Who thinks tomorrow (Thurs) is gonna be looooong day for The ONE?

[Liability]

I love the title of this thread.

And unfortunately for Repubs, it just won't die.

I have no problem with the thread. I don't want it to die.

America got fucked up the ass by CJ Roberts. The Constitution got raped.

So, the assumption that Thursday was gonna be a long day for The ONE proved to be unfounded.

The Attorney General DID get held in contempt, but it's not like the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land gives a crap about that, nor does his boss, the President, and neither do ANY of the generally drone libs who pay only lip service to "nation of laws" and only when it suits their partisan agenda.

It should have been a very long day for The ONE. Alas, now all we can do is point to the fact that the SCOTUS (like Congress and the President and the AG) are essentially lawless.

You libs dismiss it all.

I think it should be a part of the consciousness of every voter when Election Day rolls around.

 

[Synthaholic]

If synth wants to really get into the weeds, he needs to look at Section 5000 of the fucking act:



26 USC § 5000A - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage | LII / Legal Information Institute

THANK YOU!

Now - did you read it? All of it? Skip down to the very end of what you posted:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.​

So tell me again: what fine/tax/penalty has Obama unleashed upon America?

And why are wingnuts and those who get all their news from the Wingnut Press so totally ignorant about this?

And if you would like to know how this came about, you can blame....the Liberals:

The Last Word

(Watch the clip - It's worth a few minutes of your time to hear the evolution of the bill)

I not only told you several times already, I even quoted the act for you.

I can't hep it if you don't understand it.

Neither did the jerk off libs in Congress when they passed it sight unseen.

Excuse me - You've told me several times before that there is indeed NO penalty, NO fine, NO tax associated with ignoring the Obamacare mandate?

WHERE????

You can bet that I will be holding you to this claim!

 

[Liability]

THANK YOU!

Now - did you read it? All of it? Skip down to the very end of what you posted:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.​

So tell me again: what fine/tax/penalty has Obama unleashed upon America?

And why are wingnuts and those who get all their news from the Wingnut Press so totally ignorant about this?

And if you would like to know how this came about, you can blame....the Liberals:

The Last Word

(Watch the clip - It's worth a few minutes of your time to hear the evolution of the bill)

I not only told you several times already, I even quoted the act for you.

I can't hep it if you don't understand it.

Neither did the jerk off libs in Congress when they passed it sight unseen.

Excuse me - You've told me several times before that there is indeed NO penalty, NO fine, NO tax associated with ignoring the Obamacare mandate?

WHERE????

You can bet that I will be holding you to this claim!

Again, WTF are you babbling about?

You are posting pure gibberish.

Where did I ever say that there is no penalty?

Cite it.

You won't though, because you can't.

Jeez, sometimes you are a true dunce.

There IS a penalty and I cited and QUOTED the SECTION that imposes it. I also said that they impose the penalty using the tax code to do it. In fact, you dip, I am even willing to concede that Roberts got one thing right in his rambling incoherent gibberish opinion on the matter of it being a tax. Congress may not have called the penalty a tax, but I actually AGREE that it is a tax.

What I said is that: IF it's a tax, how come it's not tax for any purpose OTHER than the one that claims that BECAUSE it's a tax, it is Constitutional?

 

[Synthaholic]

I not only told you several times already, I even quoted the act for you.

I can't hep it if you don't understand it.

Neither did the jerk off libs in Congress when they passed it sight unseen.

Excuse me - You've told me several times before that there is indeed NO penalty, NO fine, NO tax associated with ignoring the Obamacare mandate?

WHERE????

You can bet that I will be holding you to this claim!

Again, WTF are you babbling about?

You are posting pure gibberish.

Where did I ever say that there is no penalty?

Cite it.

You won't though, because you can't.

Jeez, sometimes you are a true dunce.

There IS a penalty and I cited and QUOTED the SECTION that imposes it. I also said that they impose the penalty using the tax code to do it. In fact, you dip, I am even willing to concede that Roberts got one thing right in his rambling incoherent gibberish opinion on the matter of it being a tax. Congress may not have called the penalty a tax, but I actually AGREE that it is a tax.

What I said is that: IF it's a tax, how come it's not tax for any purpose OTHER than the one that claims that BECAUSE it's a tax, it is Constitutional?

You are unfuckingbelievable - do you not read my replies? Here it is again:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
​

That came from the bottom of YOUR POST.

 

[Liability]

Excuse me - You've told me several times before that there is indeed NO penalty, NO fine, NO tax associated with ignoring the Obamacare mandate?

WHERE????

You can bet that I will be holding you to this claim!

Again, WTF are you babbling about?

You are posting pure gibberish.

Where did I ever say that there is no penalty?

Cite it.

You won't though, because you can't.

Jeez, sometimes you are a true dunce.

There IS a penalty and I cited and QUOTED the SECTION that imposes it. I also said that they impose the penalty using the tax code to do it. In fact, you dip, I am even willing to concede that Roberts got one thing right in his rambling incoherent gibberish opinion on the matter of it being a tax. Congress may not have called the penalty a tax, but I actually AGREE that it is a tax.

What I said is that: IF it's a tax, how come it's not tax for any purpose OTHER than the one that claims that BECAUSE it's a tax, it is Constitutional?

You are unfuckingbelievable - do you not read my replies? Here it is again:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
​

That came from the bottom of YOUR POST.

Your little quote is addressing some "point" though, presumably.

As usual, however, you have provided not the first hint of whatever it is you seem to imagine it addresses.

Again, I never said that the Obama mandate did not impose a penalty. Quite the opposite, in fact. I carefully noted that it did.

It is good to learn (again) that it imposes no criminal penalties. Of course, I never said that it did, either.

And it is good to read again that for those who cannot afford to pay the bill, there is no lien to be imposed. Whew. Of course, again, I never maintained anything to the contrary.

Is that your would-be "point?" Because if it is, then you have a brain aneurysm to worry about. You poor thing.

There are all kinds of penalties. Thought that factoid might help you out a bit.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Attorney General DID get held in contempt, but it's not like the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land gives a crap about that, nor does his boss, the President, and neither do ANY of the generally drone libs who pay only lip service to "nation of laws" and only when it suits their partisan agenda.


I think it should be a part of the consciousness of every voter when Election Day rolls around.

EarthLink - Political News

AG says GOP using him as 'proxy' to attack Obama

Holder tells The Washington Post that Republican congressional figures have used a failed gun-tracking operation known as Fast and Furious to attack a wide range of administration policies.

- speaking of: "only when it suits their partisan agenda" - that could not also include the HR - Tea Party Republicans could it ....

the vote against Holder will prove as without merit as the Republican States sponsored lawsuit against the ACA. -

and what isn't mentioned is the prevention of Holder from a candidacy to the Supreme Court as the Democrats did the same for Alberto Gonzales - not partisanship at all ...

 

[Liability]

The Attorney General DID get held in contempt, but it's not like the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land gives a crap about that, nor does his boss, the President, and neither do ANY of the generally drone libs who pay only lip service to "nation of laws" and only when it suits their partisan agenda.


I think it should be a part of the consciousness of every voter when Election Day rolls around.

EarthLink - Political News

AG says GOP using him as 'proxy' to attack Obama

Holder tells The Washington Post that Republican congressional figures have used a failed gun-tracking operation known as Fast and Furious to attack a wide range of administration policies.

- speaking of: "only when it suits their partisan agenda" - that could not also include the HR - Tea Party Republicans could it ....

the vote against Holder will prove as without merit as the Republican States sponsored lawsuit against the ACA. -

and what isn't mentioned is the prevention of Holder from a candidacy to the Supreme Court as the Democrats did the same for Alberto Gonzales - not partisanship at all ...

Silly rant.

Holder is the one who stonewalled the House Committee. The blame is with him. The House was right -- completely right and totally justified -- to hold that POS in contempt.

The balance of your post is unintelligible spew.

You do tend to babble incoherently.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again, WTF are you babbling about?

You are posting pure gibberish.

Where did I ever say that there is no penalty?

Cite it.

You won't though, because you can't.

Jeez, sometimes you are a true dunce.

There IS a penalty and I cited and QUOTED the SECTION that imposes it. I also said that they impose the penalty using the tax code to do it. In fact, you dip, I am even willing to concede that Roberts got one thing right in his rambling incoherent gibberish opinion on the matter of it being a tax. Congress may not have called the penalty a tax, but I actually AGREE that it is a tax.

What I said is that: IF it's a tax, how come it's not tax for any purpose OTHER than the one that claims that BECAUSE it's a tax, it is Constitutional?

You are unfuckingbelievable - do you not read my replies? Here it is again:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
​

That came from the bottom of YOUR POST.

Your little quote is addressing some "point" though, presumably.

As usual, however, you have provided not the first hint of whatever it is you seem to imagine it addresses.

Again, I never said that the Obama mandate did not impose a penalty. Quite the opposite, in fact. I carefully noted that it did.

It is good to learn (again) that it imposes no criminal penalties. Of course, I never said that it did, either.

And it is good to read again that for those who cannot afford to pay the bill, there is no lien to be imposed. Whew. Of course, again, I never maintained anything to the contrary.

Is that your would-be "point?" Because if it is, then you have a brain aneurysm to worry about. You poor thing.

There are all kinds of penalties. Thought that factoid might help you out a bit.

There are criminal penalties, and then there are civil penalties.

NEITHER apply to Obamacare. As I have pointed out time and again.

If you claim there are penalties for not complying with the mandate, you are lying.

I do not know how much clearer I can spell it out for you.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There are criminal penalties, and then there are civil penalties.

NEITHER apply to Obamacare. As I have pointed out time and again.

If you claim there are penalties for not complying with the mandate, you are lying.

I do not know how much clearer I can spell it out for you.

If you can afford health insurance but do not purchase it the penalty is that you will be taxed.

The tax is the penalty; the penalty is that you will be taxed.

Either way, you're being whacked for NOT doing something.

 

[Liability]

You are unfuckingbelievable - do you not read my replies? Here it is again:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
​

That came from the bottom of YOUR POST.

Your little quote is addressing some "point" though, presumably.

As usual, however, you have provided not the first hint of whatever it is you seem to imagine it addresses.

Again, I never said that the Obama mandate did not impose a penalty. Quite the opposite, in fact. I carefully noted that it did.

It is good to learn (again) that it imposes no criminal penalties. Of course, I never said that it did, either.

And it is good to read again that for those who cannot afford to pay the bill, there is no lien to be imposed. Whew. Of course, again, I never maintained anything to the contrary.

Is that your would-be "point?" Because if it is, then you have a brain aneurysm to worry about. You poor thing.

There are all kinds of penalties. Thought that factoid might help you out a bit.

There are criminal penalties, and then there are civil penalties.

NEITHER apply to Obamacare. As I have pointed out time and again.

If you claim there are penalties for not complying with the mandate, you are lying.

I do not know how much clearer I can spell it out for you.

There is a financial penalty. An assessment.

Are you seriously that fraudulent that even though The ONE called it a penalty you STILL can't admit that the penalty is a penalty?

When you DENY that there are penalties, YOU are lying.

No question about it.

In the universe of things known as "penalties," the imposition of this monetary sanction is absolutely one of them. And it's so clear, even the authors of the Act labeled it as such.

 

[Synthaholic]

There are criminal penalties, and then there are civil penalties.

NEITHER apply to Obamacare. As I have pointed out time and again.

If you claim there are penalties for not complying with the mandate, you are lying.

I do not know how much clearer I can spell it out for you.

If you can afford health insurance but do not purchase it the penalty is that you will be taxed.

The tax is the penalty; the penalty is that you will be taxed.

Either way, you're being whacked for NOT doing something.

What part of this do you not understand?


(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

 

[Synthaholic]

Your little quote is addressing some "point" though, presumably.

As usual, however, you have provided not the first hint of whatever it is you seem to imagine it addresses.

Again, I never said that the Obama mandate did not impose a penalty. Quite the opposite, in fact. I carefully noted that it did.

It is good to learn (again) that it imposes no criminal penalties. Of course, I never said that it did, either.

And it is good to read again that for those who cannot afford to pay the bill, there is no lien to be imposed. Whew. Of course, again, I never maintained anything to the contrary.

Is that your would-be "point?" Because if it is, then you have a brain aneurysm to worry about. You poor thing.

There are all kinds of penalties. Thought that factoid might help you out a bit.

There are criminal penalties, and then there are civil penalties.

NEITHER apply to Obamacare. As I have pointed out time and again.

If you claim there are penalties for not complying with the mandate, you are lying.

I do not know how much clearer I can spell it out for you.

There is a financial penalty. An assessment.

Are you seriously that fraudulent that even though The ONE called it a penalty you STILL can't admit that the penalty is a penalty?

When you DENY that there are penalties, YOU are lying.

No question about it.

In the universe of things known as "penalties," the imposition of this monetary sanction is absolutely one of them. And it's so clear, even the authors of the Act labeled it as such.

What part of this do YOU not understand?


(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

 

[BreezeWood]

Silly rant.

Holder is the one who stonewalled the House Committee. The blame is with him. The House was right -- completely right and totally justified -- to hold that POS in contempt.

The balance of your post is unintelligible spew.

You do tend to babble incoherently.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

Holder Contempt: Issa No Longer Suspicious AG Knew Fast And Furious Gunwalking | TPMMuckraker

Fast And Furious: Issa No Longer Suspicious Holder Knew Of Gunwalking

A day ahead of a vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said his committee is no longer even strongly suspicious that highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country knew that guns “walked” during the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious.

“During the inception and the participation through the death of Brian Terry, we have no evidence nor do we currently have strong suspicion” that Holder knew of the tactics, Issa said during testimony before the House Rules Committee on Wednesday.

Liability: Holder is the one who stonewalled the House Committee

Issa No Longer Suspicious Holder Knew Of Gunwalking


there has never been anything to Stonewall against. -

as will be soundly proven by the lack of pursuit about the matter in the courts by the Republican leadership - case closed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Issa No Longer Suspicious Holder Knew Of Gunwalking


there has never been anything to Stonewall against. -

as will be soundly proven by the lack of pursuit about the matter in the courts by the Republican leadership - case closed.

Mindless sycophant is mindless....

{A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that 38 percent of voters think the fight over “Fast and Furious” is better described as a “cover up by the White House,” while 32 percent say it is a “witch hunt by Congressional Republicans.” Twelve percent say it’s both and 18 percent don’t have an opinion either way.

Read more: Fox News poll: More see cover-up than witch hunt in Fast & Furious fight | Fox News
}

 

[Liability]

Silly rant.

Holder is the one who stonewalled the House Committee. The blame is with him. The House was right -- completely right and totally justified -- to hold that POS in contempt.

The balance of your post is unintelligible spew.

You do tend to babble incoherently.

Liability: Holder is the one who stonewalled the House Committee

Issa No Longer Suspicious Holder Knew Of Gunwalking


there has never been anything to Stonewall against. -

as will be soundly proven by the lack of pursuit about the matter in the courts by the Republican leadership - case closed.

Your post is so full of utter gibberish, it is surprising that a person as thoroughly stupid as you can even breathe.

Congressman Issa most certainly did not say that that there is no suspicion that Holder knew of Gunwalking. In point of fact, there is DAMN good reason to believe that he sure as shit knew about it BEFORE he claimed to Congress in sworn testimony that he first learned of it.

The ridiculous article in Fortune is belied by sworn testimony from AGENTS.

You go ahead and credit some gullible reporter. I'll credit law enforcement agents testifying under oath -- at least barring reason to doubt them.

 

[Liability]

There are criminal penalties, and then there are civil penalties.

NEITHER apply to Obamacare. As I have pointed out time and again.

If you claim there are penalties for not complying with the mandate, you are lying.

I do not know how much clearer I can spell it out for you.

There is a financial penalty. An assessment.

Are you seriously that fraudulent that even though The ONE called it a penalty you STILL can't admit that the penalty is a penalty?

When you DENY that there are penalties, YOU are lying.

No question about it.

In the universe of things known as "penalties," the imposition of this monetary sanction is absolutely one of them. And it's so clear, even the authors of the Act labeled it as such.

What part of this do YOU not understand?


(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

I didn't say, suggest or imply that I didn't understand any of it. Apparently you don't understand what you are posting.

You are quoting and reiterating something that is irrelevant.

Congress didn't impose a penalty that can be enforced by way of a lien or a levy nor did it impose the penalty with any criminal sanctions.

and?

As far as I know, nobody has maintained to the contrary. I know I haven't.

But the penalty they DID impose is still a penalty.

Why you have such difficulty admitting obvious reality is kind of hard to explain. No. Wait. It isn't. It's because you are being a mindless liberal drone partisan hack.

Congress said it was a penalty. They gave it the right label. It is a penalty.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There are criminal penalties, and then there are civil penalties.

NEITHER apply to Obamacare. As I have pointed out time and again.

If you claim there are penalties for not complying with the mandate, you are lying.

I do not know how much clearer I can spell it out for you.

There is a financial penalty. An assessment.

Are you seriously that fraudulent that even though The ONE called it a penalty you STILL can't admit that the penalty is a penalty?

When you DENY that there are penalties, YOU are lying.

No question about it.

In the universe of things known as "penalties," the imposition of this monetary sanction is absolutely one of them. And it's so clear, even the authors of the Act labeled it as such.

What part of this do YOU not understand?


(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to
timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any
failure to pay the penalty imposed by this
section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

I understand all of it. And?

On your tax form there will be a box for you to check if you have health insurance or not. Same for employers. If you don't check the box (meaning you don't have insurance) you have to either a) buy insurance or b) be imposed a tax penalty which will be collected by the IRS.

Will the IRS enforce the collection of said tax penalty? I don't know. But there is a tax penalty for not buying insurance. Yes, the government will monetarily whack you for not purchasing something.

Insane.

 

[Synthaholic]

This is obviously my fault. I'm trying to discuss this with people who are not honest enough to admit what is put in front of them in black and white.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This is obviously my fault. I'm trying to discuss this with people who are not honest enough to admit what is put in front of them in black and white.

What you posted says that the government will not throw you in jail or seize your property for failing to pay the tax they impose on you if you choose not to purchase health insurance.

There is still a penalty ... the tax that they impose on you if you fail to purchase health insurance.

 

[Synthaholic]

This is obviously my fault. I'm trying to discuss this with people who are not honest enough to admit what is put in front of them in black and white.

What you posted says that the government will not throw you in jail or seize your property for failing to pay the tax they impose on you if you choose not to purchase health insurance.

There is still a penalty ... the tax that they impose on you if you fail to purchase health insurance.

OK, follow that logic: what happens if you don't pay the tax?