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.

(The New York Times)   Romney says that since healthcare mandate is a tax, Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on middle class. Which therefore means that Romney admits that he raised taxes while governor   (nytimes.com) divider line 815
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, health care mandate, Lake Winnipesaukee, Bill Burton, Fourth of July Parade, Anthony M. Kennedy, federalisms, governors  
•       •       •

2484 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jul 2012 at 12:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 04:28:38 PM  

skullkrusher: do you have an example of something which is done under Congressional power to levy taxes but isn't considered one?


I just gave you one. Cigarette taxes. I'm sure you could find plenty more if you read up on some of the other federal excise taxes
 
2012-07-05 04:29:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Due to high taxation and a search for religious freedom.

Leave it to the Conservatives to know Fark-all about history.

I would have taken issue with the "search for religious freedom" bit. At least the revolution was in part about taxation (though of the "without representation" variety it was still precipitated ultimately by a tax increase, they never had representation but still paid taxes ) - I don't recall anything about religious freedom

The pilgrims in MA came over to escape persecution as well as the Catholics in Maryland. But that's about as far as that chapter in history goes.

But as far as the taxation thing it was more about them not being represented in government ("taxation without representation"), than it was about the actual tax itself.

He basically missed the whole point of the important part the Stamp Act played in our nations history while insisting that I was the one that is wrong.

Many of the colonists were pretty pissed off that the British allowed the people of Quebec to remain Catholic.

The initial issue was mainly British economic policy as a whole, various taxes just being frequent sources of friction. The shipping and monetary policies were a huge part of it. As the friction over the economics ramped up, issues of rights and liberties came to dominate.


Agreed.

To say that it was just about taxes is to completely miss the point of the Revolutionary War and incredibly ignorant to the point that I'm insulted that people are trying to push this BS narrative onto others.
 
2012-07-05 04:31:07 PM  
Anyone care to argue that the 'penalty for early withdrawal' on tax-advantaged saving plans (like IRAs) is not BOTH a penalty AND a tax?

Penalty Tax
 
2012-07-05 04:31:34 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: do you have an example of something which is done under Congressional power to levy taxes but isn't considered one?

I just gave you one. Cigarette taxes. I'm sure you could find plenty more if you read up on some of the other federal excise taxes


cigarette taxes aren't considered taxes now? You said there were examples. That ain't one of them. Other federal excise taxes are also considered taxes in common parlance.
 
2012-07-05 04:34:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Philip Francis Queeg: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Due to high taxation and a search for religious freedom.

Leave it to the Conservatives to know Fark-all about history.

I would have taken issue with the "search for religious freedom" bit. At least the revolution was in part about taxation (though of the "without representation" variety it was still precipitated ultimately by a tax increase, they never had representation but still paid taxes ) - I don't recall anything about religious freedom

The pilgrims in MA came over to escape persecution as well as the Catholics in Maryland. But that's about as far as that chapter in history goes.

But as far as the taxation thing it was more about them not being represented in government ("taxation without representation"), than it was about the actual tax itself.

He basically missed the whole point of the important part the Stamp Act played in our nations history while insisting that I was the one that is wrong.

Many of the colonists were pretty pissed off that the British allowed the people of Quebec to remain Catholic.

The initial issue was mainly British economic policy as a whole, various taxes just being frequent sources of friction. The shipping and monetary policies were a huge part of it. As the friction over the economics ramped up, issues of rights and liberties came to dominate.

Agreed.

To say that it was just about taxes is to completely miss the point of the Revolutionary War and incredibly ignorant to the point that I'm insulted that people are trying to push this BS narrative onto others.


That ignorance is how the Tea Party came to choose it's name.
 
2012-07-05 04:34:17 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: do you have an example of something which is done under Congressional power to levy taxes but isn't considered one?

I just gave you one. Cigarette taxes. I'm sure you could find plenty more if you read up on some of the other federal excise taxes

cigarette taxes aren't considered taxes now? You said there were examples. That ain't one of them. Other federal excise taxes are also considered taxes in common parlance.


Here's my exact statement, which you seem to have trouble parsing:

You do realize that there are plenty of things that are allowed because they fall within Congress' power to levy taxes while nonetheless not being things that would be considered "taxes" in ordinary discourse (or, at the very least, not the kind of "tax increases" that would constitute a broken promise against the kind of promise that Obama made)
?
 
2012-07-05 04:37:38 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: do you have an example of something which is done under Congressional power to levy taxes but isn't considered one?

I just gave you one. Cigarette taxes. I'm sure you could find plenty more if you read up on some of the other federal excise taxes

cigarette taxes aren't considered taxes now? You said there were examples. That ain't one of them. Other federal excise taxes are also considered taxes in common parlance.

Here's my exact statement, which you seem to have trouble parsing:

You do realize that there are plenty of things that are allowed because they fall within Congress' power to levy taxes while nonetheless not being things that would be considered "taxes" in ordinary discourse (or, at the very least, not the kind of "tax increases" that would constitute a broken promise against the kind of promise that Obama made)?


yeah, I parsed it and asked for examples. If there are "plenty" 2 or 3 should be no problem. Cigarettes taxes are not an example. Those are considered taxes in ordinary discourse. A hike in the federal excise tax on gasoline wouldn't be considered a tax increase?

See, me asking you to support your statement isn't evidence of my inability to parse sentences. Your snark and refusal to provide examples is evidence that you can't back up what you said, however.
 
2012-07-05 04:38:33 PM  

trey101: OK Francis... elaborate


I'll take this one.

Let's see, the colonists are why the French and Indian war happened, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to foot part of the bill.
While there was "taxation without representation", the colonies simply ignored most of the taxes and didn't pay them (and the British didn't put a whole lot of effort into collecting them either).
Finally, out of desperation, the British repealed all but the Tea tax and a small import tax. The colonists responded with the Boston Tea Party.

For some additional reading that will help you understand American history and world history of the time a little better, I recommend the following:

A Movable Feast: Ten Millennia of Food Globalization By Kenneth F. Kiple
The American Revolution by Joseph C. Morton
The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin By Gordon S. Wood
Encyclopedia of the French & Indian War in North America, 1754-1763 By Donald I. Stoetzel
 
2012-07-05 04:39:25 PM  

Teufelaffe: If you can't score 10/10 on this quiz, you have no place discussing the ACA.

Health Reform Quiz

What score do you think Mittens could manage?


Wait, wasn't that the one that said if you had 10/10 you were doing better than 96.4% of Americans?

/Not arguing that Willard isn't one of the 96.4%
 
2012-07-05 04:40:50 PM  

skullkrusher: yeah, I parsed it and asked for examples. If there are "plenty" 2 or 3 should be no problem. Cigarettes taxes are not an example. Those are considered taxes in ordinary discourse. A hike in the federal excise tax on gasoline wouldn't be considered a tax increase?


Yes. Plenty of things that fall into one of two categories that I clearly outlined. Cigarette taxes fall into the latter category. This mandate falls into the former category.
 
2012-07-05 04:46:48 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: yeah, I parsed it and asked for examples. If there are "plenty" 2 or 3 should be no problem. Cigarettes taxes are not an example. Those are considered taxes in ordinary discourse. A hike in the federal excise tax on gasoline wouldn't be considered a tax increase?

Yes. Plenty of things that fall into one of two categories that I clearly outlined. Cigarette taxes fall into the latter category. This mandate falls into the former category.


dude... "You do realize that there are plenty of things that are allowed because they fall within Congress' power to levy taxes while nonetheless not being things that would be considered "taxes" in ordinary discourse"

This says that things exist which are:
A) allowed because they fall within Congress' power to levy taxes
B) are not things that would be considered "taxes" in ordinary discourse or at least would not constitute a tax increase against a broken promise etc...

you haven't named any
 
2012-07-05 04:48:09 PM  

asmodeus224: mat catastrophe: [politicalcompass.org image 640x328]

Simpleton posts simple chart created by positing simple questions.

You're a libertarian, amiright?


Actually, I'm a Discordian which sadly makes me more rational than most of you people.
 
2012-07-05 04:50:22 PM  

Teufelaffe: If you can't score 10/10 on this quiz, you have no place discussing the ACA.

Health Reform Quiz

What score do you think Mittens could manage?


If you can't score 10/10 and you are from the USA, you are the most important person to discuss the ACA. How else can you learn about it?
 
2012-07-05 04:50:45 PM  

skullkrusher: dude... "You do realize that there are plenty of things that are allowed because they fall within Congress' power to levy taxes while nonetheless not being things that would be considered "taxes" in ordinary discourse"


You're just messing with me now, right? Surely you couldn't have missed the second part of that sentence? You know, the part that starts with "...or..."? I mean, you even quoted it yourself at least once.
 
2012-07-05 04:50:46 PM  

skullkrusher: Thrag: What makes me wonder most in these silly semantic threadsplosions that often crop up here is just how can someone spent every single minute of six entire hours in the middle of the work day posting. Even more than how I wonder why. Even if one managed to score a job where you can spend you entire work day not working and goofing off on the internet instead, why spend six hours so single mindedly on such a ridiculous and ultimately pointless endeavor?

because it's a fun way to pass the time. You should spent less time wondering about stupid shiat.


Beautiful. Is it possible for a being to be made of pure irony?
 
2012-07-05 04:52:50 PM  

Teufelaffe: trey101: OK Francis... elaborate

I'll take this one.

Let's see, the colonists are why the French and Indian war happened, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to foot part of the bill.
While there was "taxation without representation", the colonies simply ignored most of the taxes and didn't pay them (and the British didn't put a whole lot of effort into collecting them either).
Finally, out of desperation, the British repealed all but the Tea tax and a small import tax. The colonists responded with the Boston Tea Party.

For some additional reading that will help you understand American history and world history of the time a little better, I recommend the following:

A Movable Feast: Ten Millennia of Food Globalization By Kenneth F. Kiple
The American Revolution by Joseph C. Morton
The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin By Gordon S. Wood
Encyclopedia of the French & Indian War in North America, 1754-1763 By Donald I. Stoetzel


WOW... so elaborate. And awfully short considering you left out about soooooooooo many things.
 
2012-07-05 04:55:33 PM  

mat catastrophe: Actually, I'm a Discordian which sadly makes me more rational than most of you people.


What's the flaxscript/hempscript exchange rate going for these days?
 
2012-07-05 04:56:06 PM  

Biological Ali: You're just messing with me now, right? Surely you couldn't have missed the second part of that sentence? You know, the part that starts with "...or..."? I mean, you even quoted it yourself at least once.


what the hell was the point of the first part of the sentence then? What are "plenty" of examples even ignoring the first part then?
 
2012-07-05 04:57:25 PM  

Thrag: skullkrusher: Thrag: What makes me wonder most in these silly semantic threadsplosions that often crop up here is just how can someone spent every single minute of six entire hours in the middle of the work day posting. Even more than how I wonder why. Even if one managed to score a job where you can spend you entire work day not working and goofing off on the internet instead, why spend six hours so single mindedly on such a ridiculous and ultimately pointless endeavor?

because it's a fun way to pass the time. You should spent less time wondering about stupid shiat.

Beautiful. Is it possible for a being to be made of pure irony?


yeah, the meta conversation about the meaningless argument is somehow less stupid than the argument itself. Groundbreaking fluff as always.
 
2012-07-05 04:57:29 PM  

trey101: Teufelaffe: trey101: OK Francis... elaborate

I'll take this one.

Let's see, the colonists are why the French and Indian war happened, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to foot part of the bill.
While there was "taxation without representation", the colonies simply ignored most of the taxes and didn't pay them (and the British didn't put a whole lot of effort into collecting them either).
Finally, out of desperation, the British repealed all but the Tea tax and a small import tax. The colonists responded with the Boston Tea Party.

For some additional reading that will help you understand American history and world history of the time a little better, I recommend the following:

A Movable Feast: Ten Millennia of Food Globalization By Kenneth F. Kiple
The American Revolution by Joseph C. Morton
The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin By Gordon S. Wood
Encyclopedia of the French & Indian War in North America, 1754-1763 By Donald I. Stoetzel

WOW... so elaborate. And awfully short considering you left out about soooooooooo many things.


I'm sorry, were you expecting an in-depth discussion of the American Revolution and world politics of the mid to late 18th century, or just some specific rebuttals of your more ignorant claims? If you want the former, I gave you a list of books you can read. I already gave you the latter.
 
2012-07-05 05:00:49 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: You're just messing with me now, right? Surely you couldn't have missed the second part of that sentence? You know, the part that starts with "...or..."? I mean, you even quoted it yourself at least once.

what the hell was the point of the first part of the sentence then? What are "plenty" of examples even ignoring the first part then?


As to your second question - I've already posted a Wikipedia link. You should check it out. It has stuff in it.

As to your first question - I recommend taking a break and coming back when you're better able to parse the logical operations contained in ordinary speech.
 
2012-07-05 05:02:34 PM  

Biological Ali: As to your second question - I've already posted a Wikipedia link. You should check it out. It has stuff in it.


maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.

Biological Ali: As to your first question - I recommend taking a break and coming back when you're better able to parse the logical operations contained in ordinary speech.


I think you have no idea what you're talking about on any topic in the history of topics or, at the very least, particle physics.
 
2012-07-05 05:07:52 PM  

skullkrusher: maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.


Everything on this page, for instance.
 
2012-07-05 05:27:16 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: He has always denied that it was a tax.

so did you.

holy farking shiat dude. It is called a penalty in the bill. If you recall, I said on a number of occasions that the same impact could have been effected by an explicit tax increase and credit but the wording of the bill was that it was a fine. If memory serves, you argued that even though it was called a penalty it was really a tax. SCOTUS agreed. The President still says you and SCOTUS were wrong. Why? Because it would break his promise to admit that the language was massaged in such a way to give him the ability to deny it is a tax.


Right you said that made it NOT a tax and now you are attacking Obama for the same exact thing you said.

You are trying to both right both ways. You didn't call it a tax before but you are pretending you were still right and I was wrong when it was ruled opposite of what you said and exactly what I said.

It's hilarious the contortions you are making to pretend you were right, and Obama was wrong when you both believed the same thing. I was wrong about the ruling.

Actually Obama's legal team DID say it was a tax. But you of course are once again ignoring facts that don't fit in your narrative.
 
2012-07-05 05:28:20 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: mat catastrophe: Actually, I'm a Discordian which sadly makes me more rational than most of you people.

What's the flaxscript/hempscript exchange rate going for these days?


I think it depends on who you're talking to and/or what they're really after.
 
2012-07-05 05:30:35 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.

Everything on this page, for instance.


Well, you've already made it clear that you don't think the tobacco tax violates the pledge. Politifact disagrees. I tend to agree as well that it violates the spirit of the pledge though not as clearly as the mandate tax.
 
2012-07-05 05:32:37 PM  

skullkrusher: yeah, I parsed it and asked for examples. If there are "plenty" 2 or 3 should be no problem. Cigarettes taxes are not an example. Those are considered taxes in ordinary discourse. A hike in the federal excise tax on gasoline wouldn't be considered a tax increase?

See, me asking you to support your statement isn't evidence of my inability to parse sentences. Your snark and refusal to provide examples is evidence that you can't back up what you said, however.


In general INCOME TAXES is what people think of as "taxes". Not excise taxes!

Are you going to say you have no clue what an excise tax or they don't exist?

If Obama was to add to the gas tax or park fees or cigarettes many people wouldn't consider them as "raising taxes" on the middle class. That's why your argument that this is raising taxes on the middle class is stupid. The vast majority of the middle class is not going to pay this tax!!

Yes if you want to be semantic ass about it, and we know you love doing that, then yes he broke his promise, but 95% of people are not going to see it that way. You don't win some prize for proving something technically that no one gives a shiat about.
 
2012-07-05 05:35:25 PM  

Corvus: You don't win some prize for proving something technically that no one gives a shiat about.


But everyone knows that being technically right is the best kind of right.
 
2012-07-05 05:35:28 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.

Everything on this page, for instance.

Well, you've already made it clear that you don't think the tobacco tax violates the pledge. Politifact disagrees. I tend to agree as well that it violates the spirit of the pledge though not as clearly as the mandate tax.


At least I know why Politifact is being deliberately obtuse when they do things like that. Not sure why you're doing it (unless you write for them in which case it makes sense).
 
2012-07-05 05:36:58 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.

Everything on this page, for instance.

Well, you've already made it clear that you don't think the tobacco tax violates the pledge. Politifact disagrees. I tend to agree as well that it violates the spirit of the pledge though not as clearly as the mandate tax.


Great, according to you he broke his pledge (many others voter won't see it that way), so what?!?

Here is your award:

imagemacros.files.wordpress.com

Now, no one is gives a shiat because they are not using your specific semantic and most likely won't have to pay the tax.
 
2012-07-05 05:39:20 PM  
Oh. It's still this sh*tty disingenuous talking point about whether it's a tax or a penalty, or whether it raises taxes on the middle class.

How exciting.
 
2012-07-05 05:42:03 PM  
i know i've made mention of this before, but it really is amusing how similar a precocious 3 year old and an aspie with a keyboard can be.
 
2012-07-05 05:44:27 PM  

Corvus: Right you said that made it NOT a tax and now you are attacking Obama for the same exact thing you said.


I said it wasn't described as a tax in the bill. Which it isn't. Hence the challenge to it. I also said that an explicit tax would be undoubtedly constitutional and that the reason it isn't described as such was political considerations. I am quite certain that the language chosen was no accident.

Corvus: You are trying to both right both ways. You didn't call it a tax before but you are pretending you were still right and I was wrong when it was ruled opposite of what you said and exactly what I said.


right - I called it a fine because that's how it was worded and argued in the preliminary hearings. I also thought it would be struck down because of the wording. Had it been called a tax I would have had no doubt that it would have been upheld. Turns out I was wrong because SCOTUS says it is a tax even if it isn't called one. I didn't think they'd do that - I thought the conservative dissent on the bench would have been the majority opinion, that they would be sticklers for the phrasing. A rose by any other name... You don't get to change reality by naming things something else.

Corvus: It's hilarious the contortions you are making to pretend you were right, and Obama was wrong when you both believed the same thing. I was wrong about the ruling.


there aren't any contortions, my friend. You might be having a hard time grasping it but it isn't so difficult if you let the seething rage subside for just a minute. Bill called it a fine. I thought it would not be held up because they would interpret it more literally and throw out the mandate portion. Turns out they didn't make anyone rewrite it, interpreted the mandate portion as a tax which allowed them to uphold it. The reason the mandate is still in there because of this interpretation. They were not literal and assumed the Congress meant for it to be a tax, despite not being called one.

Calling it a "fine" was political trickery, not something I made up. I thought the trickery would have doomed it. I was wrong.

Corvus: Actually Obama's legal team DID say it was a tax. But you of course are once again ignoring facts that don't fit in your narrative.


"Review the court script," Labolt replied. "The court transcripts, Ryan. At no point did any of the government lawyers say that it was a tax."

"Nowhere during the arguments," Labolt repeated. "We are the ones who have been consistent here. Consistent it's a penalty."

looks like someone is fibbing then. Is it you or the President's campaign press secretary? If it is the President's secretary, why would he lie just to call this a "penalty" instead of a "tax"? What was that about "narrative"?
 
2012-07-05 05:44:52 PM  

whidbey: Oh. It's still this sh*tty disingenuous talking point about whether it's a tax or a penalty, or whether it raises taxes on the middle class.

How exciting.


Talk about disingenuous these farkers were saying "NO IT'S NOT A TAX!!! You are wrong if you say otherwise!" up the point SCOTUS made the ruling and now they are going "Why did Obama lie to us not saying it was a TAX!"

If they were consistent ONCE, just farking once. - Oh and being consistent of believing anything to make Obama look doesn't count. I mean with their own tortured logic.
 
2012-07-05 05:45:30 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.

Everything on this page, for instance.

Well, you've already made it clear that you don't think the tobacco tax violates the pledge. Politifact disagrees. I tend to agree as well that it violates the spirit of the pledge though not as clearly as the mandate tax.

At least I know why Politifact is being deliberately obtuse when they do things like that. Not sure why you're doing it (unless you write for them in which case it makes sense).


ah yes, the Politifact tries to hard to be balanced defense.
 
2012-07-05 05:46:51 PM  

heap: i know i've made mention of this before, but it really is amusing how similar a precocious 3 year old and an aspie with a keyboard can be.


that's not really one of those things that get funnier with repetition. Back to the drawing board, I think.
 
2012-07-05 05:49:38 PM  

skullkrusher: heap: i know i've made mention of this before, but it really is amusing how similar a precocious 3 year old and an aspie with a keyboard can be.

that's not really one of those things that get funnier with repetition. Back to the drawing board, I think.


you don't have to get the joke. being the joke suffices.
 
2012-07-05 05:50:03 PM  

Corvus: If Obama was to add to the gas tax or park fees or cigarettes many people wouldn't consider them as "raising taxes" on the middle class.


oh, I am quite certain people would consider an increase in the gas tax a tax increase on the middle class. Only hopelessly devoted fanbois would not.

"Holy crap Bob, you see how gas prices went up overnight?"
"Yeah, they just increased the taxes on fuel."
"Oh, is that all? I don't consider that a tax increase because I'm an idiot"
 
2012-07-05 05:50:40 PM  

heap: skullkrusher: heap: i know i've made mention of this before, but it really is amusing how similar a precocious 3 year old and an aspie with a keyboard can be.

that's not really one of those things that get funnier with repetition. Back to the drawing board, I think.

you don't have to get the joke. being the joke suffices.


gold
 
2012-07-05 05:51:15 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.

Everything on this page, for instance.

Well, you've already made it clear that you don't think the tobacco tax violates the pledge. Politifact disagrees. I tend to agree as well that it violates the spirit of the pledge though not as clearly as the mandate tax.

At least I know why Politifact is being deliberately obtuse when they do things like that. Not sure why you're doing it (unless you write for them in which case it makes sense).

ah yes, the Politifact tries too hard to be balanced defense.

 
2012-07-05 05:52:17 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: You are trying to both right both ways. You didn't call it a tax before but you are pretending you were still right and I was wrong when it was ruled opposite of what you said and exactly what I said.

right - I called it a fine because that's how it was worded and argued in the preliminary hearings. I also thought it would be struck down because of the wording. Had it been called a tax I would have had no doubt that it would have been upheld. Turns out I was wrong because SCOTUS says it is a tax even if it isn't called one. I didn't think they'd do that - I thought the conservative dissent on the bench would have been the majority opinion, that they would be sticklers for the phrasing. A rose by any other name... You don't get to change reality by naming things something else.

Corvus: It's hilarious the contortions you are making to pretend you were right, and Obama was wrong when you both believed the same thing. I was wrong about the ruling.

there aren't any contortions, my friend. You might be having a hard time grasping it but it isn't so difficult if you let the seething rage subside for just a minute. Bill called it a fine. I thought it would not be held up because they would interpret it more literally and throw out the mandate portion. Turns out they didn't make anyone rewrite it, interpreted the mandate portion as a tax which allowed them to uphold it. The reason the mandate is still in there because of this interpretation. They were not literal and assumed the Congress meant for it to be a tax, despite not being called one.


This is the first point I have seen that you finally admit you were wrong. The contortions is because most of this thread you kept trying to justify you were right.

My opinion on the mandate was it was a tax and many people repeatedly attacked me for saying that and now that the conservatives believe they can gain political ground from it those same people are now like you going on and on about it being a "Tax".

The hypocrisy is amazing. in fact in this very thread you were strongly implying that you previously believe it was a tax that now you are admitting is not true.

You're very dishonest to yourself.
 
2012-07-05 05:53:45 PM  
Do you already have health insurance?

If so, then STFU.

You are not the one affected by this law. You will not be required to pay ANYTHING. I am the one being affected by this and I LIKE THIS LAW.
 
2012-07-05 05:54:20 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: 1) Obama doesn't have the power to raise taxes
2) SCOTUS said it's a tax and that it is constitutional.
3) Suck it.


1. Obama promised he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k.
2. Obama used his position as president to pass a huge tax increase, but insisted it was not a tax.
3. SCOTUS called him on his bullshiat.
 
2012-07-05 05:55:38 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: If Obama was to add to the gas tax or park fees or cigarettes many people wouldn't consider them as "raising taxes" on the middle class.

oh, I am quite certain people would consider an increase in the gas tax a tax increase on the middle class. Only hopelessly devoted fanbois would not.

"Holy crap Bob, you see how gas prices went up overnight?"
"Yeah, they just increased the taxes on fuel."
"Oh, is that all? I don't consider that a tax increase because I'm an idiot"


That's not what I said. I said it wouldn't be perceived as raising taxes to the middle class like having income tax that specifically targets the middle class. If you can't see the difference you are a complete idiot.
 
2012-07-05 05:56:53 PM  

Corvus: whidbey: Oh. It's still this sh*tty disingenuous talking point about whether it's a tax or a penalty, or whether it raises taxes on the middle class.

How exciting.

Talk about disingenuous these farkers were saying "NO IT'S NOT A TAX!!! You are wrong if you say otherwise!" up the point SCOTUS made the ruling and now they are going "Why did Obama lie to us not saying it was a TAX!"

If they were consistent ONCE, just farking once. - Oh and being consistent of believing anything to make Obama look doesn't count. I mean with their own tortured logic.


hehe... the bill called it a fine. We questioned whether that was constitutional or did they have to explicitly call it a tax. People, myself included, thought that SCOTUS would take the literal words as the conservative dissent argued. You argued vociferously that it was a tax even though it was not called one, quite purposefully. SCOTUS ruled that even though it is called a "fine" it is really a tax so therefore it is constitutional. SCOTUS agrees with you that it is within Congress' power to raise taxes so the mandate is ok. "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax." Now you want to argue that it isn't a tax increase because the President is saying it isn't even though that is the only reason why it was upheld. You're consistent, alright... it's just not a good thing.
 
2012-07-05 05:59:42 PM  

Corvus: That's not what I said. I said it wouldn't be perceived as raising taxes to the middle class like having income tax that specifically targets the middle class.


"If Obama was to add to the gas tax or park fees or cigarettes many people wouldn't consider them as "raising taxes" on the middle class."

awww... it's like income taxes are the only ones that people pay or care about! Sure, raise my walking down the street tax! I don't mind, just as long as you don't touch this one specific tax, I'll agree you upheld your pledge!
 
2012-07-05 06:00:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: whidbey: Oh. It's still this sh*tty disingenuous talking point about whether it's a tax or a penalty, or whether it raises taxes on the middle class.

How exciting.

Talk about disingenuous these farkers were saying "NO IT'S NOT A TAX!!! You are wrong if you say otherwise!" up the point SCOTUS made the ruling and now they are going "Why did Obama lie to us not saying it was a TAX!"

If they were consistent ONCE, just farking once. - Oh and being consistent of believing anything to make Obama look doesn't count. I mean with their own tortured logic.

hehe... the bill called it a fine. We questioned whether that was constitutional or did they have to explicitly call it a tax. People, myself included, thought that SCOTUS would take the literal words as the conservative dissent argued. You argued vociferously that it was a tax even though it was not called one, quite purposefully. SCOTUS ruled that even though it is called a "fine" it is really a tax so therefore it is constitutional. SCOTUS agrees with you that it is within Congress' power to raise taxes so the mandate is ok. "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax." Now you want to argue that it isn't a tax increase because the President is saying it isn't even though that is the only reason why it was upheld. You're consistent, alright... it's just not a good thing.


Nope, I am not doing that. I don't know how many times it needs to be explained to you. It is a tax increase I never said it wasn't.

I am just saying NO ONE CARES!!! It's not going to affect most people. Most people will not pay this tax. People don't perceive (you might want to look that word up) it as a "tax hike on middle income".

This has been explained to you by many people in this thread. You are ignoring the point being made.
 
2012-07-05 06:00:42 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: maybe you should just cite a few examples that you think best suit your argument and we can discuss those.

Everything on this page, for instance.

Well, you've already made it clear that you don't think the tobacco tax violates the pledge. Politifact disagrees. I tend to agree as well that it violates the spirit of the pledge though not as clearly as the mandate tax.

At least I know why Politifact is being deliberately obtuse when they do things like that. Not sure why you're doing it (unless you write for them in which case it makes sense).

ah yes, the Politifact tries to hard to be balanced defense.


No, they invent facts for themselves to check through the use of counter-intuitive and selectively literal interpretations of otherwise innocuous statements. Balance has nothing to do with this particular quirk of theirs.
 
2012-07-05 06:01:46 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: That's not what I said. I said it wouldn't be perceived as raising taxes to the middle class like having income tax that specifically targets the middle class.

"If Obama was to add to the gas tax or park fees or cigarettes many people wouldn't consider them as "raising taxes" on the middle class."

awww... it's like income taxes are the only ones that people pay or care about! Sure, raise my walking down the street tax! I don't mind, just as long as you don't touch this one specific tax, I'll agree you upheld your pledge!


No I said he broke his pledge according to your rules.

We already gave you your prize.
 
2012-07-05 06:01:56 PM  

Corvus: My opinion on the mandate was it was a tax and many people repeatedly attacked me for saying that and now that the conservatives believe they can gain political ground from it those same people are now like you going on and on about it being a "Tax".


yep - you were argued because that's how you were saying it was going to be constitutional. Others thought the court would take a more literal interpretation of the bill. Turns out, you were right. It's a tax increase. You saw it all along... but it's also not a tax increase because people just think of income taxes when they think of "taxes on the middle class".

Hell, i recall you even arguing that it WAS an income tax because it was collected by the IRS. Remember that? Good times.
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report