that defense. What I can't grasp is your interest in assaulting it as a virtue. You paid lip service to it, but then immediately qualified it with an odious "ends justify the means" rationalization. Your actual argument was that it would be better to be honest, but if being honest means people would conclude it was a bad deal for them, lying is an okay way to make them think the opposite. And that is wrong from so many perspectives, even the baldly Macchiavellian: because it's a lie so obvious that only dedicated partisans and the wilfully blind could fail to identify it as one.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 11:14:14 GMT -5
In the sense that there's a possibility that you can throw a ball in the air and watch it accelerate away from the Earth's gravitational pull.
You know that can't happen, because you understand the Law of Gravity.
By your own admission, you don't understand what drives premium rate increases. There's no reason why you should be up-to-speed on healthcare economics, and economics of any sort is far from a settled science. But there are some things we have good hard data on, and for you to be right in your opinion on this, that good hard data would have to be wrong. It's not quite a Podkletznov scenario, but I think the good hard data has you beat on this, and the appeal to ignorance is IMO unbecoming.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 11:46:05 GMT -5
"What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there?" Ummm, checking and I believe he was one who said there was no credible threat. Yet, he was still out there, checking. Checking implies he wasn't certain. You may well take issue with Cheney's 1% Doctrine - God knows there are good grounds. But that was the operating paradigm in the post-9/11 Bush White House. What were the odds on September 10, 2001, that hijackers would launch a coordinated offensive using multiple fully-laden passenger aircraft as massive incendiary devices to target major population centers in the US? But on September 12, 2001, the odds that it had happened anyway were 100%. You can say you'd have reacted differently, did react differently even, but that event did at least create room for Cheney to argue that the equally tiny chance that Saddam might smuggle a bioagent or fissionable nuclear material to some terror group that then used it to exterminate the people of Chicago or Miami mitigated in favor of even quite extreme pre-emptive measures. Personally, I find very plausible the notion that the military-industrial complex profiteered from the panic generated by the 9/11 attacks, and that the Bush White House saw political opportunity in them as well. Neither necessarily invalidates the premise of the 1% doctrine - just because you're paranoid (or even using paranoia as a mask for self-interested motives) doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. I think there were solid grounds for the war besides WMD, and the text of the preamble of the Iraq War Declaration bears that out; I separately subscribe to the evolved view that it was better to force al Qaeda into a conventional military conflict in the Middle East than facilitate a continued terroristic guerilla war on US soil, although I'm not blind to the humanitarian and imperialistic implications of that view. I do not accept the simplistic frame that Bush knowingly lied about Saddam's possession of WMD, and that that led directly and solely to a war in the Middle East for which he bore sole responsibility as a moral matter - in other words "Bush lied, people died" is, like most agitprop slogans, garbage. Catchy garbage, but garbage.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 8, 2013 11:46:31 GMT -5
Obama, Check out France's Credit rating...Lowered again today. You are writing checks our children can not cover.. Our credit is at risk and that is not funny. GDP is at risk with $$$$ Trillions of concreted Promiscuity. Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt prom·is·cu·i·ty ˌpräməˈskyo͞oitē,prəˌmisˈkyo͞o-/ noun noun: promiscuity 1. the fact or state of being promiscuous. "some fear this will lead to greater sexual promiscuity among teens" synonyms: licentiousness, wantonness, immorality; More 2. con·crete verb past tense: concreted; past participle: concreted ˈkänˌkrēt,känˈkrēt/ 1. cover (an area) with concrete. "the precious English countryside may soon be concreted over" fix in position with concrete. "the post is concreted into the ground" 2. archaic form (something) into a mass; solidify. "the juices of the plants are concreted upon the surface"
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 11:50:50 GMT -5
Thanks Wrongside. What if you don't have insurance? Right now, the deadline is March 31st to have insurance or be liable for a penalty assessed on your Federal tax rebate (or dodge that penalty by working that Federal rebate down by other means). That means you'd have to pay a premium by February 15, which I think gives you 98 days. But that deadline is very likely to slip.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 11:53:13 GMT -5
You can't compare stopping the war on terror to changing a law. apples and Oranges. By the same token, comparing a declaration of war with the enactment of a law is a similarly bogus comparison, that being sort of the point being made in rehearsing some very old arguments over the merits of the Iraq War Declaration.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 11:55:06 GMT -5
Presumably the millions it leaves uninsured share the same miraculous regenerative powers as the millions it blocks from accessing care by its design. Didn't you read it?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 12:02:02 GMT -5
Illustrative of the level of knowledge among supporters of PPACA, sadly. Pen and paper applications get uploaded onto the same software, and hit the same snags when they do as direct online applications.
Also, like the online applications, they determine - with questionable accuracy - the prospective subsidy levels available to an applicant, assuming that their year-end taxable income turns out to be what they guessed it might be at year's beginning.
It doesn't tell them what plans are out there. It doesn't help them select one according to their needs. It doesn't clarify what a cruddy deal a 60/40 Bronze-level plan stuffed with mandatory riders you'll never need is (I've built plans for the self-employed market, I know how the riders distort the premium). And it doesn't get them signed up.
What staggers me is that nobody in support of the law suggests using an insurance broker - possibly because the pre-existence of this body of licensed professionals ethically obliged to give good advice to clients on the best available insurance deals calls into question both the need for a new, unlicensed and barely trained, rival group of 'navigators,' and the virtue of an exchange whose plans are apparently best sold by people who know nothing about the plans they're selling or the wider market.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 12:08:02 GMT -5
What measures in PPACA make it easier for a pre-PPACA uninsured person to visit their doctor for regular check-ups and lab work, and afford maintenance medications for their condition? What make the necessary diagnostic testing, the AB indices and carotid ultrasounds and exercise stress tests and so on, more available?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 12:15:49 GMT -5
On the subject of deaths from preventible chronic disease -
50% of patients, reportedly, fail to maintain a regime of regular medication prescribed to control chronic morbid disease.
This indicates that even universal coverage would still leave people liable to die of preventible chronic illness and its complications.
It should be added that PPACA does not promise, and will not deliver, universal coverage; neither does it promise, nor will it deliver, regular affordable access to a physician to manage a patient's chronic comorbidities.
The trope that it will reduce or even impact rates of death allegedly arising out of lack of access associated with lack of insurance is disingenuous on its face.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,494
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 8, 2013 12:51:08 GMT -5
Here is an interesting article about ObamaCare.
The Obamacare 'scandal' you haven't heard about
(CNN) – The Rev. Timothy McDonald gripped the pulpit with both hands, locked eyes with the shouting worshippers, and decided to speak the unspeakable.
The bespectacled Baptist minister was not confessing to a scandalous love affair or the theft of church funds. He brought up another taboo: the millions of poor Americans who won’t get health insurance beginning in January because their states refused to accept Obamacare.
McDonald cited a New Testament passage in which Jesus gathered the 5,000 and fed them with five loaves and two fishes. Members of his congregation bolted to their feet and yelled, “C’mon preacher” and “Yessir” as his voice rose in righteous anger.
“What I like about our God is that he doesn’t throw people away,” McDonald told First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta during a recent Sunday service. “There will be health care for every American. Don’t you worry when they try to cast you aside. Just say I’m a leftover for God and leftovers just taste better the next day!”
McDonald’s congregation cheered, but his is a voice crying in the wilderness. He’s willing to condemn state leaders whose refusal to accept Obamacare has left nearly 5 million poor Americans without health coverage. But few of the most famous pastors in the Bible Belt will join him.
Joel Osteen? Bishop T.D. Jakes, and other prominent pastors throughout the South?
Like McDonald, they preach in states where crosses and church steeples dot the skyline yet the poor can’t get the health insurance they would receive if they lived elsewhere. All declined to comment.
More: The Obamacare 'scandal' you haven't heard about
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 8, 2013 12:55:04 GMT -5
On the subject of deaths from preventible chronic disease - 50% of patients, reportedly, fail to maintain a regime of regular medication prescribed to control chronic morbid disease. This indicates that even universal coverage would still leave people liable to die of preventible chronic illness and its complications. It should be added that PPACA does not promise, and will not deliver, universal coverage; neither does it promise, nor will it deliver, regular affordable access to a physician to manage a patient's chronic comorbidities. The trope that it will reduce or even impact rates of death allegedly arising out of lack of access associated with lack of insurance is disingenuous on its face. The ACA will increase access to insurance for large groups within the population. However I agree that we would be better off with universal access rather than what we are getting. It is disingenuous to argue that unavailability of insurance does not contribute to excess mortality rates.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 13:13:03 GMT -5
It's almost as if churches, as 501(c) entities, are forbidden from making political speech. How fortunate that the speech in this case was critical of Republicans, otherwise the consequences for his tax-exempt status might have been severe. In other news, the problem is not that states made assessments of the affordability of Medicaid expansion; they have since the program began, and those assessments have always left some people uninsured. There are states that have accepted the PPACA poisoned chalice, and full responsibility for its adverse-selection consequences down the line, that arbitrarily deny somebody whose income is 135% of FPL Medicaid, even though the law gives them flexibility to set the threshold at 133% or 138% of FPL. Subsidies are not available to people with incomes below 139% of FPL. So there may well be people even in states gung-ho to leap lemminglike into Obamacare who, due to the kludge in the bill and the greater kludge in its implementation, miss out. Moreover, millions of Americans whose insurers, like Kaiser Permanente, are automatically enrolling them in new plans come January 1, 2014, may thereby fail to qualify for subsidies, which apply only to plans purchased on the exchanges, not plans - even superior quality plans - purchased elsewhere. Why CMS, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, gets to dictate the applicability of a tax credit, while the IRS gets to levy penalties retroactively on declarations made to CMS, is a question for Democrats to contend with. Here's another fun one. 138% of FPL is the equivalent of a 39.5 hour week worked at $7.50/hr. The President, in advocating a minimum wage of $9/hr, is attempting to make full-time work at minimum wage incompatible with Medicaid eligibility and force these vulnerable working poor onto exchanges where even the subsidy won't prevent their new healthcare expense for a Bronze plan with 40% coinsurance leaving them substantially worse off than the 100% coverage Medicaid affords for most services. Bravo for joined-up thinking!
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 13:15:47 GMT -5
If 50% of people don't take prescribed medication as instructed, and 18% of people don't carry insurance (most of them, per the CBO, because they are healthy and/or wealthy enough to feel they don't need it), which is the bigger contributor?
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 8, 2013 13:18:45 GMT -5
If 50% of people don't take prescribed medication as instructed, and 18% of people don't carry insurance (most of them, per the CBO, because they are healthy and/or wealthy enough to feel they don't need it), which is the bigger contributor? If a sample of uninsured people have a higher mortality rate than a sample of insured people, then apparently enough of the insured are benefiting from the medication to make a difference.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 13:31:47 GMT -5
Since around 40% of the uninsured population are Medicaid-eligible but not Medicaid-enrolled (around 60% of children eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP are not enrolled) and since around 40% of the uninsured population will still be uninsured after PPACA fully rolls out, I don't think the difference will be altered substantially by the reform.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,494
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 8, 2013 13:34:22 GMT -5
It's almost as if churches, as 501(c) entities, are forbidden from making political speech. How fortunate that the speech in this case was critical of Republicans, otherwise the consequences for his tax-exempt status might have been severe. In other news, the problem is not that states made assessments of the affordability of Medicaid expansion; they have since the program began, and those assessments have always left some people uninsured. There are states that have accepted the PPACA poisoned chalice, and full responsibility for its adverse-selection consequences down the line, that arbitrarily deny somebody whose income is 135% of FPL Medicaid, even though the law gives them flexibility to set the threshold at 133% or 138% of FPL. Subsidies are not available to people with incomes below 139% of FPL. So there may well be people even in states gung-ho to leap lemminglike into Obamacare who, due to the kludge in the bill and the greater kludge in its implementation, miss out. Moreover, millions of Americans whose insurers, like Kaiser Permanente, are automatically enrolling them in new plans come January 1, 2014, may thereby fail to qualify for subsidies, which apply only to plans purchased on the exchanges, not plans - even superior quality plans - purchased elsewhere. Why CMS, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, gets to dictate the applicability of a tax credit, while the IRS gets to levy penalties retroactively on declarations made to CMS, is a question for Democrats to contend with. Here's another fun one. 138% of FPL is the equivalent of a 39.5 hour week worked at $7.50/hr. The President, in advocating a minimum wage of $9/hr, is attempting to make full-time work at minimum wage incompatible with Medicaid eligibility and force these vulnerable working poor onto exchanges where even the subsidy won't prevent their new healthcare expense for a Bronze plan with 40% coinsurance leaving them substantially worse off than the 100% coverage Medicaid affords for most services. Bravo for joined-up thinking! Yea. Normally the speeches from these pulpits are about the sins of homosexuality, gay marriage and other bad liberal issues. Thousands of churches' tax ex-exempt status have been taken away for that.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 13:52:44 GMT -5
As odious as those speeches are - and incidentally, the cited Joel Osteen does counterblast against that from his position of prominence - they're constitutionally protected. It turns out that being a church in a free country entails having a right to define sins and preach against them.
On the other hand, inveighing against a political decision on a partisan basis - directly or indirectly attempting to influence the vote, and through that the deliberations of the State - has been found a violation of the Establishment Clause, and under IRS regulations found constitutional is proscribed for 501(c) entities.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 8, 2013 14:00:17 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 14:12:24 GMT -5
Thanks for this. It's actually the case that no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status, although that hasn't stopped Leftist groups intimidating churches with threats of potential consequences to the exercise of their First Amendment rights: www.wnd.com/2012/11/irs-surrenders-time-for-churches-to-get-political/- which puts an asterisk on your assertion that there hasn't been any negative effect, but your point is well made and well taken. It remains the case that the pastor quoted by Tenn here was engaged in a fallacy of attribution. The moral responsibility for PPACA remains with the people who drafted and forced through PPACA; the moral obligation, when SCOTUS clarified that portions of the law were unconstitutional, was to repair the law, not punish the indigent.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 14:30:22 GMT -5
Not the cost, then? i was putting the criminality in TERMS of the cost. you may feel free to use the term "cost" as broadly applying to our national character, and human suffering, as well.Not the fact that Obama lied, then? they both lied. some lies are more consequential than others.Not anything relevant to anything at all discussed elsewhere in the thread? That would be why I'm not following you down the rabbit-hole. there is no rabbit hole, Alice.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 14:35:01 GMT -5
The insouciance of this attitude is dismaying to me. If the manifest fact of its lack of truth doesn't make it a lie, what makes a lie? the knowledge that it is not the truth by the teller.If it doesn't matter what our elected representatives tell us, why do we have elections? You are advocating totalitarianism. don't be silly. there is no need to lie when you have the bludgeon.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 14:36:29 GMT -5
What I'm trying to convey here is that, if it doesn't matter what a candidate says, there is no difference between candidates. nobody said it didn't matter- other than possibly you. what we said is that we expect politicians to "color their prose". they can be distinguished both by the prose and the color of it.
|
|