If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 3382
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14913 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 02:34:32 PM

karmaceutical: Roberts? More like Robespierre, right Freepers?


I didn't do anything.
 
2012-06-28 02:34:40 PM

hbk72777: Lot's a shiat heads on both side here with the usual partisan posts.

Some of the Obamacare is good. Kids with pre existing conditions being able to get in on plans, same with sick adults.

But I am not paying the tax. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd buy farking health insurance in the first place.

See you in jail.


http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

See page 151.

''(2) SPECIAL RULES.-Notwithstanding any other provision
of law-
''(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.-In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure.
''(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.-The Secretary shall not-
''(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
''(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.''.
 
2012-06-28 02:34:42 PM

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: If Obama raises taxes on tanning beds, did he raise taxes for EVERY American?


No, he didn't raise them for EVERY American, but he did for some members of the middle class.

His words:


"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

But God forbid that your beloved Obama broke a promise.


Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.

And what was the context of the speech? You're being hyperbolic and you know it.
 
2012-06-28 02:34:48 PM

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: If Obama raises taxes on tanning beds, did he raise taxes for EVERY American?


No, he didn't raise them for EVERY American, but he did for some members of the middle class.

His words:


"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

But God forbid that your beloved Obama broke a promise.



Are you arguing that congress passed Obama's plan?
 
2012-06-28 02:34:59 PM
This is the plan members of Congress have (paid for by taxpayers):

Link


"Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)"

Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there's no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.

And here's the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.
 
2012-06-28 02:35:02 PM

LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: Voiceofreason01: no he didn't

/he explicitly mentions that those types of taxes would be unconstitutional

I'm reading up, but I don't see what you're talking about. Do you at least have a page/paragraph number to back up your claim? On reading this, it does indeed sound like he's saying Congress has the power to enact taxes for anything it wants.

There is currently a federal child tax credit. What's the difference between a tax credit for some and increased taxes for everyone else? How is that not already the Congress imposing a tax penalty for not having children? If they can do that, why not a tax for not having health insurance?

Having a child is a positive act, you are deciding to make major changes in your life.
Not purchasing health insurance is doing nothing, it is inaction. Why should inaction be taxed?

By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax. Why should inaction be taxed?


it really shouldn't. the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credit, and the tax credit for not growing food are all the height of ridiculousness. the last one is the best; we are going to give you a tax break for buying a farm, and then not growing food on it. all you other people need buy farms and not grow food on it.
but as we all know, ridiculous =! unconsitutional.
 
2012-06-28 02:35:11 PM

The_Sponge: derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?


Using up more services and resources.


Wait are you saying that people without children use up more resources? Because I'm pretty sure my dog and cat use up less resources than your little snot nosed kid.

/ I'll take animals over human babies any day
//don't mind paying taxes if it's for a good cause. Health care for the needy is a good cause
 
2012-06-28 02:35:14 PM

Big Man On Campus: LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: Voiceofreason01: no he didn't

/he explicitly mentions that those types of taxes would be unconstitutional

I'm reading up, but I don't see what you're talking about. Do you at least have a page/paragraph number to back up your claim? On reading this, it does indeed sound like he's saying Congress has the power to enact taxes for anything it wants.

There is currently a federal child tax credit. What's the difference between a tax credit for some and increased taxes for everyone else? How is that not already the Congress imposing a tax penalty for not having children? If they can do that, why not a tax for not having health insurance?

Having a child is a positive act, you are deciding to make major changes in your life.
Not purchasing health insurance is doing nothing, it is inaction. Why should inaction be taxed?


Not having a child is doing nothing, it is inaction - and through that inaction, you pay more in taxes....so...I'm not really seeing your argument.
 
2012-06-28 02:35:35 PM

Ant: brobdiggy: Government bans Cheetos, DQ Blizzards, and King Size Candy Bars.

Exactly. Check out Canada, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries. You don't see any junk food over th... Oh, wait...



Not to mention that Brits are famous for having a sweet tooth.

/Curious if/any of those countries have enacted Bloomberg style limits on stuff.
 
2012-06-28 02:35:52 PM

netweavr: I'm tempted to suggest that if people don't have children then there's no point in subsidizing any education.


i hire from the local gene pool.

i have no children, yet am absolutely happy to keep paying towards educating the local populace. i depend on people being able to count past potato, and so do you.
 
2012-06-28 02:35:54 PM

netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...


I agree. I'm trying to point out that the argument "Congress can't tax people for not buying health insurance because they can't tax inaction" is silly. Congress already taxes inaction, an example being that those who do not have children pay higher taxes than those who do.
 
2012-06-28 02:36:14 PM

jevanpe5: CPennypacker: derpdeederp: Good for you Libs, glad you got a win.

Personally, I think it morally wrong to take money from one group of people to pay for anothers benefits, so single payer would have been better in my mind. But we get what we get.

Go team, lol.

Cool story bro. I think its morally wrong to let people die or go into life crushing debt because they can't afford medical care.

Morals are funny.


My Dad has cancer. It's a very aggressive cancer. After the first 3 months of chemo, they just did another pet scan the other day and found out that it is not shrinking... They're not sure what to do now because the insurance company doesn't want to pay for another scan like the first two... And it's costing him alot of the money that worked so hard for all of his life... Average cost is about $5000...
Since your so into all of this, could you please send me $5000 so I can make sure my Dad get's the scan that is deemed proper??? Thanks and glad you saved him..
Looking forward to your donation, lib...


Your father must be really proud of you. I saw it the first time you posted it. It was dumb then too.
 
2012-06-28 02:36:19 PM

Moderator: For the most part people are being good.


We can change that if you're bored....

/Just kidding
//...or am I?
///Pleasantly surprised by the decision today, but waiting to see how it all pans out
 
2012-06-28 02:36:21 PM

Spazmojack: Blues_X: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

Obama killed my father, shot my dog, and stole my bible.

Obama married my father, ate my dog, and ripped up my bible.


Obama left my cake out in the rain. Except that it wasn't a cake, it was a tax. (He lied about the cake.)
 
2012-06-28 02:36:56 PM

Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.



Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.
 
2012-06-28 02:37:08 PM

LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: Voiceofreason01: no he didn't

/he explicitly mentions that those types of taxes would be unconstitutional

I'm reading up, but I don't see what you're talking about. Do you at least have a page/paragraph number to back up your claim? On reading this, it does indeed sound like he's saying Congress has the power to enact taxes for anything it wants.

There is currently a federal child tax credit. What's the difference between a tax credit for some and increased taxes for everyone else? How is that not already the Congress imposing a tax penalty for not having children? If they can do that, why not a tax for not having health insurance?

Having a child is a positive act, you are deciding to make major changes in your life.
Not purchasing health insurance is doing nothing, it is inaction. Why should inaction be taxed?

By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax. Why should inaction be taxed?


Oh I agree. I don't think it's fair that I as an individual should pay more to the federal government than someone with kids. You'll actually get no argument from me. As an individual who has so far chosen not to have children, I'm essentially being taxed. That isn't fair. So again, answer this question. Why should inaction be taxed? The existence of an existing example of taxing inaction is not cause to continue taxing inaction. Where does that line of reasoning end? Does congress someday tax your inaction on keeping your yard or neighborhood clean? Do we someday allow congress to tax you for failing to wear a belt? For not showing up to work?

The logic behind the child credit is that families cost more to run. While it is unquestionably true that raising a child is expensive in both time and money, the tax credit essentially legislates lifestyles. Women generally dislike it when congress tells them what to do with their Vaginas (rightly so), why is it this child-tax-credit, which is essentially a law that coerces a child-bearing-lifestyle out of women by imposing an expense on inaction, overlooked?

Also, rearing a child is an individual enterprise that you can do without relying on any other commercial industry. You could in fact borrow old baby clothes from people and not pay for most of the essentials that most people purchase from the baby industry. There is no commercial-tie to raising a child.

Insurance is not like this. With congress using powers of tax to coerce me into participating in an industry, the power to tax has again been expanded unnecessarily because now a tax is tied to your participation in an industry. This further tightens the noose around the average voter by bringing fat-cat capitalists in the insurance/banking industry CLOSER to the politicians.
 
2012-06-28 02:37:11 PM

ModernPrimitive01: The_Sponge: derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?


Using up more services and resources.

Wait are you saying that people without children use up more resources? Because I'm pretty sure my dog and cat use up less resources than your little snot nosed kid.

/ I'll take animals over human babies any day
//don't mind paying taxes if it's for a good cause. Health care for the needy is a good cause


Society, by nature, builds upon itself. We provide public education in an attempt to build upon the previous generations knowledge and technological achievements. If you don't produce children to build upon your generation, then you're just leaching the system without putting back into it.
 
2012-06-28 02:37:37 PM

shortymac: /American living in Canada
//Single payer health care isn't scary


As an American living in America under a single payer system most of my life (military), I strongly agree with you. I have never lost a moment of sleep over how to pay for meds or medical treatment for me or my family.

People who whine about single-payer only do so because they've never lived under it.
 
2012-06-28 02:37:48 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Weaver95: I see the GOP is already taking up the mantra of 'taxes/deception' as their rapid response propaganda reply to this decision on obamacare.

I personally watched it grow from a laughable blubbering argument, a mere seedling of a point scattered on a few forums, to the fully grown GOP-rag front page propaganda within about 4 hours.

It's amazing how quickly they snag onto the best angle they have, even if it's still mind numbingly stupid, and turn it into their entire theme.


it's a category 5 derpstorm, that's for sure.
 
2012-06-28 02:38:05 PM

HeartlineTwist: Sorry, I should have noted my sarcasm.


and i probably should have noted the original argument is so damned funny i can't help but continue to poke at it. all else fails, make up a criteria like 'positive action' that has no actual meaning, and can be bent to whatever contortions one wants. it's like magic!
 
2012-06-28 02:38:25 PM

LockeOak: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I agree. I'm trying to point out that the argument "Congress can't tax people for not buying health insurance because they can't tax inaction" is silly. Congress already taxes inaction, an example being that those who do not have children pay higher taxes than those who do.


I'm curious, does anyone have a reason to tax people without children more? Other than the moral argument of because Jeebus said be fruitful and multiply? It's not like we need to encourage people to have kids because we need more humans running around.
 
2012-06-28 02:38:48 PM

ModernPrimitive01: Wait are you saying that people without children use up more resources? Because I'm pretty sure my dog and cat use up less resources than your little snot nosed kid.

/ I'll take animals over human babies any day
//don't mind paying taxes if it's for a good cause. Health care for the needy is a good cause



Oh shiat! I completely misread that......I meant that people with kids use up more resources.

/My mistake.
//Don't have kids.
///Just a cat.
 
2012-06-28 02:38:52 PM

heap: muck4doo: Truth is my excuse. But you go ahead and keep believing that liar is an actual libertarian. He spews all the crap you want him too.

did he pull your hair?

i think that means he likes you. you should throw sand at him when you see him at the monkey bars. you'll be kissing before you know it.


Voting this funniest comment.
 
2012-06-28 02:38:52 PM
Well I'll be motherfarking damned.

Some faith in the SCOTUS has been restored.
 
2012-06-28 02:39:02 PM

Jackson Herring: Anyone who "doesn't need" health insurance can afford to pay the tax penalty.


You are so right that is the exact criteria that should be used for everything. If you can afford not to buy it for yourself then you should provide it to everyone else.
 
2012-06-28 02:39:05 PM

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.


Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.


No, we just don't consider it to have the earth-shattering importance you do.
 
2012-06-28 02:39:25 PM

Weaver95: it's a category 5 derpstorm, that's for sure.


The propagation of "ideas" in the modern media really is fascinating.
 
2012-06-28 02:39:40 PM

ForTheSakeOfArgument: If insurance is now mandated can the govt. put controls on how much an insurance company can charge? Say, a premium cannot exceed x% of an individuals annual income?


From what I read today, there seem to be loopholes the size of Texas. Looks like it won't prevent people from going bankrupt who have major medical expenses.

Google "mandate without public option."
 
2012-06-28 02:39:49 PM

Phinn: If you want to be a champion for institutionalized parasitism, go ahead.

You will not get my money, though. I will see to that.


You are an incredibly petty, selfish individual. And that's how you will die - angry and lonely. It's too bad you overlooked the rational, economical sound sense it makes to risk pool all.

But from your comments I can just see that you're just a Randian, and your personal views have no basis in reality.

So continue on with your badself!
 
2012-06-28 02:39:51 PM
Btw people arguing about "taxes" need to realize they're talking about politicians here. Of course taxes got raised somewhere, that's what politicians do to feel accomplished.

Or when they're bored.
 
2012-06-28 02:39:57 PM

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: If Obama raises taxes on tanning beds, did he raise taxes for EVERY American?


No, he didn't raise them for EVERY American, but he did for some members of the middle class.

His words:


"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

But God forbid that your beloved Obama broke a promise.


He didn't raise my taxes. Or anybody I know.
 
2012-06-28 02:40:12 PM

The_Sponge: derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?


Using up more services and resources.


People without children use more services and resources? I thought it would be the other way around.
 
2012-06-28 02:40:26 PM
Addendum to Obamacare: Anyone who is now going to move out of the country over this MUST purchase a moving van.
 
2012-06-28 02:41:09 PM

derpdeederp: People without children use more services and resources? I thought it would be the other way around.



I corrected myself in a previous post.....I completely misread what was said.
 
2012-06-28 02:41:11 PM
Obama is even slicker than I thought. I actually was starting to believe him when he was saying this isnt a tax-I went back and scoured over some of the highlights of Obamacare, attempting to try to see his side- now the Supreme Court backs the fact that this is just a large tax increase in disguise.....but Is it a tax increase for a ultimately a good cause? My head says this will be bad for the country, but the true answer probably lies in the area of compromise.

Not a problem. A nice Dem victory. The final battle is November.
At the very least, this is gonna be a good fight.
 
2012-06-28 02:41:13 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Well I'll be motherfarking damned.

Some faith in the SCOTUS has been restored.


Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.
 
2012-06-28 02:41:17 PM

ForTheSakeOfArgument: I am wondering how adding millions of payers into the system will drive up premiums? Maybe someone covered this but it's getting hard to sort through the trolls and football spiking. If insurance is now mandated can the govt. put controls on how much an insurance company can charge? Say, a premium cannot exceed x% of an individuals annual income?


Do you have any idea what treating charity care and service patients are like? Enjoy paying for the ICU stays of drunks and iv drug abusers with multiple expensive comorbidities, or the people that smoke even when they can barely breathe without using a machine.
 
2012-06-28 02:41:36 PM

ModernPrimitive01: LockeOak: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I agree. I'm trying to point out that the argument "Congress can't tax people for not buying health insurance because they can't tax inaction" is silly. Congress already taxes inaction, an example being that those who do not have children pay higher taxes than those who do.

I'm curious, does anyone have a reason to tax people without children more? Other than the moral argument of because Jeebus said be fruitful and multiply? It's not like we need to encourage people to have kids because we need more humans running around.


We do need more humans running around. The taxes are society picking up some of the burden for raising children. This isn't a religious argument it's a practical one.
 
2012-06-28 02:41:41 PM

ghare: i will not taunt teatards about this


Since you won't i just taunted my teatard mother-in-law extra. She told me she is shutting down her insurance business so she wont have to pay health insurance for her employees effective this Dec. And to show she's serious....she called them all after it happened and said your last day is 12/31/12. I seriously wonder how my father in law deals with it outside of copious amounts of beer
 
2012-06-28 02:41:45 PM

heap: netweavr: I'm tempted to suggest that if people don't have children then there's no point in subsidizing any education.

i hire from the local gene pool.

i have no children, yet am absolutely happy to keep paying towards educating the local populace. i depend on people being able to count past potato, and so do you.


big fat THIS
 
2012-06-28 02:41:49 PM

qorkfiend: The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.


Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.

No, we just don't consider it to have the earth-shattering importance you do.



In my opinion he didn't break a promise. He said that his plan didn't have those increases, but we didn't get his plan. Congress wouldn't support an Obama plan. So we got congress' plan instead.
 
2012-06-28 02:42:08 PM

netweavr: ModernPrimitive01: The_Sponge: derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?


Using up more services and resources.

Wait are you saying that people without children use up more resources? Because I'm pretty sure my dog and cat use up less resources than your little snot nosed kid.

/ I'll take animals over human babies any day
//don't mind paying taxes if it's for a good cause. Health care for the needy is a good cause

Society, by nature, builds upon itself. We provide public education in an attempt to build upon the previous generations knowledge and technological achievements. If you don't produce children to build upon your generation, then you're just leaching the system without putting back into it.


So having children is the only way to build upon mankind's knowledge? What if I decided not to have kids but instead focus on curing cancer, writing a beautiful symphony, or an amazing novel? That is lasting knowledge for the good of humanity. I'm putting back into the system and other people's children can build from my knowledge. If I had a kid, I may not have the time or resources to do any of those things. This is why I get pissed when people ask my wife and I "when are you going to start a family?" Like what we're doing now is just farking around but our life will begin as soon as we procreate
 
2012-06-28 02:42:14 PM

derpdeederp: The_Sponge: derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?


Using up more services and resources.

People without children use more services and resources? I thought it would be the other way around.


Kids put back into the system what their parents took out. That's how it works, you pay for your parents, not the other way around.
 
2012-06-28 02:42:25 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Obama won on this. Time to accept it.


No, he didn't. Again, as I've been saying over the couple threads, check Part IV of the opinion. Roberts overturned the Medicaid expansion in part. What we're left with is, now more than ever, a mandate without a public option.

Plus he reframed the conversation as a matter of taxation, which has the right-wingers jerking off already. Once the dust settles, the right wing will figure out the red states can have their cake by opting out of the Medicaid expansion to thunderous applause by its most ignorant citizens, cut it and lay it out on the plate by making political theater out of the state legislature opt-out votes, and eat it too by blaming Obamacare when their poorest citizens (of which I can only imagine the overlap is astounding) go without health care coverage for it.

That's not even going into the fact Roberts reopened the door to fights over federal funding and conditions thereof by reexamining South Dakota v. Dole, Pennhurst and Steward Machine. Can't imagine that won't be gasoline on the fire over federal funding for education, the arts, and the sciences.
 
2012-06-28 02:42:32 PM

ciberido: ialdabaoth: Actually, I really *would* like an answer.

Notsureifserious, but since you asked so nicely, the short answer is, because whether or not a person deserves to live has nothing whatsoever to do with how much money they own in the first place.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of dividing humanity into "those who deserve to live" and "those who don't," but if I had to, then I'd start off with something pretty easy like "Has he ever murdered anyone?" and maybe work my way up to more subjective criteria like "What has she done to make the world a better place?"

I'm not sure how else to answer your question, but you asked, so enjoy.


So... here's my confusion, then. If we're uncomfortable with the idea of someone's "deservedness" to live having anything to do with how much money they own, why do we allow our legal and political system to create exactly that outcome, over and over again?

- Rich people don't end up on death row; poor people do.
- Rich people don't have to worry about malnutrition; poor people do.
- Rich people don't have to worry about unsafe neighborhoods; poor people do.
- Rich people don't have to worry about lack of education; poor people do.
- Rich people don't have to worry about the police actively assaulting them; poor people do.
- It goes on and on...

Why do we favor a system where money determines someone's worth as a being, if we don't favor a system where money determines someone's worth as a being?
 
2012-06-28 02:42:50 PM

The_Sponge: Biological Ali: Rational people arguing in good faith understand that when the context is "raising" or "lowering" taxes, it's income taxes being talked about. This new argument is basically "Cigarette taxes going up means Obama has broken his promise!" all over again, only it's somehow even more retarded.


Rational people realize that if the federal government raises taxes whether it's done via the income tax or through some kind of other tax, it's still a tax increase.

But somehow it's my fault that Obama made a blanket statement.


Sure, run with that angle - knock yourself out. I'm sure it'll play just as well as the cigarette tax argument did.
 
2012-06-28 02:42:52 PM

relcec: but another very real and important driver in price increases is the very real human desire of every person in the healthcare industry to increase ones own income.


People w/ Gubmint jobs like pay hikes too.



SacriliciousBeerSwiller
:
"B-b-b-but Roberts sez it TAX! TAAAX!".


Of course it was a tax, What DOLT didn't believe that.

This TAX increases welfare for the borderline poor. Will not increase the quality of care or lower costs and only guarantees that in future when this Gubmint intrusion/handout is seen for the FAILURE that is it will only increase calls for greater Gubmint intervention.

Oh wait....that has already begun.

How's that?

/ So Teatard - Moderator approved. Calling an Obamabot an idiot? - BOOM!! Deleted
 
2012-06-28 02:42:55 PM

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.

Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.


You do realize that Democrats are OK with taxes, right? If it takes a little taxation to get health care, the Dems are fine with it. In fact, if this was the only promise Obama broke, the Dems would be thrilled beyond belief.

You are confusing Obama for the first President "read my lips" Bush who was a Republican. And Republicans are the ones who get bent out of shape about taxes. It was bush raising taxes that helped Perot split the Republican votes.

So while you *might* be able to spin this as "Obama raised taxes," and that's really not factoring in all the people who won't be affected because they have insurance or qualify for an exemption, this tactic only plays to the people already dead set against him.

To sum up, the Democrats are cool with a little tax increase if it means health care.
 
2012-06-28 02:43:16 PM

snocone: Divided and Conquered is no way to go thru life, son.

/there simply is no better butthurt than partisan butthurt
//wish there was a way to save it and serve it rewarmed, often


You fool! Much like gazpacho and gagh, partisan butthurt is a dish best served cold.
2.bp.blogspot.com
It is very cold ... in space ...
 
2012-06-28 02:43:19 PM

hinten: So, let me get this right.
Republicans are against affordable healthcare.
They are against enormous improvement in access to health care for millions of Americans, including increased access to preventive care such as mammograms and birth control.
They are against young people staying on their parents health insurance.
Republicans are against prohibiting insurance companies from turning down people who have pre-existing conditions.
They are against prohibiting insurance companies from increasing premiums to unaffordable levels for families who have a child born with a birth defect.
They are against something that has been determined to be fully constitutional and legal.


No, no, no... they're for all that stuff (well, except the mammograms and birth control, because Jesus). What they're against is Obamacare!
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report