SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kal'Stang said:
Bold: Yes you did provide that. One problem though. That is NOT what you argued and you know it. You argued that your state required proof of insurance in order to even get a license. (a bit later you got caught on that lie and tried to switch it to licensing a vehicle). Requiring proof to get licensed and requiring proof that you have insurance when in an accident or stopped by the cops are two completely different things.

Again you try to move the goal posts. You truely do not have any ethics do you?

Apparently you mised my previous post were I did show proof.

So link to it then. All I see from you is a confessed liar giving their own personal anecdotes.

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

mac said:
Tsk, tsk.

This is not even close to what you said. In fact, you incorrectly stated that Michigan requires you to have insurance in order to have a driver's license. This is not true. The importance of the distinction seems to escape you, and that distinction lies squarely in what the state (or in this case Govt) has a right to do.

it is a distinction WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

That seems to escape you.

see my post 347

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
And you still have not provided any verifiable proof of your claims or allegations as I did. You have only used your own personal life as support and we cannot accept that because you also confess to being a LIAR by your own word on this very topic.

Here are your own words where you admitted to being a LIAR on this very topic

Bold: Yes I did. Should I requote it AGAIN for you? This would be the third time of showing proof if I did....up to you.

Where in that do I admit that I am lying on this subject?

Dickieboy · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
My comments was NOT regarding the details of his reasoning but in the reality that his vote combined with the other four liberal judges decided the case in favor of the Constitutionality of the law.

That' is not what you said. You stated that 'one of the most conservative justices.sides with the four more liberal judges'. It is my opinion that 'vote combined with' is not equivilent with 'sides with'. Again they voted the way they did based on their own opinions on the ACA AND it was upheld. Does it have to be partisan with you ALWAYS?

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
So link to it then. All I see from you is a confessed liar giving their own personal anecdotes.

OMG! You even quoted the post in which I gave you the proof a SECOND TIME and STILL you claim to ask for the proof which you say I did not supply!

mac · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
it is a distinction WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

That seems to escape you.

see my post 347

No, it isn't a distinction without a difference. The state of Michigan can not require you to purchase vehicle insurance simply because you have a license, are over the age of 18 and/or are a citizen of Michigan. The distinction is very real.

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kal'Stang said:
Bold: Yes I did. Should I requote it AGAIN for you? This would be the third time of showing proof if I did....up to you.

Where in that do I admit that I am lying on this subject?

I gave it to you three times.

You are an admitted liar on this subject. And what makes it extra special is that earlier today you accused me of being willing to lie to win an argument.

A most excellent afternoon!

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

mac said:
No, it isn't a distinction without a difference. The state of Michigan can not require you to purchase vehicle insurance simply because you have a license, are over the age of 18 and/or are a citizen of Michigan. The distinction is very real.

Here in Michigan, we get a license to drive the car on the roads. And to do that you need a plate on that vehicle and to do that you need insurance.

What about this is escaping you?

mac · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Here in Michigan, we get a license to drive the car on the roads. And to do that you need a plate on that vehicle and to do that you need insurance.

What about this is escaping you?

Ok, so now it's intentionally obtuse time. None of what you just said has anything to do with the license itself, or the requirements to get it. And it completely ignores that you have every right to abstain from all the above.

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
I gave it to you three times.

You are an admitted liar on this subject. And what makes it extra special is that earlier today you accused me of being willing to lie to win an argument.

A most excellent afternoon!

No all you did was quote what I said. You never pointed out where in that quote that I am lying on this subject.

And I noticed you again ignored the fact that I have provided proof that my state does not require proof of insurance to get a car licensed.

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kal'Stang said:
OMG! You even quoted the post in which I gave you the proof a SECOND TIME and STILL you claim to ask for the proof which you say I did not supply!

this is from the link you provided

Idaho Statutes
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 12
MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
49-1210. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE AS PROOF. [EFFECTIVE UNTIL JUNE 30, 2014] (1) Proof of financial responsibility, as required by the provisions of section 49-1208, Idaho Code, shall be furnished for each motor vehicle registered by any person required to provide such proof, or shall be furnished by any person required to provide such proof even if the person is not the owner of a motor vehicle. Such persons shall file with the department the written certificate of any insurance carrier duly authorized to do business in this state on a form approved by the department certifying that there is in effect a motor vehicle liability policy for the benefit of the person required to furnish proof of financial responsibility. The certificate shall give the effective date of the motor vehicle liability policy, which date shall be the same as the effective date of the certificate. The certificate shall also designate by appropriate reference all motor vehicles covered by that policy, unless the policy is issued to a person who is not the owner of a motor vehicle.

winston53660 · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Here in Michigan, we get a license to drive the car on the roads. And to do that you need a plate on that vehicle and to do that you need insurance.

What about this is escaping you?

From what I saw your position was that one needed insurance to get a drivers license.

j-mac · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
So link to it then. All I see from you is a confessed liar giving their own personal anecdotes.

Oh MY GOD!!!! Look dude, get a clue....

You said -

haymarket said:
...In my state of Michigan, one cannot obtain a drivers license without a automobile insurance policy in effect. Do you know of any states where this is NOT the case that you have insurance or proof of financial responsibility?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...vives-part-2-w-1-183-a-27.html#post1060642130

This was untrue, so I got the website, and gave you a chance to say 'oh yeah, I was wrong'...here-

me said:
I was looking here and didn't see that requirement...

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/DE...01_20459_7.pdf

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...vives-part-2-w-1-183-a-29.html#post1060642172

Then you came back being caught in your lie, and started being dishonest right here...

haymarket said:
To get a license plate you must also have proof of insurance. You cannot legally drive a car without a license plate.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...vives-part-2-w-1-183-a-30.html#post1060642186

There, now it is all in one post for you to see how you got caught, then tried to move the goalposts in your silly distraction...Your disingenuous method of posting is typical of progressive tactic that is so frustrating that one would hope that you only employ it online so as to minimize risk.

Now either admit that you lied, and apologize or kindly back off.

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

mac said:
Ok, so now it's intentionally obtuse time. None of what you just said has anything to do with the license itself, or the requirements to get it. And it completely ignores that you have every right to abstain from all the above.

I guess you could buy a condom without intending with putting it to use if your were a complete dweeb without the proper equipment to use it.

Here in Michigan we get a drivers license to drive the damn car on the roads. And to do that you need the license and proof of insurance to get the plate on the car that you are driving with that license on the roads.

This is not rocket science.

Dickieboy · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ARE YOU PEOPLE ON CRAZY PILLS?(Mugoto) Enough with the driver's lic crap.

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The villagers seem angry tonight. So angry that they missed this from my own post 347 in reply to Dickieboy

Originally Posted by Dickieboy
Is it SO hard for you to admit error in your original assertion and/or rephrase it to be correct?

my response

Not at all. I did not go far enough and should have stated that if you want to have a drivers license and drive a vehicle on the roads, then you must have insurance for that vehicle. I made the assumption that anyone with any sense would know that the purpose of a drivers license is to drive a vehicle on the roads. I thought that was part and parcel of getting the drivers license.

If you go there you will see that DB even gave a LIKE to the admission.

You can stop marching on the castle villagers and put your torches out before you set something on fire.

My error was also in taking far too much for granted in far too many ways.

winston53660 · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
I guess you could buy a condom without putting it to use if your were a complete dweeb without the proper equipment to use it.

Here in Michigan we get a drivers license to drive the damn car on the roads. And to do that you need the license and proof of insurance to get the plate on the car that you are driving with that license on the roads.

This is not rocket science.

Oy vey just say you made a mistake, mis stated your position, whatever and get over it! A lot of band width would be saved.

haymarket · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

winston53660 said:
Oy vey just say you made a mistake, mis stated your position, whatever and get over it! A lot of band width would be saved.

Did that already a few pages ago. But some of the villagers were so worked up in froth that they missed it.

winston53660 · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Did that already a few pages ago. But some of the villagers were so worked up in froth that they missed it.

You might have to do it more than once. Not every one reads every one reads every single post. Myself included.

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
this is from the link you provided

Actually you had to do some digging to find that. And even then it does not say what you THINK it says. All that says is that you are required to have proof of insurance on a vehicle that you are driving. No where does it say that you are required to provide proof when registering that vehicle. Note that it says "shall be furnished for each motor vehicle registered". Not something to the effect of "when registering".

Sorry but again you fail to show that states require proof of insurance while registering a vehicle which was your original arguement.

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
I guess you could buy a condom without intending with putting it to use if your were a complete dweeb without the proper equipment to use it.

Here in Michigan we get a drivers license to drive the damn car on the roads. And to do that you need the license and proof of insurance to get the plate on the car that you are driving with that license on the roads.

This is not rocket science.

Back to the original arguement so soon after being throughly pounded on the falseness of it? Why am I not surprised? *looks at quote of what you said in my signature box* ....Oh yeah....

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Did that already a few pages ago. But some of the villagers were so worked up in froth that they missed it.

Sorry but I have yet to see you say that you made a mistake or make an apology for that "mistake". And the fact that you just made the SAME arguement 4 posts before the one that I just quoted shows that you are stating falsehoods on purpose.

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

BTW Haymarket...I'm still waiting for that proof in which you said that people still do not have to get HCI under the mandate.

Dickieboy · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kal'Stang said:
Sorry but I have yet to see you say that you made a mistake or make an apology for that "mistake". And the fact that you just made the SAME arguement 4 posts before the one that I just quoted shows that you are stating falsehoods on purpose.

Self-deprecation is a gradual thing...it does not respond well to coercion…today has been a turning point for Haymarket…hopefully..

Kal'Stang · Jun 30, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Dickieboy said:
Self-deprecation is a gradual thing...it does not respond well to coercion…today has been a turning point for Haymarket…hopefully..

It won't be. He's been trounced several times in the past and still continues the same path that he has shown in this thread as he has in other threads.