Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[candycorn]

Liberty? Oh...okay. Overstate much?

No. He's dead on. The right to spend your income how you wish is a fundamental part of liberty. Taking away that right is the opposite of liberty. I'm surprise an educated person such as yourself does not understand the very simple concept of liberty.

That's true. In this country, you don't have to do a fucking thing for anyone else other than yourself and in nearly all cases, you don't even have to do anything for yourself.

Stealing food off my children's table to give yourself a bonus check is not me DOING SOMETHING FOR YOU, YOU DUMB BITCH. ITS YOU FUCKING STEALING FROM ME TO GIVE YOURSELF A BONUS CHECK AT MY EXPENSE, AND AGAINST MY WILL.

If I want to DO SOMETHING FOR SOMEONE I'll do it willingly not BY FORCE YOU DUMB BITCH.

Gee..your view is that nobody should pay taxes for things they don't like. A lot of people don't like our military...should they be able to opt out?

Want some cheese with your whine?

I think the view is that government should be more than a tool to get what you want from others.

He certainly wasn't saying that and I don't agree with the view.

 

[candycorn]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

 

[dblack]

He certainly wasn't saying that and I don't agree with the view.

Do you agree with my version then? Do you think we should use government as a tool to get other people to provide us with stuff we want?

 

[candycorn]

He certainly wasn't saying that and I don't agree with the view.

Do you agree with my version then? Do you think we should use government as a tool to get other people to provide us with stuff we want?

No.

 

[dblack]

ROFL yeah cause redistribution of my income to your pocket is the same as funding our military. ROFL What a pile of Bullshit.

Well, yes...what you posted is a pile of bull shit. Nothing is going into anyone's pocket (you, in fact, stated that).

^ Moron says welfare does not exist. No, I never said "nothing is going into anyone's pocket" you lying piece of shit.

I wouldn't call yourself a moron; your stance is moronic.

It's moronic to be against redistribution of my wealth? ROFL you don't think much of your piece of shit self do you?

It's moronic to think you only have to pay for what you support when it comes to government.

Without getting into what RKM means, I totally agree with this statement. Government isn't a service provider, and voters aren't customers. It is a coercive authority that enforces laws that everyone must follow.

The problem occurs when we try to treat government like a service provider.

 

[candycorn]

Well, yes...what you posted is a pile of bull shit. Nothing is going into anyone's pocket (you, in fact, stated that).

^ Moron says welfare does not exist. No, I never said "nothing is going into anyone's pocket" you lying piece of shit.

I wouldn't call yourself a moron; your stance is moronic.

It's moronic to be against redistribution of my wealth? ROFL you don't think much of your piece of shit self do you?

It's moronic to think you only have to pay for what you support when it comes to government.

Without getting into what RKM means, I totally agree with this statement. Government isn't a service provider, and voters aren't customers. It is a coercive authority that enforces laws that everyone must follow.

The problem occurs when we try to treat government like a service provider.

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

 

[candycorn]

I wouldn't call yourself a moron; your stance is moronic.

It's moronic to be against redistribution of my wealth? ROFL you don't think much of your piece of shit self do you?

It's moronic to think you only have to pay for what you support when it comes to government.

Without getting into what RKM means, I totally agree with this statement. Government isn't a service provider, and voters aren't customers. It is a coercive authority that enforces laws that everyone must follow.

The problem occurs when we try to treat government like a service provider.

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

Redistributing income from one citizen to another is not funding national defense you lying POS.

Soldiers don't get paid? Really?

 

[RKMBrown]

It's moronic to be against redistribution of my wealth? ROFL you don't think much of your piece of shit self do you?

It's moronic to think you only have to pay for what you support when it comes to government....yes. I suggest you go back to your school district and demand you get an education and sit down with the other 8th graders because that is where your education ended sonny boy.

I never said I think I only have to pay for what I support when it comes to government. Did I? No I did not. I suggest you go buy a clue cause clearly you are incapable of doing anything but making up bull shit lies about people.

My public education ended with the 5th grade because of busing. The new underprivileged students could not catch up to where I was in the 5th grade so for me 6th-12th I learned nothing at all, I would just show up get my A and play all day. But hey it was fun as there were girls around.

I have a college degree and not it's not in liberal arts.

Ahh, the truth comes out...5th grade.

What truth? That public education is a waste of time? Or that you are incapable of reading and comprehending even simple sentences without showing what a lying piece of shit you are by quoting people out of context?

You said you have a 5th grade education.
I believe you.

Lying bitch. I said I have a college education. Are you really this much of a moron, or are you just pretending?

 

[candycorn]

It's moronic to think you only have to pay for what you support when it comes to government.

Without getting into what RKM means, I totally agree with this statement. Government isn't a service provider, and voters aren't customers. It is a coercive authority that enforces laws that everyone must follow.

The problem occurs when we try to treat government like a service provider.

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

Redistributing income from one citizen to another is not funding national defense you lying POS.

Soldiers don't get paid? Really?

Where did I say soldiers don't get paid you lying bitch? Really, where?

National defense (which often includes soldiers according to my professors) is funded by redistribution of tax monies. As a result soldiers get paid through wealth re-distribution.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[RKMBrown]

Without getting into what RKM means, I totally agree with this statement. Government isn't a service provider, and voters aren't customers. It is a coercive authority that enforces laws that everyone must follow.

The problem occurs when we try to treat government like a service provider.

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

Redistributing income from one citizen to another is not funding national defense you lying POS.

Soldiers don't get paid? Really?

Where did I say soldiers don't get paid you lying bitch? Really, where?

National defense (which often includes soldiers according to my professors) is funded by redistribution of tax monies. As a result soldiers get paid through wealth re-distribution.

If you would have stuck around until the 6th grade Cletus...you may have learned that.

Incorrect, distribution of tax dollars through disbursements to federal service employees for services rendered is not wealth re-distribution. Are you mentally handicapped?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[dblack]

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

How is redistributing wealth any different from using government to get what you want from others?

 

[candycorn]

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

Redistributing income from one citizen to another is not funding national defense you lying POS.

Soldiers don't get paid? Really?

Where did I say soldiers don't get paid you lying bitch? Really, where?

National defense (which often includes soldiers according to my professors) is funded by redistribution of tax monies. As a result soldiers get paid through wealth re-distribution.

If you would have stuck around until the 6th grade Cletus...you may have learned that.

Incorrect, distribution of tax dollars through disbursements to federal service employees for services rendered is not wealth re-distribution. Are you mentally handicapped?

Basically, you've defined wealth re-distribution.

 

[dblack]

Without getting into what RKM means, I totally agree with this statement. Government isn't a service provider, and voters aren't customers. It is a coercive authority that enforces laws that everyone must follow.

The problem occurs when we try to treat government like a service provider.

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

Redistributing income from one citizen to another is not funding national defense you lying POS.

Soldiers don't get paid? Really?

Where did I say soldiers don't get paid you lying bitch? Really, where?

National defense (which often includes soldiers according to my professors) is funded by redistribution of tax monies. As a result soldiers get paid through wealth re-distribution.

If you would have stuck around until the 6th grade Cletus...you may have learned that.

You're confusing side-effect with intent. The purpose of paying soldiers isn't to redistribute wealth.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

How is redistributing wealth any different from using government to get what you want from others?

Good question. Except we all pay taxes in some form or fashion.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah...tell him that. He doesn't like his wealth being re-distributed which is just about the only function government really has when you boil it down to the base components (defense costs money, enforcement costs money, legislation costs money).

Redistributing income from one citizen to another is not funding national defense you lying POS.

Soldiers don't get paid? Really?

Where did I say soldiers don't get paid you lying bitch? Really, where?

National defense (which often includes soldiers according to my professors) is funded by redistribution of tax monies. As a result soldiers get paid through wealth re-distribution.

If you would have stuck around until the 6th grade Cletus...you may have learned that.

You're confusing side-effect with intent. The purpose of paying soldiers isn't to redistribute wealth.

The topic was that the 5th grader doesn't want to pay taxes to support anything he doesn't like. I brought up that a lot of people do not like the military...should they be able to opt out. Of course, then the hair splitting began in earnest....where I guess he was trying to say that funding the military was somehow more noble than funding the ACA....I kind of tune out when he starts in with the 5th grade profanity and such to be honest. Who the hell knows what his point is. Anyway...both are the laws of the land and if you don't think we should have to fund one, well, get your representative to repeal it I suppose.

 

[RKMBrown]

Redistributing income from one citizen to another is not funding national defense you lying POS.

Soldiers don't get paid? Really?

Where did I say soldiers don't get paid you lying bitch? Really, where?

National defense (which often includes soldiers according to my professors) is funded by redistribution of tax monies. As a result soldiers get paid through wealth re-distribution.

If you would have stuck around until the 6th grade Cletus...you may have learned that.

Incorrect, distribution of tax dollars through disbursements to federal service employees for services rendered is not wealth re-distribution. Are you mentally handicapped?

Basically, you've defined wealth re-distribution.

No, candy. Paying someone for the work they do, is not the same as stealing money from peter to pay paul cause you think paul needs the money.

 

[Ravi]

He certainly wasn't saying that and I don't agree with the view.

Do you agree with my version then? Do you think we should use government as a tool to get other people to provide us with stuff we want?

Not that anyone asked me, but I believe the government should provide for the general welfare. That includes interstate highways, the military, and poverty relief.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Folks,

This debate zone is supposed to be free of name calling.

Please stay on content and stop with the personal attacks.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

 

[dblack]

He certainly wasn't saying that and I don't agree with the view.

Do you agree with my version then? Do you think we should use government as a tool to get other people to provide us with stuff we want?

Not that anyone asked me, but I believe the government should provide for the general welfare. That includes interstate highways, the military, and poverty relief.

That sounds like a "yes".

And that strikes me as dangerous. Government should protect us from those who would use force to get what they want. It shouldn't provide them the means.