Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unsurprising surprise of the century More

Unsurprising surprise of the century

Comments Filter:
  • ...actually read the bill? Maybe it's all in there.
  • ... and crap in the other. Which one fills up first?

    There is no legitimate chance for single payer in this country anytime soon. You can demonize as many people over its (inexistent) possibility as you want, if it makes you feel better somehow.

    • We are 11 separate economies. Why should we need a national single payer when 99% of the people are never going to travel far enough to get out of their economic zone?

      Just turn the whole thing over to the FED.

    • We were also told that "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan [politifact.com]" which is proving a steamer for the ages in the barrel of turds that is this administration. So don't count the forces of idiocy & evil out: they're intent on bringing the VA to you.

      • We were also told that "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" which is proving a steamer for the ages

        Now, if one were to actually pay attention to what has caused people to lose their plans, you'll find that far more often than not the change is coming from the insurance company without any direction from the federal government. The health insurance industry that reaped a huge benefit on their government investment in the form of this awful bill retained all the power they had before while also being given a whole class of people as obligatory new customers.

        Interestingly enough, one thing that this b

        • you'll find that far more often than not the change is coming from the insurance company without any direction from the federal government.

          For crying out loud in the dark, man: WHO PASSED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

          one thing that this bill cannot do is force insurance companies to keep offering any specific plans that they previously offered - or keep offering plans at X dollar amounts.

          Another thing the law cannot do is upend the laws of economics.

          And just how would the force of idiocy be able to pull off some sort of grand change?

          One example method would be an Affordable Care Act cram-down, which see.

          Tell me, how do the reptoids use their weather control devices to make this happen more effectively?

          Don't be fooled! The weather control devices are merely a front for the Orbital Mind Control Lasers to corrupt our Precious Bodily Fluids.

          • you'll find that far more often than not the change is coming from the insurance company without any direction from the federal government.

            For crying out loud in the dark, man: WHO PASSED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

            Politicians who are owned by the insurance industry.

            one thing that this bill cannot do is force insurance companies to keep offering any specific plans that they previously offered - or keep offering plans at X dollar amounts.

            Another thing the law cannot do is upend the laws of economics.

            And where do you see it attempting to do such a thing? I have not seen it setting off any such intent.

            And just how would the force of idiocy be able to pull off some sort of grand change?

            One example method would be an Affordable Care Act cram-down, which see.

            The bill is awful, yes. Grand change, however, it is not.

  • You know... the Benghazi reference... Milk it, baby! for all it's worth.

  • Problem is, you've cheated the 9th & 10th Amendments (in a century-long tradition of such) to get there.

    [The] problem is, they don't care, because they don't see that as a problem. They see the Constitution itself as the problem. (Why do you think BHO studied it?)

    Appeal to agreed-upon rules only works if they're agreed upon.

  • "Problem is, you've cheated the 9th & 10th Amendments (in a century-long tradition of such) to get there."

    I thought the 14th Amendment replaced the 9th & 10th.

    • Interesting theory; I've absolutely never heard that one before. Could you elaborate as to why?

      • Could you elaborate as to why?

        Probably something to do with applying the national constitution, particularly the bill of rights, to the states. Many of them don't like that. I can hardly sympathize.

        • The term is "incorporation". Whether that legal doctrine is tantamount to striking the 9th & 10th Amendments is up for discussion. The empirical observation since Wilson might be: "Yep".

      • Starting with Brown V the Board of Education, and then Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton, 14th Amendment rights have been held by the Supreme Court to utterly trample any hint of state's rights. We're seeing a repeat of that today in the gay marriage by judicial fiat decisions.

        • There is nothing wrong with "fiat" decisions that assure and protect equal rights. The states are corrupt little fiefdoms and must be told to behave. And I sure don't mind seeing the hammer put down hard as hell on those damn bigots who think they can treat minorities and "outliers" as second and third class citizens.

          • There is nothing wrong with "fiat" decisions that assure and protect equal rights.

            Not a single one of those decisions "assure and protect equal rights". They're all about putting the interests of one arbitrary group above the interests of another arbitrary group., such as your "damn bigots" and "minorities" and "outliers", all three of which are completely arbitrary groupings of human beings that should not have special rights to be protected.

            • This is a logical outgrowth of the state worship.

            • I see, so the state should be allowed to force segregated schools and other public services, and to allow a business open to the public to refuse service to any specific group? I think you're doing like Smitty there. You see equality as a threat because it cuts into your privileges and status over them. You don't see them moving up, as much as you believe it brings you down. Well, in the case of privilege it does, and I'm all for it. It's the thousands of years of repression that caused all this, and now

              • allow a business open to the public to refuse service to any specific group

                Workin' hard, trying to understand why "open to the public" means "public sector". If the business taxed the public against their will, then I could see where the business would be bound to offer service.
                The whole notion of freedom of contract is as intrinsic to what used to be our culture as is freedom of speech and private property. But hey: shut up and pay for gender re-assignment surgery, you stupid peasant!

                • Business controls the government, and receives many special privileges for it, and our taxes go to their support. That is the primary purpose of your military. Business is taxing the public. The government is its collection agency, with guns and everything. If you want to profit from society, you must serve all without discrimination. You are supporting Jim Crow.

                  • Riiiiight. If what you say were true. . .then why not dispense with elections? I'm sure you're going to plead entertainment, or something, but what if you're just simply full of crap?

                    • ...but what if you're just simply full of crap?

                      Because I'm not. And it is necessary to pacify people to reduce the amount of resulting property damage if they figure it out. The elections have definitely proven to be pure show, your preemptive 'shhh' not withstanding. Just look at the kinds of people who win. Obviously you have decided to dismiss all alternatives to your defined narrative out of hand, but all the evidence you need is there. You're just appealing to authority, in fear of losing your privileg

                    • You're just appealing to authority, in fear of losing your privilege.

                      I have to admit that this whole "privilege" play is a novel way to trick people into a 10th Commandment violation. Can't fault the effectiveness on the lumpenproletariat, no sir.

                    • I don't expect you to understand. Ultimately It leads back to explaining water to a fish.

                    • Or just refusing to play your whole envy-based game. :-)

                    • No envy here. I have it quite good. I just figure the truth is an anathema to what you were told to believe since childhood. So of course you will use any rationalization you can dream up to reject it out of hand, as you just showed, thankyouverymuch. Some day you will accept responsibility for your actions. It all depends on your level of introspection. I, personally, don't play the *devil made me do it* routine. In the physical universe everything has a physical cause. But in your circle, it's all "god's

                    • Some day you will accept responsibility for your actions.

                      How is it that you possibly contend I have not accepted responsibility for my actions? What a totally jacked up assertion, sir.

                    • How is it that you possibly contend I have not accepted responsibility for my actions?

                      Your aforementioned tribalism precludes your awareness of it. You are simply on autopilot. Don't take it as an accusation the way you usually do in such instances. It just plain old fact, hidden in plain sight.

                    • Were you Profane MuthaFucka in a past account? Your arguments sound strangely familiar to his.
                    • How can I have any self-awareness, if on autopilot? I guess if you switch contexts quickly enough, you can appear to play all the instruments in the band, simultaneously. You, sir, are a master.
                    • I think I had a lengthy argument with PMF about whether cancer is a just a botched cell mutation.

                  • Not everything is "Jim Crow", you racist idiot.

                    • You right. It's just plain old bigotry. Leave it at home please. Out in public we encourage respect.

                    • That's nothing more than thought control, you bigot.

                    • So, "bigotry" against bigots is bigotry? That is interesting. Dumb, but interesting. I wonder if all those fine Southern Gentlemen felt the same way against abolitionists back in the day... Probably so, as it was interference with their property rights. You.too, seem to be a firm believer in *might makes right*.

                    • In the end, right makes right. Because evil does stupid things like smoke pot all day and never accomplishes anything.

                    • Because evil does stupid things like smoke pot all day and never accomplishes anything.

                      You are repeating lies and propaganda. That is all you can base your opinion on, and thus can be dismissed out of hand without further comment You would ignore them anyway, so there's no point in dragging it out. But I won't call you stupid, merely willfully ignorant, which is the work of the devil, yes, evil. It is you prohibitionists that are wrecking the planet and life for the rest of us. That's a fact, Jack!

                    • Which you say right after being a prohibitionist yourself. See what I mean?

              • "I see, so the state should be allowed to force segregated schools and other public services, and to allow a business open to the public to refuse service to any specific group?"

                If that is what is required to maintain peace in the local community, then who are YOU to tell that local community otherwise?

                But here's a hint- merely banning certain language in law is enough to get that done. You don't need specific laws for specific groups.

                • I am totally against banning certain language. A person has a right to say what he wants. He/she also has a right to live where he/she wants, and to be treated with respect. Failure to show that respect only illustrates the fallacy of your religion. And it justifies the ridicule thrown at it. The high priests are common charlatans.

                  • And yet, you just argued for banning language. Your religion is a big failure at running this country, with it's arbitrary unCatholic separations of humanity. At least my religion preaches that everybody is equal- equally sinful, but still equal.

                    • And yet, you just argued for banning language.

                      Where?

                      At least my religion preaches that everybody is equal- equally sinful, but still equal.

                      It certainly does not! And even if it did preach such, it acts very differently.

                    • Doctrine of Original Sin, and I'd argue that it specifically doesn't act very differently. You just don't understand the concept of mercy.

                    • At least my religion preaches that everybody is equal- equally sinful, but still equal.

                      It certainly does not!

                      Everything that the Catholic Church teaches is published; a simple glance at the Catechism would prove MH42's assertion about the Catholic Church correct. The Church does indeed preach equality.

                      Any counter-example you could produce would likely be the result of your own misunderstanding of what the Church teaches (and why)...

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close