• 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!

Nelson says he'll support healthcare bill

Boo Radley said:
That's a different problem altogether. There are problems with the military that are specific and not related to what we would see outside the military.
Click to expand...

I didn't just talk about the military. We were also treated in the German (gov't run) health care system. Did you miss that part?
What makes you think our gov't is going to run health care any better for non-military than it does for the military? Do you think you deserve better or that the military deserves worse? :shock:
 
Dix said:
I didn't just talk about the military. We were also treated in the German (gov't run) health care system. Did you miss that part?
What makes you think our gov't is going to run health care any better for non-military than it does for the military? Do you think you deserve better or that the military deserves worse? :shock:
Click to expand...

Dix... I would like to thank you and your family for the sacrifices made for our nation. You are correct, the government has a long and detailed history of running postal services, transportation, financial institutions, education, and much more in exceedingly poor manners.

The military members and their families deserve our best.
 
Boo Radley said:
All legislation is written that way. ;)
Click to expand...

Not entirely true...The Constitution was checked by the Committee on Style so it would NOT be written this way, so the "common man" could read and understand, and interpret, the document without someone having to interpret the legal jargon. Oh, how the discernible have fallen. :lol:
 
The Truth said:
Dix... I would like to thank you and your family for the sacrifices made for our nation. You are correct, the government has a long and detailed history of running postal services, transportation, financial institutions, education, and much more in exceedingly poor manners.

The military members and their families deserve our best.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I appreciate it.
I wish we could keep what is happening in DC from happening but it seems like people are going to have to learn the hard way :(
 
EpicDude86 said:
Not entirely true...The Constitution was checked by the Committee on Style so it would NOT be written this way, so the "common man" could read and understand, and interpret, the document without someone having to interpret the legal jargon. Oh, how the discernible have fallen. :lol:
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but try finding something newer that is written commonly. BTW, have you read that second amendment? Very poorly written. That's not a statement of any position on it other than it is poorly written.
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps, but try finding something newer that is written commonly. BTW, have you read that second amendment? Very poorly written. That's not a statement of any position on it other than it is poorly written.
Click to expand...


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


What is poorly written about it?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
What is poorly written about it?


j-mac
Click to expand...

You can read it a couple of different ways depending on how you read "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state . . . .." Both sides of the debate use the wording to make their case.
 
Boo Radley said:
You can read it a couple of different ways depending on how you read "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state . . . .." Both sides of the debate use the wording to make their case.
Click to expand...


Not if you understand the times, and read it along with the intent of the Founders. the only people I see trying to read it a different way, are those wishing to restrict gun ownership in this nation.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Not if you understand the times, and read it along with the intent of the Founders. the only people I see trying to read it a different way, are those wishing to restrict gun ownership in this nation.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Again, you have to read into it, which makes it poorly written.

As for the times, they didn't have much of a standing army and needed a militia to be available to fight when needed. Because of this, they needed people to have weapons, which wasn't as easy as many think. So, they wrote this amendment. Now, the world today isn't like that, so no matter which way we go with the reading, it won't be based on us needing to have a militia to call on bringing their own weapons.
 
absolutely, the second amendment is too open to interpretation

just like:

1. buy insurance or pay a fine

2. pay the fine or go to jail

just too much to connect, too far a reach
 
The Prof said:
absolutely, the second amendment is too open to interpretation

just like:

1. buy insurance or pay a fine

2. pay the fine or go to jail

just too much to connect, too far a reach
Click to expand...

At least you're consistently silly. ;)
 
this, from the person who does the most talking about a bill knowing least what's in it

like half a T cuts to m and m

10 years of taxes and 6 of revenues

a quarter T doc fix

200B of unbacked burdens on already bankrupt states

taxes on small biz, benefits, payroll and targeted industries

mandates on individuals to buy a very expensive product, with criminalization and jail time for those who refuse

like keith olbermann

Breitbart.tv Olbermann Would Choose Jail Over ‘This Perversion of Health Care Reform’

the animated msnbc anchor is sometimes just so silly
 
The Prof said:
this, from the person who does the most talking about a bill knowing least what's in it

like half a T cuts to m and m

10 years of taxes and 6 of revenues

a quarter T doc fix

200B of unbacked burdens on already bankrupt states

taxes on small biz, benefits, payroll and targeted industries

mandates on individuals to buy a very expensive product, with criminalization and jail time for those who refuse

like keith olbermann

Breitbart.tv Olbermann Would Choose Jail Over ‘This Perversion of Health Care Reform’

the animated msnbc anchor is sometimes just so silly
Click to expand...

He is silly. Surprised you listen to him. But then again, I did say you were consistently silly, so I shouldn't really be surprised. ;)
 
half a T cuts to m and m aren't silly

nor is zeroing out medicare advantage

nor is obama's offhanded observation---my budget is balanced, you states can pick up the tab

nor are fines for and criminalization of those who refuse to cooperate

issues aren't silly

mindlessly mumbled distinctions without differences are

1. buy the coverage

2. fines

3. jail

simple, but very serious
 
The Prof said:
half a T cuts to m and m aren't silly

nor is zeroing out medicare advantage

nor is obama's offhanded observation---my budget is balanced, you states can pick up the tab

nor are fines for and criminalization of those who refuse to cooperate

issues aren't silly

mindlessly mumbled distinctions without differences are

1. buy the coverage

2. fines

3. jail

simple, but very serious
Click to expand...

It is simple. The penalty for not having insurance is a tax. Period. YOu can't go to jail for not having insurance. If you look at the law, some penalties include both a fine and / or prison time. If the bill read this way, you would be correct.

It doesn't. Instead, you have to break a separate law in order to end up in jail. Again, this is mere fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is simple. The penalty for not having insurance is a tax. Period. YOu can't go to jail for not having insurance. If you look at the law, some penalties include both a fine and / or prison time. If the bill read this way, you would be correct.

It doesn't. Instead, you have to break a separate law in order to end up in jail. Again, this is mere fact.
Click to expand...

i know, i know, you told me

you only go to jail for not paying the fine for not buying the insurance

fine distinction you make

and make

and make

how 'bout that DOUBLE COUNTING of the QUARTER TRIL?

now, there's a distinction that differentiaties!

doesn't it "matter?"

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
i know, i know, you told me

you only go to jail for not paying the fine for not buying the insurance

fine distinction you make

and make

and make

how 'bout that DOUBLE COUNTING of the QUARTER TRIL?

now, there's a distinction that differentiaties!

doesn't it "matter?"

LOL!
Click to expand...

You like to change the subject a lot. Is this because you're conceding that I'm right?
 
i suppose bringing up only a half dozen of the biggest problems in the bill appears like changing the subject to a person who keeps tying to count one, two, over and over again

yet still can't quite get to two

jail time

the end of that very short, only two paces long, road
 
The Prof said:
i suppose bringing up only a half dozen of the biggest problems in the bill appears like changing the subject to a person who keeps tying to count one, two, over and over again

yet still can't quite get to two

jail time

the end of that very short, only two paces long, road
Click to expand...

No. The issue we're discussing is the penalty for the not having insurance, period. Now, name your offense. Many don't come with jail time. Speeding was brought up earlier, but we could do parking as well. The penalty isn't jail for any of them, but don't pay your penalty long enough, and you wind up in jail. Yet, no reasonable person argues the parking penalty was jail time.

You are wrong in what you assert. And the fact has been proven.
 
Never mind, you're not going to convince Boo of anything here. The only thing that might convince him is when people start going to jail over it. And even then he will no doubt keep to his same arguement. Apparently connecting the dots means nothing to him. It is in essence nothing more than a semantics game.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Never mind, you're not going to convince Boo of anything here. The only thing that might convince him is when people start going to jail over it. And even then he will no doubt keep to his same arguement. Apparently connecting the dots means nothing to him. It is in essence nothing more than a semantics game.
Click to expand...

People go to jail for not paying taxes today, right now. And they will int the future. But they won't go to jail for not having insurance.
 
Boo Radley said:
People go to jail for not paying taxes today, right now. And they will int the future. But they won't go to jail for not having insurance.
Click to expand...

Just keep repeating that mantra. Those that connect the dots know different.
 
BTW, as I have already told you before, this is not a tax it is a fine couched in tax terminology designed to create red tape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom