Welcome to the IHoP

[///M5 2,833]

I hear a grinder cutting my granite countertops. Just hope I don't hear an OH SHIT.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

I hear a grinder cutting my granite countertops. Just hope I don't hear an OH SHIT.

I doubt they'll say oh shit; they'll just laugh and charge you more

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

I'm experiencing absolute schadenfreude with these Republicans and their reactions...tis a good day...

[lithium 358]

:wiki schadenfreude: ... ahhhh i understand now

i cant wait to hear my gf's parents bitching about it this weekend... her dad practically worships beck and bill-o

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

well the Republicans had 10 years to do something; they instead decided to spend half a trillion to go after Sodamn Insane

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[dem beats 1,223]

well the Republicans had 10 years to do something; they instead decided to spend half a trillion to go after Sodamn Insane

...and the upswing is that the Dems will spend a whole trillion in half that time whilst tanking the economy? No doubt I agree that most of that "war" was a waste, but Americans were attacked. There were plenty of jobs created in defense buisness. Now we can just go ahead and bleed money on people who have proven that they don't want to work for anything, but they definately want everything.

I don't care if it's cheeper, better, or even if it's "better for everyone in the long run". It's unethical to reward bad behavior. Rewarding good behavior however is always the best plan. The basic nature of any law that limits the private persons reach is wrong and should be considered unethical. I don't really care who it helps.

Charity should be the choice of the individual. The populace pulling funding to kick the butt of a group of people who attacked them at least has an ethical justification. This bill has < 25% support of the public, "the war on terror" had more support than that.

[///M5 2,833]

It's unethical to reward bad behavior. Rewarding good behavior however is always the best plan.

QFT

[///M5 2,833]

The rest was spot on too, but that fundamentally is really stupid.

[Godsmack 361]

Man..................fuck driving in California.

J

[///M5 2,833]

Man..................fuck driving in California.

J

Indeed. Roads are plenty big enough, drivers just suck. Not because they are aggressive which to me is acceptable, but because they suck at driving.

[dem beats 1,223]

I edited this

This bill has > 25% support of the public, "the war on terror" had more support than that.

The > meant <

[dem beats 1,223]

The rest was spot on too, but that fundamentally is really stupid.

The rest of what was spot on was also fundamentally stupid?

O_O

[///M5 2,833]

The action was stupid, not your response which was spot on.

[dem beats 1,223]

I'm giving you a hard time. Had reviews. Took my raise as a small small small increase, and 36 hours in time off. Maybe I can fit in a vacation if I stay healthy this year.

[dem beats 1,223]

I was .5% from getting the top review.

Boss said I'm the best at my job, but because I scale back my productivity I didn't nail top performer.

I am actually glad I didn't get a needs improvement. I'm a bit shocked that I got my review based on performance and not on popularity.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

well the Republicans had 10 years to do something; they instead decided to spend half a trillion to go after Sodamn Insane

...and the upswing is that the Dems will spend a whole trillion in half that time whilst tanking the economy? No doubt I agree that most of that "war" was a waste, but Americans were attacked

by Saudi, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Arab extremists working for Al-Qaeda, not by Iraqi's

But you are correct; military action was more than necessary in Afghanistan following the attack on the USS Cole and September 11.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

I also don't see how forcing every American to get health insurance is "charity"

[dem beats 1,223]

I also don't see how forcing every American to get health insurance is "charity"

What will pay for those that do not have, or cannot afford insurance, or live under a bridge?

[topgun 262]

The country is fucked. The only saving grace to me is the fact that it seems gun laws are going in a positive way. At least we are having some (read minuscule) freedom restored there.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

I also don't see how forcing every American to get health insurance is "charity"

What will pay for those that do not have, or cannot afford insurance, or live under a bridge?

We aren't giving away free insurance (other than the Medicaid and Medicare programs already in place); people will still have to buy into private insurance plans

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

And, if you still don't want insurance, you can just say that they go against your religious beliefs

[///M5 2,833]

Fuxored

[dem beats 1,223]

Here is the 2 basic fundamental points I am trying to make, at no point should my government tell me they can run my life, my finances, or my proprtey better than me and then force me to do so.

#1

We separated to avoid taxation without representation, and that principal (if not the literal translation) is being stepped on. Our sucess was built on that philosophy, and the republic/senate system was formed to make sure that unpopular laws were not passed. Unfortunately it is now ruled by the republic/house/elite(I hate the word elite but I don't have another on tap), and the people cannot vote for whom they feel can do the best job for them. I don't care if it's better for me and less disease will spread if everyone has some kind of health care, it should be everyones choice to make their own health decisions.

I don't need to give reasons of why it's better, or how it will eventually work out, or how it's the law of nature and that's why I'm correct. There are 2 options, free people to let them live free as they see fit, or command power over people. Ensuring that the people who direct pinnacle of legal force of the nation are also the only provider of health regulation is foolish. Ethics, and our constitution dictate that this is the only ethical imparitive of the government at the Federal level. States then can change the semantics and if someone doesn't like the rules of one state they can move or fight to change the rules.

This is in fact another welfare reform. It will reward those that don't want to work, fight, or in general better themselves. It removes one more thing that people can strive to work for. The only reason someone in power does that is because they want to remain in power. Eventually the people cannot sustain their own health management and then at that time the Fed will be the only source. Again ensuring power staying with those plucked to continue in power.

#2

This is unpopular and Americans support this reform less than the "war on terror". It also has no pragmatic merit based on need. There is no black plague :coughswineflu:, nor any other epidemic sweeping the nation than needs support or aid from a Fed level. At worte the US is full of fat people. No amount of health care, free or not will stop anyone from buying a tripple whopper.

Yet this was pushed, forced and manipulated through the law making process. The top executive branch then held the rest of the process at mercy and said it would just be shoved through a different avenue if it wasn't accepted by the house/senate. Either way it would be passed according to Obama and his staff. I'm embarased that the people in office then rolled over like a kicked dog hoping to not get whipped and maybe take some table scraps on the way out.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Yet this was pushed, forced and manipulated through the law making process. The top executive branch then held the rest of the process at mercy and said it would just be shoved through a different avenue if it wasn't accepted by the house/senate.

Sounds like just another day at the White House to me