Main Page | Report this Page
Politics Forum Index  »  Economic Politics Forum  »  Obama breaks yet another promise, Obama is a liar....
Page 6 of 11    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

Obama breaks yet another promise, Obama is a liar....

Author Message
John Galt...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:12 pm
Guest
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can

b) law enforcement

c) the law.

And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
the majority.

JG
 
Poetic Justice...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:14 pm
Guest
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:19:23 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

It's the static from your tin hat you keep hearing.

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door? I won't be
opening the doe are volunteering my papers.

Heard the same bragging bullshit from Billy Beck for
years

Here's what I told him:

I help elect politicians who make the laws who then
send the proper authorities to your door, break it
down, and haul you into the legal system

"Billy", I said...."Please tell them you're armed and
you ain't gonna do it"

Billy Beck ain't been around here in a few years.


I look forward to the Government violating my rights. You commies won't
care but freedom loving Americans will pay attention.

I'll die for my freedom.... will you die for your communism?



Quote:
=======================================================================

*Try* it, you crappy little faggot bitch. Don't just sit there:
come try it.


I'll take your fuckin' life, instantly, and sleep like a baby.


Billy


VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/


==============================================================================

On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:31:15 GMT,
w... at (no spam) mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
wrote like a right wing nut;

Bec... at (no spam) BurgerNarc.com wrote:


You get one warning, keep my name out of your rubbish,
or you know what's going to happen. I will burn this place down with
your name, address, and phone number all day long, no matter what. If
I end up bouncing posts off Mars to get 'em here, I will.


Stick it up your ass, Beck you chickenshit little nazi.

=================================================================



Billy Beck <w... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:


*You* are in line for the smokey end of a 7.62.

Keep pushing it, pal. You have no idea what you're fooling
around with, and I'm not talking about *me*.


Billy






--
 
Poetic Justice...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:17 pm
Guest
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can

b) law enforcement

c) the law.

And you can't stop 'em



I don't want to stop them. I invite them to bust the door down and
arrest me for exercising my right. I can not be forced to sign up for
insurance.




--
 
John Galt...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:43 pm
Guest
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
a) anyway we can
b) law enforcement
c) the law.
And you can't stop 'em
If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
the majority.

I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement.

I would expect that's correct. It's the least intrusive method.

Of
Quote:
course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has gotten
to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to violently revolt
against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy" enforcement of a tax
cheat.

This level of enforcement belongs in the courts, IMO. The original
scenario at the least implied a forcible entry of law enforcement into a
home without any evidence of wrongdoing; so a different matter, and not
one that could be engaged without an expectation of violence.

JG

Quote:

Josh Rosenbluth
 
Josh Rosenbluth...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:25 pm
Guest
John Galt wrote:
Quote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an
insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can
b) law enforcement
c) the law.
And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
the majority.


I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement.


I would expect that's correct. It's the least intrusive method.

Of

course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has gotten
to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to violently revolt
against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy" enforcement of a tax
cheat.


This level of enforcement belongs in the courts, IMO. The original
scenario at the least implied a forcible entry of law enforcement into a
home without any evidence of wrongdoing; so a different matter, and not
one that could be engaged without an expectation of violence.

There's your answer Poetic Justice. See you in court.

Josh Rosenbluth
 
Poetic Justice...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:41 pm
Guest
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Quote:
John Galt wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an
insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can
b) law enforcement
c) the law.
And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
the majority.


I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement.


I would expect that's correct. It's the least intrusive method.

Of

course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has gotten
to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to violently revolt
against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy" enforcement of a tax
cheat.


This level of enforcement belongs in the courts, IMO. The original
scenario at the least implied a forcible entry of law enforcement into
a home without any evidence of wrongdoing; so a different matter, and
not one that could be engaged without an expectation of violence.

There's your answer Poetic Justice. See you in court.

Josh Rosenbluth



Kool I'll be there if/when the Subpoena or warrant arrive.

till then I will Not turn over any information papers or person to the
government.

I'll cost you millions in courts to force me to pay $3,000, and then
I'll refuse and take the jail time and cost you 30,000 to 50,000 a
year... That socialism should go broke fast if a few more people will
follow me. And I'll have all day in prison to spend suing your favorite
socialist government and supporters.


Lets dance...

--
 
Michael Coburn...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:50 pm
Guest
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:12:56 -0500, Strabo wrote:

Quote:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
Obama breaks yet another promise >>OR<< Republican or Democrat, the
Government is always the winner.

Strabo wrote:

It's the difference between Communism and Fascism.

It's a difference without distinction.

Government controls insurance. Government controls hospitals, medical
supply, medical schools, doctors, nurses, pharmaceuticals, all of it.
Government is the reason costs are high.

We're going to have fun with this one. We should be able to arouse
enough anger to remove every federal and state politician from office

Liberals were all so upset about Bush having Patriot act because it
would give Government too mush power to invade their privacy and run
their lives.

Notice how Liberals don't mind Government invading their privacy with
Socialized Government health Care.


The more knowledgable are very upset. They're beginning to realize the
ramifications of an all-powerful medical authority.

If you don't like it then you should look at how to control this "all
powerful" authority instead of whining about it. You might actually
consider the possibility of a proper representative government. As
oppose to the Republican lock step fascist party.

Quote:
Many liberals and conservatives are asking questions and wondering what
they can to do to save themselves.

Not a problem. It would be called a "republican form of government".
The first order of business would be to get rid of the cloture crap in
the Senate and the second order of business would be to repeal the 17th
amendment. The third order of business would be a dramatic expansion of
the House of Representatives. If the "town hall" meetings were actually
indicative of public sentiment and you believe that Americans are by and
large conservative, then why would you have any disagreement with these
propositions?

Quote:
Typical, they were all playing a part in this play.... The whole thing
is a charade. Now we will stand by while The Socialists take more of
our rights and next it will be Republicans taking more of your rights.


Yes, but the end is in sight.

The "progressives" of the 191x's made a very big error in passing the
17th amendment. The Republicans then refused to enlarge the House in
1921 and passed the Reapportionment act of 1929 as the last nail in the
coffin of representative government in the United States. The people
have little representation in their government and the Republican party
likes it that way much more than do the Democrats. If you fear
government it is because you hate democracy and proper representation of
the common people.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 
Michael Coburn...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:55 pm
Guest
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:16:02 -0500, Strabo wrote:

Quote:
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:05:45 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:

Liberals were all so upset about Bush having Patriot act because it
would give Government too mush power to invade their privacy and run
their lives.

By doing it illegally by having no oversight, or legal basis for any of
it---spying on American citizens in direct contravention of the
constittution and established law.



Here is one section from the infamous Patriot Act as passed into law by
the US Congress in 2001 and expanded since.

Ask the Patriot Act, "who is a terrorist?" "Who is a criminal?"


Section 802 reads that YOU are a terrorist if the president or his
designee so declares.

Now ask the Patriot Act, "who is a criminal?"

Section 802 reads that YOU are a criminal if the president or his
designee so declares you a terrorist.

Note that this document specifies that a terrorist may be *any* person
so designated by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General OR,
*any* person suspected of violating any federal or state criminal law OR
*any* person suspected of actually or intending to, intimidate or coerce
any person.

In others words, any person suspected of a crime can be designated a
terrorist.

Here's the law...


++++++++++++++

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination
or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or
international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

++++++++++++++

Comments:

Terrorism then is any activity that may:

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

...or an act that may:
`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States.'.

Which could apply to any criticism of government or politicians or half
of the material on the NGs.


Note the wording for amending Section 3077(1) of title 18, United
States Code, it is is amended to read:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or
international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

Which effectively means that "domestic" terrorism is the same as
"international" terrorism.

Further as we see in Sec.411 below, that a terrorist is ...

`(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the
Secretary of State under section 219, or

`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public
endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State
has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or
eliminate terrorist activities,';


Summary of this portion of Section 802 - A terrorist is any person
suspected of violating any federal or state criminal law OR any person
suspected of actually or intending to, intimidate or coerce any person.


continuing...

+++++++++++++



SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

(a) GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY- Section 212(a)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is
amended--

(1) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) in clause (i)--

(i) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows:

`(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v))
of--
`(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the
Secretary of State under section 219, or

`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public
endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of
State has determined undermines United States efforts to
reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,';

(ii) in subclause (V), by inserting `or' after `section 219,';
and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:

`(VI) has used the alien's position of prominence
within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist
activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity
or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of
State has determined undermines United States efforts to
reduce or eliminate terrorist activities, or

`(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is
inadmissible under this section, if the activity
causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the
last 5 years,';

(B) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses
(iii), (iv), and (v), respectively;

(C) in clause (i)(II), by striking `clause (iii)' and
inserting `clause (iv)';

(D) by inserting after clause (i) the following:

`(ii) EXCEPTION- Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not
apply to a spouse or child--

`(I) who did not know or should not reasonably
have known of the activity causing the alien to be found
inadmissible under this section; or

`(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney
General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the
activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under
this section.';

(E) in clause (iii) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B))--

(i) by inserting `it had been' before `committed in the
United States'; and

(ii) in subclause (V)(b), by striking `or firearm' and
inserting `, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device';

(F) by amending clause (iv) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B)) to read as follows:

`(iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As
used in this chapter, the term `engage in terrorist activity'
means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an
organization--

`(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under
circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious
bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

`(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

`(III) to gather information on potential targets for
terrorist activity;

`(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--

`(aa) a terrorist activity;

`(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or
(vi)(II); or

`(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III),
unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and
should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would
further the organization's terrorist activity;

`(V) to solicit any individual--

`(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;

`(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in
clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

`(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in
clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he
did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the
solicitation would further the organization's terrorist
activity; or

`(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or
reasonably should know, affords material support,
including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds,
transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false
documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical,
biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training--

`(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

`(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist
activity;

`(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I)
or (vi)(II); or

`(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did
not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act
would further the organization's terrorist activity.

This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien
afforded to an organization or individual that has committed
terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney
General, after consultation with the Secretary of State,
concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that this clause
should not apply.'; and

(G) by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(vi) TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DEFINED- As used in clause (i)(VI)
and clause (iv), the term `terrorist organization' means an
organization--

`(I) designated under section 219;

`(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the
Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with
or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist
organization, after finding that the organization engages in the
activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause
(iv), or that the organization provides material support to
further terrorist activity; or

`(III) that is a group of two or more individuals,
whether organized or not, which engages in the activities
described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the
Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General,
or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of
State, determines has been associated with a terrorist
organization and intends while in the United States to engage
solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could
endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is
inadmissible.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(1) Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended by striking `section
212(a)(3)(B)(iii)' and inserting `section 212(a) (3)(B)(iv)'.

(2) Section 208(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)) is amended by striking `or
(IV)' and inserting `(IV), or (VI)'.

(c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to--

(A) actions taken by an alien before, on, or after such date;
and

(B) all aliens, without regard to the date of entry or
attempted entry into the United States--

(i) in removal proceedings on or after such date (except for
proceedings in which there has been a final administrative
decision before such date); or

(ii) seeking admission to the United States on or after such
date.

(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR ALIENS IN EXCLUSION OR DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, sections
212(a)(3)(B) and 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply to all aliens in
exclusion or deportation proceedings on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act (except for proceedings in which there has
been a final administrative decision before such date) as if such
proceedings were removal proceedings.

(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR SECTION 219 ORGANIZATIONS AND
ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED UNDER SECTION 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)-

(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), no alien
shall be considered inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)), or
deportable under section 237(a)(4)(B) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)), by reason of the amendments made by
subsection (a), on the ground that the alien engaged in a
terrorist activity described in subclause (IV)(bb),
(V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as
so amended) with respect to a group at any time when the group was
not a terrorist organization designated by the Secretary of State
under section 219 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) or otherwise
designated under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such Act (as so
amended).

(B) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed to prevent an alien from being considered inadmissible or
deportable for having engaged in a terrorist activity--

(i) described in subclause (IV)(bb), (V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of
section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect
to a terrorist organization at any time when such organization was
designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act
or otherwise designated under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such
Act (as so amended); or

(ii) described in subclause (IV)(cc), (V)(cc), or (VI)(dd) of
section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect
to a terrorist organization described in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of such Act (as so amended).

(4) EXCEPTION- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Attorney General, may determine that the amendments made by this
section shall not apply with respect to actions by an alien taken
outside the United States before the date of the enactment of this
Act upon the recommendation of a consular officer who has concluded
that there is not reasonable ground to believe that the alien knew
or reasonably should have known that the actions would further a
terrorist activity.

(c) DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Section
219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a))
is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting `or terrorism (as defined
in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the
capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or
terrorism' after `212(a)(3)(B)';

(2) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting `or terrorism' after
`terrorist activity';

(3) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as follows:

`(A) NOTICE-

`(i) TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS- Seven days before
making a designation under this subsection, the Secretary shall,
by classified communication, notify the Speaker and Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives, the President pro
tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate, and
the members of the relevant committees of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of the intent to
designate an organization under this subsection, together with
the findings made under paragraph
(1) with respect to that organization, and the factual basis
therefor.

`(ii) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER- The Secretary shall
publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days after
providing the notification under clause (i).';

(4) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking `subparagraph (A)' and
inserting `subparagraph
(A)(ii)';

(5) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking `paragraph (2)' and
inserting `paragraph (2)(A)(i)';

(6) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking `subsection (c)' and
inserting `subsection (b)';

(7) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting after the first sentence
the following: `The Secretary also may redesignate such
organization at the end of any 2-year redesignation period (but
not sooner than 60 days prior to the termination of such period)
for an additional 2-year period upon a finding that the relevant
circumstances described in paragraph (1) still exist. Any
redesignation shall be effective immediately following the end of
the prior 2-year designation or redesignation period unless a
different effective date is provided in such redesignation.';

(Cool in paragraph (6)(A)--

(A) by inserting `or a redesignation made under paragraph
(4)(B)' after `paragraph (1)';

(B) in clause (i)--

(i) by inserting `or redesignation' after `designation' the
first place it appears; and

(ii) by striking `of the designation'; and

(C) in clause (ii), by striking `of the designation';

(9) in paragraph (6)(B)--

(A) by striking `through (4)' and inserting `and (3)'; and

(B) by inserting at the end the following new sentence: `Any
revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the
revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no
effective date is specified.';

(10) in paragraph (7), by inserting `, or the revocation of a
redesignation under paragraph(6),' after `paragraph (5) or
(6)'; and

(11) in paragraph (Cool--

(A) by striking `paragraph (1)(B)' and inserting `paragraph
(2)(B), or if a redesignation under this subsection has become
effective under paragraph (4)(B)';

(B) by inserting `or an alien in a removal proceeding' after
`criminal action'; and

(C) by inserting `or redesignation' before `as a defense'

(END SECTION)

Stop whining and lets get it repealed or declared unconstitutional. It
may well be that with a Democrat at the helm the rightarded will actually
challenge this crap in the courts. Those are YOUR Supremes (Roberts and
Alito) placed there by YOUR President George Bush. So why are you
hesitating to take to the courts?

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 
Michael Coburn...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:07 am
Guest
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:47:05 -0800, Bill Bowden wrote:

Quote:
On Oct 31, 7:31 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Bill Bowden wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:47 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hcica9$3i9$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:hci437$qbr$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

There is no justification for the government to become
ahealth care provider, nor to demand you become a
participant.

As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
justification. And, no one is proposing that the government
be a health careprovider.

???

That's precisely what the government itself is proposing.
Pelosi, et al, will tell you one thing, and do another. The
fact is, if they put in the Public Option (with any f---ing
name she pulls out of her fat ass), it will signal the end of
private care. Period.

The public option is government-provided health insurance, not
government-providedhealth care.

Same thing.

No.  With the public option,health careproviders remain in the
private sector.  In contrast in Britain,health careproviders are
government employees.

The government is forcing you to participate, that's
governmenthealth>>>care. Period.

No, you can do that without even a public option.

So what.

So, you can now stop making false claims about government
providedhealth care.  Please be accurate and say it is government
provided health insurance with an individual mandate.

That assertion does not make the Public Option any worse than it
already is.

The fact is, there is no requirement to participate now, and with
the proposed plan forhealth care, there will be. That makes it
publichealth> carefor no other reason than it's compulsory. There is
no Constitutioinal authority for compulsoryhealth care.

As I already explained, because it is rational for Congress to
believe the mandate is necessary to support the requirement on
private insurance companies not to reject people because of
pre-existing conditions (*), it is permitted under the Commerce
Clause.

Josh Rosenbluth

(*) Even Republicans believe this requirement is a constitutional
regulation of commerce and a good idea

So, how does that work out amongst the various insurance companies as
to who will accept the high risk cases, and who will insure the low
risk cases? Will the risk be divided equally amongst the many
insurance companies, or will some do better than others? How do they
equalize the risks involved?

Just wondering.

That's where the mandatory insurance comes in - the healthy pay into
the system.

Josh Rosenbluth

Yes, I understand. But I wasn't referring to the healthy. Suppose a
person has heart disease and cancer and requires a CAT scan and other
major expenses every 6 months and has no insurance. Which insurance
company will take on the expenses knowing in advance it will cost many
times more than the premiums collected?

Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross / Blue Shield
and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.

The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
insurance companies carry equal obligations?

-Bill

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-
DETAILEDSUMMARY-102909.pdf --------------------

Insurance reforms.

Prohibits insurance rating based on health status or pre-existing
conditions, and limits
age rating to 2:1. Prohibits annual or lifetime limits on medical
spending. Grandfathers current individual
policies. Applies these reforms to the entire market (inside and outside
the Exchange), although employers
have a five-year grace period to come into compliance. Establishes
important consumer protections,
including internal and external appeal requirements, provider network
adequacy requirements, and
greater transparency by insurance companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The phrase "insurance rating" implies to me that the premiums can't be
adjusted based on your particular conditions. That means that the
healthy people will be paying a share of the cost of health care for the
people who are not healthy. But each insurance company MUST accept all
applicants. The result should be that the most efficient insurance
companies will prevail. What could any particular company do to limit
its exposure to costly health care consumers?????

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 
Michael Coburn...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:20 am
Guest
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

Quote:
erschroedinger at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31539e8c-e60e-45ce-9afa-
b66f53c44c9b at (no spam) f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 11:47 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

Not for the middle class, which WAS his promise.

Jerry gets one right!!!! WOW!!!

Quote:
He also said we needed this reform to save money? How can you save
money, if you have to raise taxes?

That question puts Jerry back in the same dumbass box he has always
inhabited. The assumption that tax proceeds are (logically) burned in a
furnace as opposed to being fruitfully redistributed is a Republican
Religious tenet. If government can improve the net income of the vast
majority by taxing the wealthy in order to subsidize health care for the
poor, then the middle class _saves_ money even though the rich do not. It
may well be that such a scheme is inefficient and the rich may lose more
than the common people gain. Yet the net social welfare may be quite
positive.

In addition: If the reform results in more monopsony power for the payers
(all insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid), then the
aggregate cost of care will be reduced.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 
Michael Coburn...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:25 am
Guest
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

Quote:
smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni7damks5ji4hjnov0d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:




Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

But only on those he already said he would.


It is a broken promise.

Obama said he would raise taxes on people with incomes over a quarter of
a million bucks and that is what is going to happen.

Quote:
Besides, even your statement if a lie, because
the healthcare reform proposals in Congress, DOES raise taxes on those
he said he would not raise taxes on.

LIE!

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 
Michael Coburn...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:27 am
Guest
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:19:54 -0700, smorgas wrote:

Quote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni7damks5ji4hjnov0d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:




Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

But only on those he already said he would.


It is a broken promise.

How can it be "broken" if nothing has passed yet, you dingbat

The promise remains unbroken when the House bill passes.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
 
...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:45 am
Guest
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:12:50 +0100, John Galt
<kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can

b) law enforcement

c) the law.

And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

Well, glad that's settled
 
...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:48 am
Guest
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:41:06 -0500, Poetic Justice
<PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

Quote:
Kool I'll be there if/when the Subpoena or warrant arrive.

till then I will Not turn over any information papers or person to the
government.

I'll cost you millions in courts to force me to pay $3,000,

Nonsense argument

Any "action" by government is done with proper legal
foundation (tin-hat interpretation notwithstanding)

And if you are taken to court--rest assured that: a)
you'll pay the tax and court costs, and you'll continue
to be taxed.
 
...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:49 am
Guest
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:17:33 -0500, Poetic Justice
<PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

Quote:
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can

b) law enforcement

c) the law.

And you can't stop 'em



I don't want to stop them. I invite them to bust the door down and
arrest me for exercising my right. I can not be forced to sign up for
insurance.

Strawman---no one suggests forcing anything
 
 
Page 6 of 11    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:05 pm