On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:46:08 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hct4r8617rt at (no spam) news7.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:16:18 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:kdgse5d81crthmjiq96mm8geq171c0f38q at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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


Becuase he is pushing for a bill that cannot possibly keep his
promise.

So what NIT do you think you've found this time?

Don't know. What is a NIT?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/NIT

1 : the egg of a louse or other parasitic insect; also : the insect
itself when young
2 : a minor shortcoming

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/nit-picking

: minute and usually unjustified criticism

------------------------------------------------------------

A Republican mainstay of existence is the magnification of "nits"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nitpick -------

1. to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential
details.
–verb (used with object)
2. to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details.
–noun
3. a carping, petty criticism.
–adjective
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a nitpicker or nitpicking.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:50:26 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hct609717rt at (no spam) news7.newsguy.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:20:47 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcoidi11cmu at (no spam) news1.newsguy.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, Jerry Okamura 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.

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.

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!

Who is the liar?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0609-57.pdf

Cato is lying as usual. If a tax is placed on lollipops then that is a
tax on people with incomes of less that $250k according to Cato. Yet
Obama's claim that he would not raise taxes on people under the 250k
level was meant by Obama and interpreted by all the sane people to say
that he would not increase income or wage taxes on people with income
under $250k. He has yet to do so.

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704107204574471292249934348.html

He does not HAVE TO DO anything.

The standard Republican position. For Republicans, the government exists
to enforce rent collections and tax collections that are given to owners
of land, and oil, and the government bonds that were used to finance
phony wars.

The tax on health care policies is not part of the House Bill and if it
is in the final legislation it will probably be vetoed. It is stupid
and it was placed in the bill by Max Baucus who is working to defeat
health care reform and to defeat Barak Obama and the Democratic party.
He and LIEberman are real pals.

smor... at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message

news:cmgne59cm9n988aer9ee25k55f1525q3ml at (no spam) 4ax.com...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

He's taxing EVERYBODY for health care. If your employer pays all or part
of
your health care, Obama is gonna tax it as income

Sounds like TownHall propaganda, JeffyLoon

Sounds like it until you read the bill.

There's no way in Hell that Obama can provide health care without raising
taxes. No f---ing way.

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

What is inconsequential about freedom or the loss of freedom?

ANYONE who wants to take our freedoms away from us is not someone who I have
a whole lot of respect for,

Let us take a step back shall we? Obama kicked off this effort with the
statement that we needed this reform becuase we cannot afford to continue to
go down the road we are on.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:03:56 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

okamuraj... at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

Let us take a step back shall we?  Obama kicked off this effort with the
statement that we needed this reform becuase we cannot afford to continue to
go down the road we are on.

Right

Letting the weatlth class have a unrestricted access to
health care without some participation in the entire
society---is just stupid.

On Nov 2, 6:41 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
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...

--

No in your case we simply will treat you like a second time drunk
driver in Columbia we will take you out back and shoot you.

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:59:38 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate
commerce) would be undercut.
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is maybe
you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both very
efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with its high
profits and low poor out comes.

Medicare has 35 trillion in unfunded mandates, where will that 35
trillion be coming from?

That's why they call them "unfunded" you ( at (no spam) %#^*& lying moronic Republican
butt sucker. "We the people" have not yet committed to how they will be
funded or even _IF_ they will be funded.

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:59:38 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves
interstate commerce) would be undercut.
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is
maybe you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both
very efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with its
high profits and low poor out comes.

Medicare has 35 trillion in unfunded mandates, where will that 35
trillion be coming from?

That's why they call them "unfunded" you ( at (no spam) %#^*& lying moronic
Republican butt sucker. "We the people" have not yet committed to how
they will be funded or even _IF_ they will be funded.

Not Quite true, I have decided I won't be funding it.

You can dump your ashes, I'll dump my wallet.

I fully intend to turn "all" my wealth into gold and other commodities.
I will take a beautiful cruise over an Abyssal hole and give it all to
the Ocean Gods before Government ever gets it's hands on it.

Good luck paying "your" bills.

On Nov 7, 1:27 pm, smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:03:56 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

okamuraj... at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

Let us take a step back shall we?  Obama kicked off this effort with the
statement that we needed this reform becuase we cannot afford to continue to
go down the road we are on.

Right

Letting the weatlth class have a unrestricted access to
health care without some participation in the entire
society---is just stupid.

And after health care, what will be the next item the wealthy
should not have unrestricted access to? If we eliminate the
wealthy, who will provide the jobs for the rest of us? How will
we survive?

I fully intend to turn "all" my wealth into gold and other commodities.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:11:25 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:59:38 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves
interstate commerce) would be undercut.
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is
maybe you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both
very efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with its
high profits and low poor out comes.
Medicare has 35 trillion in unfunded mandates, where will that 35
trillion be coming from?
That's why they call them "unfunded" you ( at (no spam) %#^*& lying moronic
Republican butt sucker. "We the people" have not yet committed to how
they will be funded or even _IF_ they will be funded.
Not Quite true, I have decided I won't be funding it.

You can dump your ashes, I'll dump my wallet.

I fully intend to turn "all" my wealth into gold and other commodities.
I will take a beautiful cruise over an Abyssal hole and give it all to
the Ocean Gods before Government ever gets it's hands on it.

Good luck paying "your" bills.

I will be pleased to see you sail away.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:11:25 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:59:38 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational basis
for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall
regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously involves
interstate commerce) would be undercut.
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health care
provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is
maybe you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both
very efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with its
high profits and low poor out comes.

Medicare has 35 trillion in unfunded mandates, where will that 35
trillion be coming from?

That's why they call them "unfunded" you ( at (no spam) %#^*& lying moronic
Republican butt sucker. "We the people" have not yet committed to how
they will be funded or even _IF_ they will be funded.

Not Quite true, I have decided I won't be funding it.

You can dump your ashes, I'll dump my wallet.

I fully intend to turn "all" my wealth into gold and other commodities.
I will take a beautiful cruise over an Abyssal hole and give it all to
the Ocean Gods before Government ever gets it's hands on it.

Good luck paying "your" bills.

I will be pleased to see you sail away.

And "if" he doesn't "sale away"?

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:11:25 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:59:38 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

draccus876 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:18 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:
And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to
mandate participation in health care. None. Not any.
Commerce Clause under Raich. Namely, Congress has a rational
basis for the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the
overall regulatory scheme on health care (which obviously
involves interstate commerce) would be undercut.
Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

There is no justification for the government to become a health
care provider, nor to demand you become a participant.
Jeff the Government is the largest health care provider there is
maybe you have heard of it they call it the VA and Medicare, both
very efficient and cost effective unlike the private sector with
its high profits and low poor out comes.
Medicare has 35 trillion in unfunded mandates, where will that 35
trillion be coming from?
That's why they call them "unfunded" you ( at (no spam) %#^*& lying moronic
Republican butt sucker. "We the people" have not yet committed to
how they will be funded or even _IF_ they will be funded.
Not Quite true, I have decided I won't be funding it.

You can dump your ashes, I'll dump my wallet.

I fully intend to turn "all" my wealth into gold and other
commodities. I will take a beautiful cruise over an Abyssal hole and
give it all to the Ocean Gods before Government ever gets it's hands
on it.

Good luck paying "your" bills.

I will be pleased to see you sail away.


With my wealth that you planned to steal.... That means you will have to
pay for your own health care.

NOTHING pleases me more.