• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House holds holder in contempt [W:140

j-mac said:
I am convinced that anything Obama says is either a complete, and utter lie, or exactly the opposite of what he plans on actually doing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I used think he was incompetent. Now, I know he's not. He's doing exactly what he means to do everytime he does it. And people bite it hook, line, and sinker everytime. The man has the gift of gab, gotta give him that.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Agreed. I used think he was incompetent. Now, I know he's not. He's doing exactly what he means to do everytime he does it. And people bite it hook, line, and sinker everytime. The man has the gift of gab, gotta give him that.
Click to expand...

(I have to preface this extremely sarcastic argument we are about to have with a salute for your service)

Apparently you don't, since none of what you said is anything more than you running your mouth without any proof/evidence to support it. Please, enlighten us sir.
 
whysoserious said:
(I have to preface this extremely sarcastic argument we are about to have with a salute for your service)

Apparently you don't, since none of what you said is anything more than you running your mouth without any proof/evidence to support it. Please, enlighten us sir.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the salute.
On to the sarcasm lol.
Case in point. He knew that the individual mandate "penalty" was a tax. Yet, he said it wasn't. I used to think he was too dumb to realize that it was a tax. Now, I believe he did know it was a tax and simply lied about it. Why do I think this? Because the fact that it is a tax was actually argued by lawyers in favor of the ACA to the SCOTUS during the ACA hearings. Because he gave an interview to George Stephanopolous<-(spell check?) saying it wasn't a tax. If you believe President Obama had no input or knowledge of the arguments going up in front of the Supreme Court before the hearings started, you would be naive. He has a law degree. If anything, he probably read them just out of pure personal interest. So, in affect, he deceived the American public in order to get legislature passed that he wanted. Thats a man who knows what he's doing, not a stupid or incompetent man. I can name other cases that have made me come to my above conclusion if you'd like.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, and while I'm a it I'll ask the other 43 presidents.
Click to expand...
Sorry Adam, there have been only 42 people who have been POTUS before Obama, Obama is the 43[SUP]rd[/SUP]. ;)
 
MarineTpartier said:
Thanks for the salute.
On to the sarcasm lol.
Case in point. He knew that the individual mandate "penalty" was a tax. Yet, he said it wasn't. I used to think he was too dumb to realize that it was a tax. Now, I believe he did know it was a tax and simply lied about it. Why do I think this? Because the fact that it is a tax was actually argued by lawyers in favor of the ACA to the SCOTUS during the ACA hearings. Because he gave an interview to George Stephanopolous<-(spell check?) saying it wasn't a tax. If you believe President Obama had no input or knowledge of the arguments going up in front of the Supreme Court before the hearings started, you would be naive. He has a law degree. If anything, he probably read them just out of pure personal interest. So, in affect, he deceived the American public in order to get legislature passed that he wanted. Thats a man who knows what he's doing, not a stupid or incompetent man. I can name other cases that have made me come to my above conclusion if you'd like.
Click to expand...


Nail on the head! Barrack Obama has been projecting what he wants to do ever since the days in the Il senate. People chose to buy his lofty rhetoric instead of saying, 'wait a minute, what do you mean'.....
 
MarineTpartier said:
Thanks for the salute.
On to the sarcasm lol.
Case in point. He knew that the individual mandate "penalty" was a tax. Yet, he said it wasn't. I used to think he was too dumb to realize that it was a tax. Now, I believe he did know it was a tax and simply lied about it. Why do I think this? Because the fact that it is a tax was actually argued by lawyers in favor of the ACA to the SCOTUS during the ACA hearings. Because he gave an interview to George Stephanopolous<-(spell check?) saying it wasn't a tax. If you believe President Obama had no input or knowledge of the arguments going up in front of the Supreme Court before the hearings started, you would be naive. He has a law degree. If anything, he probably read them just out of pure personal interest. So, in affect, he deceived the American public in order to get legislature passed that he wanted. Thats a man who knows what he's doing, not a stupid or incompetent man. I can name other cases that have made me come to my above conclusion if you'd like.
Click to expand...

Well said. He knows that only 34% of the public support Obama Care hoping that folks are too complacent to do anything. it's exactly that strategy that lost them 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate mid-term 2010. That's quite a smack down to all the Democrats on the Hill. The House Republicans should pass a repeal bill in the House and send it to the Senate so Hapless Harry can shelve it, then beat up on Senate Democrats all the way to election day for not addressing the repeal. I have a neighbor and 2 friends that were told by their companies that as of Jan 2014 they will no longer offer health care as a benefit.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Well said. He knows that only 34% of the public support Obama Care hoping that folks are too complacent to do anything. it's exactly that strategy that lost them 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate mid-term 2010. That's quite a smack down to all the Democrats on the Hill. The House Republicans should pass a repeal bill in the House and send it to the Senate so Hapless Harry can shelve it, then beat up on Senate Democrats all the way to election day for not addressing the repeal. I have a neighbor and 2 friends that were told by their companies that as of Jan 2014 they will no longer offer health care as a benefit.
Click to expand...


My company's official position so far is that they are maintaining coverage, however, it is under review. My company has over 800 employees nationwide.

This is scary stuff.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Thanks for the salute.
On to the sarcasm lol.
Case in point. He knew that the individual mandate "penalty" was a tax. Yet, he said it wasn't. I used to think he was too dumb to realize that it was a tax. Now, I believe he did know it was a tax and simply lied about it.
Click to expand...

This is such total bull****, it really makes me nauseous. It is a penalty. It has always been a penalty. It was advertised as a penalty. It is still a penalty. Obama lied about nothing. Whether the authority to levy the penalty arises out of the commerce clause or the taxing power is an interesting legal question, but it changes absolutely nothing in terms of how the law is implemented.

Someone is lying here and it ain't Obama.
 
AdamT said:
The fact that he has immunity does not mean that he didn't commit the crime, genius. It just means that he can't be prosecuted for the crime.
Click to expand...

No...it means it's not illegal for him to do it. Therefore, it is not a crime if it cannot be prosecuted.
 
AdamT said:
This is such total bull****, it really makes me nauseous. It is a penalty. It has always been a penalty. It was advertised as a penalty. It is still a penalty. Obama lied about nothing. Whether the authority to levy the penalty arises out of the commerce clause or the taxing power is an interesting legal question, but it changes absolutely nothing in terms of how the law is implemented.

Someone is lying here and it ain't Obama.
Click to expand...



The other constitutional provision at issue regarding Congress’s power to enact the individual mandate is the taxing power. The federal government argues that the individual mandate’s “practical operation” is as a tax because the financial penalty for failure to comply with the mandate will be administered through the tax code and reasonably relates to the raising of some amount of federal revenue.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8270-2.pdf

So, am I still lying?
 
Last edited:
Transparency is wonderful isn't it? Holder is found in contempt (and rightfully so) and the transparent Obama wants to hide the documents using executive privilege. I wonder if Obama knew about the operation. Regardless, I'm fairly certain they are trying to obstruct justice and hide something incriminating.
 
MadLib said:
No...it means it's not illegal for him to do it. Therefore, it is not a crime if it cannot be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Well that's great logic. So, if I shoot someone in the eye and then flee to a country that has no extradition treaty with the US ... I haven't really committed a crime, because I can't be prosecuted!
 
MarineTpartier said:


The other constitutional provision at issue regarding Congress’s power to enact the individual mandate is the taxing power. The federal government argues that the individual mandate’s “practical operation” is as a tax because the financial penalty for failure to comply with the mandate will be administered through the tax code and reasonably relates to the raising of some amount of federal revenue.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8270-2.pdf

So, am I still lying?
Click to expand...


Yes, you are still lying. The president never sought to deceive anyone about how the penalty works, and no one, including you, was deceived. Everyone who was paying attention knew that it was a tax penalty in 2009.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, you are still lying. The president never sought to deceive anyone about how the penalty works, and no one, including you, was deceived. Everyone who was paying attention knew that it was a tax penalty in 2009.
Click to expand...

Are you really going to stare facts in the face and say that they aren't true? Obama was pretty adamant about the tax not being a tax. His critics said it would be a tax upon the middle and lower class and they (Obama and many of the Dems) rhetorically fought and deceived against that. Everyone knew it was a tax in nature, but some chose to be willfully deceived in the name of rhetoric to say that they were not imposing a new tax or raising taxes.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Yes, you are still lying. The president never sought to deceive anyone about how the penalty works, and no one, including you, was deceived. Everyone who was paying attention knew that it was a tax penalty in 2009.
Click to expand...

So, when he said it wasn't a tax but then his people argued it was to get it through the SCOTUS, that was what exactly?
 
MarineTpartier said:
So, when he said it wasn't a tax but then his people argued it was to get it through the SCOTUS, that was what exactly?
Click to expand...
Any port in a storm ;)

It's a stupid right wing claim, and everybody knows it -- Obama didn't want to call it a tax for political reasons, but his attorneys figured the best way to pass constitutional muster was to call it a tax. In the real world, it's still not a tax -- it's a penalty/fine for not carrying health insurance. But the right seems to gravitate towards stupid 'gotcha' semantic arguments, so here we are :roll:

The only people paying the 'tax' are deadbeats, who the right always claim are parasites who aren't paying their fair share. Again, the right needs no one to oppose their arguments -- they contradict themselves :lamo
 
Last edited:
American said:
AdamT said:
Did you miss the fact that it was illegal for Issa to include the letter in the record AT ALL?
Click to expand...
Did you miss the fact that it isn't, and plainly state so in the article.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand the difficulty in the English language. The following is from "the article":

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

Darrell Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record : Roll Call News
Click to expand...
If a hit man is granted immunity to testify against mob bosses, does that mean that murder is legal?

In rightwingworld, the answer is apparently yes :shock:
 
Karl said:
Any port in a storm ;)

It's a stupid right wing claim, and everybody knows it -- Obama didn't want to call it a tax for political reasons, but his attorneys figured the best way to pass constitutional muster was to call it a tax. In the real world, it's still not a tax -- it's a penalty/fine for not carrying health insurance. But the right seems to gravitate towards stupid 'gotcha' semantic arguments, so here we are :roll:

The only people paying the 'tax' are deadbeats, who the right always claim are parasites who aren't paying their fair share. Again, the right needs no one to oppose their arguments -- they contradict themselves :lamo
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the mandate and the "tax" were Republican ideas and their candidate for President was the first to implement BOTH in Mass. They are so full of contradictions that they don't know whether they are coming or going. It would be amusing if it wasn't so bad for the country.
 
digsbe said:
Are you really going to stare facts in the face and say that they aren't true? Obama was pretty adamant about the tax not being a tax. His critics said it would be a tax upon the middle and lower class and they (Obama and many of the Dems) rhetorically fought and deceived against that. Everyone knew it was a tax in nature, but some chose to be willfully deceived in the name of rhetoric to say that they were not imposing a new tax or raising taxes.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest with you, I wouldn't have been as adamantly against it if they had said it was a tax instead of trying to use the Commerce clause. I still would not have wanted it, but, I would have studied it more deeply instead of the automatic dismissal I gave it. As it is, the Dems basically framed it as making me buy something I may not want or need. I don't like the idea of being made to buy something by the Federal government (or any gov't entity), no matter what it is. No matter what the SCOTUS said, I know what the intent or "spirit" of the bill was. I don't like the precedent it sets. I don't like the precedent this ruling sets either. The fact that the gov't can now tax me for not doing something they want is very unsettling. It should be to everyone, regardless of their lean or affiliation.
 
Karl said:
Any port in a storm ;)

It's a stupid right wing claim, and everybody knows it -- Obama didn't want to call it a tax for political reasons, but his attorneys figured the best way to pass constitutional muster was to call it a tax. In the real world, it's still not a tax -- it's a penalty/fine for not carrying health insurance. But the right seems to gravitate towards stupid 'gotcha' semantic arguments, so here we are :roll:

The only people paying the 'tax' are deadbeats, who the right always claim are parasites who aren't paying their fair share. Again, the right needs no one to oppose their arguments -- they contradict themselves :lamo
Click to expand...
So, why did the Feds argue it was a tax if it isn't? Either way you want to word it or look at it, its the gov't making you buy something. How can you disagree with that? Is that something you want?
 
MarineTpartier said:
So, why did the Feds argue it was a tax if it isn't? Either way you want to word it or look at it, its the gov't making you buy something. How can you disagree with that? Is that something you want?
Click to expand...


Because it was always an 'ends justifies the means' proposition.
 
j-mac said:
Because it was always an 'ends justifies the means' proposition.
Click to expand...

Just like the Patriot Act. Sorry if you like that bill, but I hate it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Just like the Patriot Act. Sorry if you like that bill, but I hate it.
Click to expand...


I defended it early on, knee jerk to the attacks. Probably like a lot of people did, but today can see clearly how granting one President power quickly turns into things that are not what I want.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I'll be honest with you, I wouldn't have been as adamantly against it if they had said it was a tax instead of trying to use the Commerce clause. I still would not have wanted it, but, I would have studied it more deeply instead of the automatic dismissal I gave it.
Click to expand...

So the real problem here is that you were arguing against it for two years without even bothering to find out what it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom